PLEASE HELP ME ! what diamond is better.

[tac1130]

OK they are very very simalar but what is better please!

2.00 CARATS
E color
SI 2
very good cut
depth 61%
table 57 %
pavillion 40 degrees
crown 35.5 degrees
polish excellent
symmetry very good
florescence none
cutlet none
8.04 - 8.08 * 4.92

or

2.02 carats
E color
SI 2
cut excellent
depth 60.3 %
table 59 %
crown 33 degrees
pavillion 41 degrees
florescence none
cutlet none
polish very good
symmetry excellent
8.15 - 8.19 * 4.93 mm

 

[bee*]

They both look amazing. I''d probably check with the vendor that they''re both eyeclean and if they are, maybe go with the second one as it''s a teenchy bit bigger.

 

[tac1130]

please help me out here......also what is "pollish " all about and how would affect a diamond if it were good or ecxellent? please help me.

 

[heb1976]

Date: 5/21/2008 3:10:55 PM
Author:tac1130
OK they are very very simalar but what is better please!

2.00 CARATS
E color
SI 2
very good cut
depth 61%
table 57 %
pavillion 40 degrees
crown 35.5 degrees
polish excellent
symmetry very good
florescence none
cutlet none
8.04 - 8.08 * 4.92

or

2.02 carats
E color
SI 2
cut excellent
depth 60.3 %
table 59 %
crown 33 degrees
pavillion 41 degrees
florescence none
cutlet none
polish very good
symmetry excellent
8.15 - 8.19 * 4.93 mm

I would personally prefer the 2.06 you posted before b/c it''s SI1 with a smaller table. Of these two the second is the best but I don''t like tables this large. I don''t really like SI2''s. Hope this helps!

 

[tac1130]

i know but i found out that the 2.06 was 5,000 dollars more and im not sure i want to do that

 

[John P]

Date: 5/21/2008 3:10:55 PM
Author:tac1130
OK they are very very simalar but what is better please!

2.00 CARATS
E color
SI 2
very good cut
depth 61%
table 57 %
pavillion 40 degrees
crown 35.5 degrees
polish excellent
symmetry very good
florescence none
cutlet none
8.04 - 8.08 * 4.92

or

2.02 carats
E color
SI 2
cut excellent
depth 60.3 %
table 59 %
crown 33 degrees
pavillion 41 degrees
florescence none
cutlet none
polish very good
symmetry excellent
8.15 - 8.19 * 4.93 mm

The 40.0 pavilion angle on #1 will result in some under-table leakage. No way to know how severe without more information; preferably an ideal-scope or ASET image. If we only go by the numbers provided #2 seems more promising.

The biggest difference in these two will be the crown height. 15.3% with stone #1 and 13.3% with stone #2. The lower crown height and minimally larger table will make #2 stone a bit brighter and whiter in performance. Predictably, stone #1 will have more colored flashes but won''t be as bright and may be notably less so, depending on how much under-table leakage there is.

 

[tac1130]

YAY .....again you are the best!

now i really cant wait till tomorrow! thank you!

 

[hearts-arrows_girl]

I vote for #2 (2.02ct)
1. It''s "Excellent" cut
2. I love "Excellent" symmetry
3. It''s not 2.00 exactly (I always wonder what may have been fudged to make the exact 2.00 carat mark)
4. It has a better diameter.
5. I have a 59% table. I love the added brightness, and it still has plenty of fire. It reminds me of the beautiful bright stones I would see in the Bride''s magazine ring ads. I wouldn''t want to go any bigger than 59%, though!
Good luck with your selection!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/21/2008 8:10:24 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/21/2008 3:10:55 PM
Author:tac1130
OK they are very very simalar but what is better please!

2.00 CARATS
E color
SI 2
very good cut
depth 61%
table 57 %
pavillion 40 degrees
crown 35.5 degrees
polish excellent
symmetry very good
florescence none
cutlet none
8.04 - 8.08 * 4.92

or

2.02 carats
E color
SI 2
cut excellent
depth 60.3 %
table 59 %
crown 33 degrees
pavillion 41 degrees
florescence none
cutlet none
polish very good
symmetry excellent
8.15 - 8.19 * 4.93 mm

The 40.0 pavilion angle on #1 will result in some under-table leakage. No way to know how severe without more information; preferably an ideal-scope or ASET image. If we only go by the numbers provided #2 seems more promising.

The biggest difference in these two will be the crown height. 15.3% with stone #1 and 13.3% with stone #2. The lower crown height and minimally larger table will make #2 stone a bit brighter and whiter in performance. Predictably, stone #1 will have more colored flashes but won''t be as bright and may be notably less so, depending on how much under-table leakage there is.

Hey man,

Good to cya around. 40.0 under table leakage?

 

[tac1130]