please vote

[nu]

#1

 

[nu]

#2

 

[nu]

#1 HCA 1.7 #2 0.9

 

[ctm]

OK, so first the disclaimer:
although I have read up alot, I am still a newb at diamonds thus these are my opinions, not necessarily fact.

I vote for #1 because, although the dark areas are not as dark it seems to much have better symmetry.
If you take a picture or any 1/8th of that diamond and put it ontop of any other 1/8th, they will be very close in ligiht return and symmetry. Where as with the second diamons, some of the angles look abit off.

if anyone notices an incorrect statment I made, leme know, I cannot learn without criticizmwhen I am wrong.

 

[USFBulls]

Is CTM correct?

 

[drk]

I''d vote for number 1 as well.

 

[bluedawg]

#1!
I like the tiny black specks between the arrows. They add more life (in the form of scintillation) to the stone.

 

[MissAva]

1

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/12/2005 10:13:27 PM
Author: bluedawg
#1!
I like the tiny black specks between the arrows. They add more life (in the form of scintillation) to the stone.

I love a good student.

Yes. Blacks in these images are indicative of light exiting the diamond at what would be considered the "high angles" (approx. 75-90 degrees). In diffuse/white hemisphere lighting they provide points of contrast adding to the brightness of a diamond while in direct light conditions provide for strong points of fire and scintillation. I would add however that red reflector technologies (including the device we use) are not the best tools for determining the metric for brightness/contrast especially in GIA''s upcoming system.

 

[strmrdr]

6 of one half dozen of the other.
Due to the LGF differences they would have different personalities but as far as over all quality goes there isnt much to complain about with either.

The longer LGF of #1 might indicate slightly better white light return.

The shorter LGF of the second might indicate slightly more visible colored light return.

Spend a lot of time in direct light and like them bright then 1 is better.

 

[Dancing Fire]

i like #1 with the little watermelon seeds.

both are very nice stones,just different style.

 

[nu]

Thank you very much for all your replies!!!

 

[nu]

#1
1.28ct
7.06-7.09X4.28
Depth 60.5
table 56.6
Cronw 34.8
Pavilion 40.9
HCA 1.7
ex-vg-vg-vg

#2
1.23ct
6.96-6.99x4.22
Depth 60.4
Table 55
Crown 34.5
Pavilion 40.7
HCA 0.9 1.2 with Sarin
ex-ex-ex-vg

Which one would you choose?

 

[hawaii 5-0]

#1 looks good to me

i like the ex-ex-ex-vg

 

[valeria101]

Oh well... color, clarity, cut, size are all so darn close you could toss a coin.

It would be pleasant to make these two twinkle side by sinde between two fingers and choose the most charming of the two winners !

Short of that, whichever speaks to you would be great. The IS shows very slight differences and whether and how those make a difference remains a piece of guesswork. Jonathan and John surely have enough experience handling cherries like these two to know what to expect precisely. To the vasy majority of humanity, those would be twin fireballs !

VS2 is no problem, of course. Perhaps one is cleaner among VS2s than the other, but this is sort of academic if neither stone shows inclusions anyway.

Just a thought, of course

 

[aljdewey]

I''m going to dissent here.....I prefer #2. All day.

 

[nu]

Aljdewey,
can you tell me why you prefer #2.
Is it idealscope or the specs that you like more?