Please help me decide between these two diamonds

[heartsandarrows]

Hi everyone,

My boyfriend and I are debating which of the two diamond rings we should get:

Ring 1:
2.43ct
VVS2
Triple ex
Depth:61.8%
Table: 56%
Crown height: 15.5%
Crown angle:34.7
Pavilion Depth: 43.2%
Pavilion Angle: 40.9
Lower half length:80%
Star length:50%
Girdle Thickness: Medium to slt thick
Girdle Finish:faceted
Culet:none


Ring2:
2.41ct
VS1
Triple ex
Depth:60.6%
Table: 58%
Crown height: 13.9%
Crown angle:33.4
Start length: 50%
Pavilion Depth: 43.4%
Pavilion Angle: 41
Lower half length:80%
Girdle Thickness: Medium to slt thick
Girdle Finish:faceted
Culet:none


The price difference would be about $20k. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

 

[ame]

Of the two I prefer the cut of the former. Who graded them(GIA? AGS?). Are these preset rings or loose stones set in a setting you selected?

 

[heartsandarrows]

Hi Ame, are you the Ame from tpf? I just private messaged you there They are both in the Tiffany 6 prong classic setting and graded by Tiffany.

 

[heartsandarrows]

There's a third one in consideration, this one is graded by GIA:

2.06ct
VVS2
Triple ex
Depth:61.4%
Table: 56%
Crown height: 15.0%
Crown angle:34.5
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Lower half length:75%
Star length:50%
Girdle Thickness: thin to medium
Girdle Finish:faceted
Culet:none

any opinions would be appreciated!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Just going by the specs I'll take #3.

 

[teobdl]

All good. #1 is safest bet w/ avg pavilion angle of 40.9. Can you see these in person? If so, pick which one you like best. If they all look the same to you, pick the cheapest.

Are they all same the same color?

 

[heartsandarrows]

All good. #1 is safest bet w/ avg pavilion angle of 40.9. Can you see these in person? If so, pick which one you like best. If they all look the same to you, pick the cheapest.

Are they all same the same color?

Hi, thank you for your reply I have seen #1 and #3 in person and I am going to see #2 in person this weekend. They are all D color stones. My boyfriend has seen all of them, and he thinks #1 and #2 have no difference visually, and #2 is 20k cheaper.

 

[heartsandarrows]

Thank you for your reply The price for #3 is the highest of all, despite the carat size being the smallest. Do you think the cut is far superior?

 

[teobdl]

We'd need more information to judge cut with any sort of authority (like idealscope or ASET image) .

That said, I think it's unlikely that any of these diamonds are cut poorly.

The huge price difference, you may know, btw 1 and 2 is probably the clarity. It's not clear what's driving the high price of 3 compared to the other two.

I should note that #2 does not have bad numbers--they are wonderful. In fact, Tiffany diamonds often have these same numbers (relatively lower crown, relatively shallower depth). The lower crown (33's rather than 34's) is offset by the steeper pavilion of 41 (rather than closer to 40.6 and under). In other words, the cutter seemed to know exactly what s/he was doing.

Given that they look the same, my vote is to go w/ the cheapest one.

But one last thing to consider is rarity. A D VVS in that size is, indeed, rare. If you value this, which is completely understandable, then the huge premium may be worth it.

 

[heartsandarrows]

here are some of the pics my boyfriend took of ring #1 and #2. Please advise. I greatly appreciate your help!

 

[heartsandarrows]

Thank you. I posted some pictures of the two rings, not sure if they could be of any help. Do you think paying $20k for the clarity upgrade is reasonable or worthwhile?

#3 is more expensive due to its brand and its setting has two baguette.

 

[teobdl]

Thank you. I posted some pictures of the two rings, not sure if they could be of any help. Do you think paying $20k for the clarity upgrade is reasonable or worthwhile?

#3 is more expensive due to its brand and its setting has two baguette.

Oooowee! Love those big rocks.

I, personally, think $20K is unreasonable and silly considering the marginal benefit in pleasure to you (if at all) the increase in price will buy, versus what else that money could be put toward with virtually no decrease in the pleasure you derive from the ring (looks the same, sparkles the same). I say this because it sounds like you don't personally place a super high value having that high of clarity.

