Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Thoughts on 0.93 ct vs. 1.04 ct?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Do you know a lot about princess proportions? I really don''t, so I''d only search under the AGS-0 princess section on that site. Those have been graded as ideal cut, and they have great proportions and light performance. That''s a pretty safe area to look if you want to get a well cut stone. It''s a little easier to seach for a round stone. But I would go for the larger stone if the cut was equal. Every little bit of size helps in stones that size!

Hopefully someone who has expertise on princess cuts will come and reply. I just thought I''d bump your thread to the top of the list for you!
 
I don''t know very much about princesses either, but I''d go for the smaller diamond. The larger one just doesn''t seem worth the price increase to me. Although I did like the gemex pics of the larger one a bit more.
5.gif
 
On that site, this would be my pick: http://www.exceldiamonds.com/diamond/19183.html

I think it looks much more likely to be eyeclean than the 1.04 you posted and its cut, color, and size look good.

And, just thought I'd show you this setting, since I am in love with it for a princess cut: http://www.exceldiamonds.com/-Engagement-Rings-5/Diamond-Princess-Engagement-Ring-1097.html :)

Of course, the plain version is stunning too: http://www.exceldiamonds.com/-Engagement-Rings-5/Ideal-Princess-Diamond-Engagement-Ring-1093.html

Good luck!
 
So you don''t think the 1.04 is eyeclean? Is it that inclusion just left of center? I''ve been told it is, but I guess there is no way to know for sure without seeing it.
 
Date: 9/21/2006 8:49:49 PM
Author: willthatsall
So you don''t think the 1.04 is eyeclean? Is it that inclusion just left of center? I''ve been told it is, but I guess there is no way to know for sure without seeing it.
Click to expand...
Well, it seems to be a black inclusion to the left and below center in the photo. I personally wouldn''t go for a black inclusion under the table like that...it would probably be visable. The one I suggested has a clear-looking inclusion to the right and above center in the photo. Both are under the table, but the black will stand out much more. For my money, the .95 just seems like a better deal.
 
The 1.04 F SI1 is too rectangular for me.
 
Date: 9/21/2006 10:24:30 PM
Author: willthatsall
What about this one? You think it has a better chance at eye clean than the 1.04?

http://www.exceldiamonds.com/diamond/28506.html
Click to expand...
That one does have a better chance I would think...you should call them and ask them. But, it still doesn''t seem like as well-cut of a stone as the .95. Yes, it is bigger, but it is more rectangular (1.05 ratio) than the .95 (1.01 ratio). A ratio of 1.05 is the line where most people would stop calling a stone square. Also, the symmetry is only good compared with ideal on the .95. I can''t get the brilliancescope to work for me right now, but I do remember that the .95 looked good on the brillancescope.

Most people on here really like finding stones that are right below the carat marks (like .9 instead of 1 carat) because it can save money. But, I know that for others it is a mental thing of knowing that they have reached that carat mark.

Perhaps you can tell us more about what is most important to you and your significant other...size? color? clarity? Most people on here will tell you that no matter what, the most important thing has to be the cut...that''s what will get the stone noticed. I''d rather have a .95 carat ideal cut over a 1.1 carat okay cut anyday. But, it''s about what''s important to you. I hope this helps...
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top