Please HELP me choose!! Goin'' Nuts!

[F.Longstocking]

Hi Everyone! I think I''ve been reading too much PS! as I''m getting nitpicky about choosing a stone for my wedding ring (e-ring).

And I am not sure what I should be be nitpicky about!!! HELP!!!

Can anyone please give me your opinion about these two stones, and your preference? They are similar in price... and not the same two stones I posted about a while back. My wedding is coming up soon (October) and would like the ring to be off my 92038420934839+ things to do before getting hitched!

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!

Stone#1
http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/2302

Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.28ct
Color: I
Clarity: SI1
AGS Cut Grade: Ideal*

GIA Cut Grade: Excellent*

Optical Symmetry: Ideal
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Negligible
Girdle: 1.33%
Culet: None
Lab Report: GIA
Lab Report #: 15077201
In House: Yes
Width: 6.97mm
Length: 7.03mm
Depth: 4.32mm
Table Percentage: 55.23%
Depth Percentage: 61.65%
Crown Ú: 34.42‹
Crown Depth: 15.40%
Pavilion Ú: 40.89‹
Pavilion Depth: 43.20%
Upper Girdle Ú: 41.61‹
Lower Girdle Ú: 42.18‹


STONE #2
http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_details.aspx?idno=1177154
Item Code: AGS-5885003
Price: $6,822.00
Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.140
Color: H
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.9
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.7
Crown %: 15.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.9
Pavilion %: 43.2
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.81-6.82X4.15

 

[diamondseeker2006]

They are both excellent stones. You just have to decide if you want to go a grade lower in color but get the larger stone or go with the higher color/smaller size. It''s a toss up to me...an H 1.28 would be best!

 

[mrssalvo]

I agree with diamondseeker. both are winners and will be beautiful.

 

[F.Longstocking]

Thank you! I guess I''m just worried about the inclusions on the GOG stone, which Tim stated IS eyeclean... because they are toward the middle. Is there a preference over AGS vs. GIA certified? and... the cutlet.. pointed = none ???

 

[msdarlinjoy]

Date: 8/2/2006 12:42:42 AM
Author: F.Longstocking
Thank you! I guess I''m just worried about the inclusions on the GOG stone, which Tim stated IS eyeclean... because they are toward the middle. Is there a preference over AGS vs. GIA certified? and... the cutlet.. pointed = none ???

Hi Flongstocking ~

Both stones your considering are SI1.

If Tim @ GOG states that it is eyeclean ... I am sure that it is.

With each clarity grade, there are hi''s & low''s. It could be possible that maybe it''s a Hi SI1, being closer to a VS2? Depending on what kind of inclusions the diamond has, and how and where they are placed, all make a difference. Or maybe it''s just a plain SI1 and there is a slight scattering of white crystals that when veiwed face up, disappear to the naked eye??? It''s worth another call to ask, and reconfirm.

I noticed that they didn''t have the GemX Bscope image up yet ... why don''t you ask if they could scan it for you, and send you the image.

I always think that it''s best to "not hesitate" to ask a question, or clarify when your making a monumentally special purchase. Just be humble and tell them your concerns, and maybe get more pics of the diamond emailed to you?

Best wishes and have a wonderful day!

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome

For sure ask your vendors if these diamonds are eyeclean, they are the only people who can give you an honest opinion. Either will be great diamonds, unless you want to do any hairsplitting, then I would go for the larger diamond.

 

[F.Longstocking]

Thank you for your input!

Both stones have been confirmed to be eyeclean. Not sure if either one is more of the higher SI1 or on the lower end. I think I''m being nitpicky because it IS such a huge purchase. In what I''ve read, it''s important to look and see and choose from there. I don''t think people will normally walk around with a loupe inspecting my ring... uhh.. right? LOL. I just want to make sure it''s the best stone for what my fiance is paying. He proposed with a princess that was an I1, and though it was pretty.. you can definitely make out the HUGE inclusion right in the middle. Unfortunately, he didn''t educate himself before being sold the ring at a local B&M. He actually was the one who suggested we return it for something better. I priced the stone on here, and he actually paid DOUBLE what he should have.

So... I''m not sure if the inclusions are worth stressing out over since they are naked to the eye. It looks like they would be sparkly and beautiful (are those proper terms?) based on what I''ve been reading in terms of percentages. I guess it''s a matter of what I''m giving up for the other.. size vs. color.

One more thing... anyone who owns a ACA H&A? Is there a difference that can be seen?

Thanks to everyone on PS!

 

[Lorelei]

Pipilotta, either of those have great cuts, as Diamondseeks says it is a toss up between extra size or colour depending on what you want. The inclusions...my next move would be to find out what the grade setting inclusions are for each and use that to narrow further if you wish, but both vendors will be honest with you as they have been about the ''eyecleanliness'' of each. So it is a tricky but nice decision, in the end it is up to you!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/2/2006 11:07:22 AM
Author: F.Longstocking


One more thing... anyone who owns a ACA H&A? Is there a difference that can be seen?

I own 3 ACA stones.....and they are drop-dead beautiful.

Having said that, I don''t think you''d see a difference between these stones.....both have stellar numbers all around, and either would be a fine choice.

As far as a preference between AGS and GIA....I absolutely prefer AGS because they don''t round the numbers the way GIA does. That said, though, it wouldn''t matter here because you have non-rounded numbers provided too.

I''d call this one a tie......flip a coin. You can''t go wrong.

Does one vendor offer policy terms that better suit you? Whiteflash offers a better trade-up policy, so if you think an upgrade may be in your future, that might be a consideration. GOG gives a longer inspection period, so if you anticipate a little time to pass prior to proposing, that might be a consideration.

 

[F.Longstocking]

Thank you so much for the info and the advice.

Thanks for also being diplomatic and leaving the decision up to me, esp. when the two stones are both beautiful! I have noticed that when the stones are not up to your standards, many don''t hesitate to be vocal. I also notice, that most of you leave the choice up to the person inquiring your thoughts! ack! Hard for those who are indecisive!!! But then again, those indecisive ones tend to question their decisions anyway!

The next factor in addition to the policies you stated (and flipping a coin), will be to see who can deliver on the setting I''ve set my eye on. I''ve tried the A.Jaffe ones and I find they look attractive on my chubby size 9 fingers. I''m going for the look that I believe Mara has made popular according to the forum, the thin eternity band. I only want stones halfway down, but still gives the illusion of an eternity band. I learned a new term yesterday.. "melee", and I believe that''s what the look is. The bands I tried on have .20 ering/ .26 band tcw. I''ve also tried the next size up. I''m leaning toward the cathedral setting as it seems to narrow my fingers a bit, but I can also go with the round bands. A.Jaffe''s square bands look good too and feel pretty comfy. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions!

I''m getting more info from the two vendors to see what they can do "custom". Another option is to purchase the A.Jaffe setting and have it set. But I''m thinking, the branded rings will be pricier... and of course, we''re always on a budget!

Any feedback on the A.Jaffe settings vs "in-house" custom design? How about the squarish bands, does anyone here like/dislike them? I was told they prevent the rings from turning on your finger, thus leaving the center stone.. in the center!

 

[strmrdr]

i/si1 is my favorite combo in 1 to 2ct rounds.
Id go for the bigger one.