Please help me choose

[prefvfr]

Is choosing between these two stones a toss up?I’m leaning towards #2 but concerned about the location of inclusions.The prices are good, right?

#1#2

PRICE$14,600$14,000

GIA REPORT:

Date10/0310/03

ShapeRoundRound

Carat1.871.89

ColorGG

ClaritySI1SI1

Measurements7.90-7.93X4.917.99-8.02x4.89

Depth62%61.2%

Table55%55%

Culetnonenone

Polishexcellentexcellent

Symmetryexcellentexcellent

Girdlemediummedium

Fluorescencemedium bluenone

INCLUSIONS:Both stones are totally eye clean.#1 has a spread of crystals and a cloud on the edge (in terms of size, if it was the face of a clock, it would cover the edge from about 6:30 to 8:30).#2 has a couple of crystals and cloud directly under the table.#2 has significantly fewer inclusions than #1, but they’re under the table instead of on the edge.

CUT:Both are AGS ideal cuts.Crown angle (#1-34.5, #2-34.1).Pavilion angle (#1-41, #2-40.9).#1 was cut by Lazare Kaplan; has a nice arrows pattern but not quite there with the hearts.#2 is H&A.

HCA:

Overall1.81.2

Light returnexcellentexcellent

Firevery goodexcellent

Scintillationvery goodexcellent

Spreadvery goodvery good

 

[strmrdr]

#2 cheaper, bigger, better cut.

 

[strmrdr]

here is a third for the mix.
Its more than a match for the other 2 and a little cheaper.
gog

 

[Richard Sherwood]

They're both probably gorgeous. I lean towards number 2 (on paper) as well.

 

[phoenixgirl]

Yes, on paper, #2 looks better. It's less expensive, it doesn't have flourescence, and it's a total H&A. If you've seen them in person, do you have a preference for the look of the first that would be worth the aforementioned differences? If not, go with the second.

 

[aljdewey]

I second (or third or whatever) the second stone, too.




I think the reason the hearts on stone #1 "aren't quite there"....? It's likely the 41 crown angle....typically that's when the pattern begins to get distorted.




#2 has better spread, better price and seems (on paper) to the better pick.

 

[highendgems]

i would consider eliminating BOTH of these choices, as the flouresence is too high and depth proportions are on the line. i would consider these stones very good cuts, but certainly not ideal. for the $14K price range, you could certainly do better.

highendgems

 

[highendgems]

please excuse my earlier post--i did not see that your choice #2 had no flour. in that case, choice #2 is the clear winner, but your $14K price is a bit high.

 

[diamond cuter]

as a diamond cuter I like the SI on the side of the stone
not in the center even if I have to pay more
diamond cuter

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 1/2/2004 1:07:46 AM highendgems wrote:





please excuse my earlier post--i did not see that your choice #2 had no flour. in that case, choice #2 is the clear winner, but your $14K price is a bit high.
----------------

Why suddenly would #2 be the clear winner because #1 has fluor? In a G colored stone, med blue fluor would not be negative at all, so why the downgrade for this stone? #2 is a better stone from the general numbers, but I wouldn't bother about fluor at all unless it was strong.

As for pricing being too high, possibly on #1 but not #2. It's definitely not more than you'd pay in most overpriced B&M's--especially for H&A!

-----

as a diamond cuter I like the SI on the side of the stone

----------

As for inclusions in the table or on the sides...everyone has their own opinion. I would tend to think on the sides so they can be hidden under a prong or similar, but Garry has often voted that he thinks the ones in the table are the best, I would assume due to an excellent stone's high amount of sparkle covering up any hint of visibility.

Pref--I would take #2

The numbers are very nice, the diameter will be noticeably bigger than #1, and I like the SI clarity mixed with G color and a huge carat weight.

Nice price too. Congrats, good eye!

 

[Giangi]

I agree, #2 seems to be the best choice!

BTW, medium blue fluorescence should have NO effect at all on a G color.

 

[strmrdr]

I would go for the gog diamond I linked over the other 2.
Slightly cheaper and a ton of information available.
Its an awesome diamond from an awesome vendor.

 

[prefvfr]

Thanks for all the input. I've seen #1 and someone else took a look at #2 for me. They're both beautiful. Actually, #1 is new to the mix. I saw it when I went to pick-up an LK setting I purchased thanks to derekinla's posts and pix.

Being new at this, I was more wondering if the location of inclusions matters.

Priced high? #1 has a premium because it's an LK stone, but #2 seems to be competitively priced based on what I've seen. I'm reluctant to consider new stones unless their likely to be noticeably nicer stones. If you see contenders, please let me know.