Thoughts on two different 2.4/2.5 RBs

[Hazarrd]

Looking for your thoughts on these two stones. Price difference is $3,600. I don't feel particularly strong about the G/H or VS2/SI1 distinction, although I obviously prefer the former if the cost, and all other attributes, are equal. The price is different, but I'm not sure whether the other attributes (excluding color and clarity differences) are better on one stone than the other (and if so, which attributes and "how much" better). In person, I happen to like the size of the 2.5, not just because of the .1 increase, but because the dimensions make it look larger than just a .1 increase (or at least that's the way I see it).

Thanks in advance for your advice and thoughtful comments, as always.

2.4



2.5

 

[JDDN]

You have seen both diamonds, so which one did you love the most?

They both have very shallow crown angles. From the side you will see a flattened crown compared to a diamond with a deeper CA. These type of diamond face up bright at the expense of fire (color and dispersion). They can also appear spreadier as well.

The G, VS2 has a really deep girdle. It's hiding weight in the girdle, so it's facing up small for it's carat weight.

If you love the look of diamond with a shallow crown angle and less fire, then I would go for the one you liked the most. Sounds like it was the H, SI1? It definitely faces up larger than the G stone and if you don't care about the H or SI1, then it's a win-win since it's also less expensive.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

From a standpoint of clarity features that might impact light performance you are safer going with a VS when the grade setters are things like twinning wisps and clouds, especially when additional such features are mentioned under comments.

 

[Hazarrd]

You have seen both diamonds, so which one did you love the most?

They both have very shallow crown angles. From the side you will see a flattened crown compared to a diamond with a deeper CA. These type of diamond face up bright at the expense of fire (color and dispersion). They can also appear spreadier as well.

The G, VS2 has a really deep girdle. It's hiding weight in the girdle, so it's facing up small for it's carat weight.

If you love the look of diamond with a shallow crown angle and less fire, then I would go for the one you liked the most. Sounds like it was the H, SI1? It definitely faces up larger than the G stone and if you don't care about the H or SI1, then it's a win-win since it's also less expensive.

Thanks for this explanation. The notes on the HCA calculator state that "a shallower stone, on the lower part of the chart, will look darker when viewed from close up, they are not for everyone. Shallow stones have the advantage of a bigger spread. They are better suited for use as pendants and earring stones where they are not usually viewed from very close proximity (a close observers head obstructs light sources that would otherwise be returned)."

Where exactly is "the lower part of the chart"? Do you think this statement applies to either stone that I'm looking at?

 

[JDDN]

From what I can glean from the sentence, I believe it's referring to the lower part of the chart on the page below. A shallower stone (one with a shallow CA) that is on the lower part of the chart, seems to refer to a shallow CA paired with a shallower PA. If you pick a shallow CA of say 32 and stay in the lower part of the chart, you will have a PA under 40.5. The PA of the two stones in consideration have steeper angles (41 and 41.2) which are generally more complimentary with a shallow CA. Hopefully that makes sense.

If I interpreted the statements correctly, then no it shouldn't apply to the two stones you're considering.

And if I haven't interpreted it correctly and someone knows the correct interpretation, please speak up.

https://www.pricescope.com/tools/hca

Did you notice they looked darker? FWIW, I had a stone that had a CA of 32.5 and a PA of 41.2 with a 59% table. It most definitely did not look dark even when I was looking at it closely. It faced up very, very bright and white. I did miss the fire despite it's brightness.

 

[Hazarrd]

Aside from the wearer's preference for brilliance v. fire, are there any issues with the shallow crown angle on these stones? I realize 34 is more ideal, but I don't see any dark spots when looking at the stones close up or far away. Also, I've looked at a number of charts showing ideal crown/pavilion angle combinations, and the combinations for these stones seems to fall in the best portions of such charts. One issue I did come across is the risk of chipping with a shallow crown, depending on girdle thickness. Would like to hear additional thoughts on any of these issues from others.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Aside from the wearer's preference for brilliance v. fire, are there any issues with the shallow crown angle on these stones? I realize 34 is more ideal, but I don't see any dark spots when looking at the stones close up or far away. Also, I've looked at a number of charts showing ideal crown/pavilion angle combinations, and the combinations for these stones seems to fall in the best portions of such charts. One issue I did come across is the risk of chipping with a shallow crown, depending on girdle thickness. Would like to hear additional thoughts on any of these issues from others.

Niether stone has an elevated durability risk. As you suggest there is a trade-off in terms of white light return vs fire. If the stone suits your taste from that perspective your decision should revolve around clarity, price and size. And I would prioritize them in that order.