Short list of Asscher Diamonds...I need help!!

[jmnasser17]

Hello everyone -

I have been researching and looking at diamonds for the last 4 months and have finally saved enough money to buy the perfect engagement ring, but I need advice on which diamond will look the best and provide the best value. I am trying to complete my purchase soon so I can plan the perfect Labor Day weekend! Below are the 4 diamonds I am considering and appreciate everyone's feedback. All diamonds are GIA Certified Asscher Cut.

1. 1.53 ct, E color, VS2 clarity, VG/VG polish/symmetry, no fluorescence, no culet; Table - 72%, Depth - 64.2% (6.50x6.42x4.15mm) - no visible inclusions; ($12.6k)

2. 1.68 ct, H color, VS1 clarity, EX/EX polish/symmetry, no fluorescence, no culet; Table - 58%, Depth - 68.6% (6.72x6.56x4.5mm) - no visible inclusions; ($12.5k)

3. 1.7 ct, G color, VS2 clarity, EX/VG polish/symmetry, no fluorescence, no culet; Table - 63%, Depth - 70.3% (6.42x6.33x4.45mm) - may have a slightly visible inclusion in the table; ($11.7k)

4. 1.71 ct, F color, VS1 clarity, EX/G polish/symmetry, no fluorescence, no culet; Table - 65%, Depth - 70.0% (6.57x6.43x4.5mm) - no inclusions; ($15.5k)

I am leaning toward #1, but would appreciate opinions on what is most important and what can be sacrificed a little but maintain the beauty with a fancy cut diamond.

I have also tried to attach the GIA certifications for each.

Thanks for your help! I'm so excited to finally make the decision and plan my engagement

 

[oneam]

With asschers you really have to at least see photos of the stones to make a determination. Based on the #'s alone, I personally prefer smaller tables, so I'd exclude 1, 3 & 4 w/o being able to see them.

I wouldn't sacrifice color or clarity too much since they show more in step cuts. I'd stay at/above H/VS2. Though someone had a beautiful J here. It really helps to see them in person, but that is difficult.

 

[Gypsy]

Pictures and crown height are needed.

 

[Amys Bling]

Are you able to get pictures of the stones???

 

[jmnasser17]

Of all the diamonds I looked that 1.53 appeared to be the only one with a shallower than usual table height. Comparatively, the 1.68,1.7, and 1,71 had more similar and what I'd say is a more common table depth. I'm ilnot sure where to get the table depth if its not on the en the certificate. I do not have pictures of each and I feel most non-professional pictures do not truly provide much insight into the actual appearance of the stone.

 

[Gypsy]

Without pictures the best we can do is tell you to take the stones, rub your fingers on the table to smudge them up then take them into different types of lighting and see which one performs the best to your eye.