Consider: you could make a struggling local charity very happy and you'd in turn feel very good about the act; if you'd prefer to spend it on yourselves (also totally fine), then spend it on dinners and fun experiences with friends and family. Both of these acts will make you (and your marriage) happier in the long run than an extra "V" on a piece of paper stored away in an office.

 

[ame]

Hi Ame, are you the Ame from tpf? I just private messaged you there They are both in the Tiffany 6 prong classic setting and graded by Tiffany.

I AM and I replied this morning!!!

There's a third one in consideration, this one is graded by GIA:

2.06ct
VVS2
Triple ex
Depth:61.4%
Table: 56%
Crown height: 15.0%
Crown angle:34.5
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Lower half length:75%
Star length:50%
Girdle Thickness: thin to medium
Girdle Finish:faceted
Culet:none

any opinions would be appreciated!

I like this one cutwise the best, though as you said, it's the lowest carat weight. Which yknow, compared to the other two, you might like those others. So between 1 and 3 for me.

Is there a reason you are looking restricting to D color? You could drop down on color to an F or even G, it would still be very white and bright and you would be able to expand your range of stones available considerably AND spend a little less probably. You could also go into the VS1 range as well, you don't NEED VVS1/2 to get a clean stone. VS1 is my sweet spot.

 

[heartsandarrows]

Thank you everyone for your input, I really appreciate it. I am going to see #1 and #2 again tomorrow and hopefully make a decision.

 

[heartsandarrows]

Hi Ame, are you the Ame from tpf? I just private messaged you there They are both in the Tiffany 6 prong classic setting and graded by Tiffany.

I AM and I replied this morning!!!

There's a third one in consideration, this one is graded by GIA:

2.06ct
VVS2
Triple ex
Depth:61.4%
Table: 56%
Crown height: 15.0%
Crown angle:34.5
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Lower half length:75%
Star length:50%
Girdle Thickness: thin to medium
Girdle Finish:faceted
Culet:none

any opinions would be appreciated!

I like this one cutwise the best, though as you said, it's the lowest carat weight. Which yknow, compared to the other two, you might like those others. So between 1 and 3 for me.

Is there a reason you are looking restricting to D color? You could drop down on color to an F or even G, it would still be very white and bright and you would be able to expand your range of stones available considerably AND spend a little less probably. You could also go into the VS1 range as well, you don't NEED VVS1/2 to get a clean stone. VS1 is my sweet spot.

Ame, thank you so much for helping me, and it's a great suggestion, I will check out color F in store tomorrow, if I'm good with the color, I could probably get a bigger diamond? My ring finger size is actually quite small at size 3, so do you think under 2.5ct is sufficient or I could pull off bigger diamonds?

 

[heartsandarrows]

Thank you, you are absolutely right 20k does make a big difference. From the photos, do you think the two diamonds look the same? I can sort of tell that the 2.41 VS1 is shallower with a slightly bigger table than the 2.43 VVS2.

 

[ame]

It's my pleasure!

If you like an F in person (you will likely not be able to tell a difference side by side if it's cut well), you could get a larger stone. But on your finger size (no fair!) a 2.5 range is gonna be a honker! I'd definitely see what is available in the f and even g range in budget.

 

[ame]

#2 being shallower (a positive! And if paired with a 55 probably would've been a looker!) is probably spreadier in diameter than the first one.

 

[heartsandarrows]

#2 being shallower (a positive! And if paired with a 55 probably would've been a looker!) is probably spreadier in diameter than the first one.

Yes, you are absolutely right. The measurements for #1 is 8.63-8.67 x 5.35mm, and for #2 is 8.65-8.71 x 5.26mm. So for ring #2 with a table of 58%, do you think it's still worth considering?

 

[ame]

#2 being shallower (a positive! And if paired with a 55 probably would've been a looker!) is probably spreadier in diameter than the first one.

Yes, you are absolutely right. The measurements for #1 is 8.63-8.67 x 5.35mm, and for #2 is 8.65-8.71 x 5.26mm. So for ring #2 with a table of 58%, do you think it's still worth considering?

Negligibly larger.

See them in person beside stones of E,F,G color in that size range and see what you think. I think #1 is a little better cutwise, not tremendously so. However, your eyes should make the final call. You might not love something that is ideal on paper, or you might see one that's lower than a D color and love all there is to love about it and go for it instead.