Three Finalist (Website Included)

[surand1]

Well, after learning as much as I could through PS, I have narrowed down my diamond search to the final three. However I'd like your assistance one last time in selecting the best of these three diamonds. I created a website so that you can see the pictures and specs of the diamonds side by side.

I think the main criteria that I had was first and foremost to get a "sparkly" diamond (at least that's how my girlfriend puts it) that is also eye clean. I would opt for the .9 carat diamond because it is bigger, but I'm not sure if I'm sacrificing too much on color and clarity (the other two are both F SI1 while the .9 is H and SI2).

The website address is: http://home.comcast.net/~surand1/http://www.geocities.com/surand1/

Do any of these diamonds stand out from the rest to you guys? I appreciate the help.

surand1

 

[pricescope]

page is not available...

 

[surand1]

Okay I moved the files over. This should work:

http://home.comcast.net/~surand1/

 

[surand1]

Any thoughts? Is there much of a difference between the .9 carat and the other 2? Will the SI2 show more inclusions than the other SI1s? Thanks for the help.

 

[Regular Guy]

Not sure...don''t like the spread you''ve got, (F - G) and felt motivated to narrow it....
-----------------

0.80 G VS2 0.6-EX
ex-ex-ex-vg 0 61.8% 54% 34° 40.5° thn-med, f no ex ex ft 5.97-6.02x3.71 PGS $3255
0.833 G SI1 1.1-EX
ex-ex-ex-vg 0
H&A 61.2% 56.9% 34.7° 40.7° 1.86% id id neg AGS $3674S
0.90 F SI1 1.6-EX
ex-ex-ex-vg 0 61.9% 57% 34.8° 40.8° sl thk no vg ex no 6.16-6.19x3.82 GIA $3997*S
-----------------------

These 2 Gs and and F on the search by cut site I might want to look a bit closer at...

But all 3 you''ve got, also, would probably be lovely.

 

[surand1]

What would be a good spread size for these size diamonds? I heard that it should be between 56% and 65%. From diving the depth by the diameter I recieve the following on the three diamonds:

Diamond 1: 62.24%
Diamond 2: 62.24%
Diamond 3: 62.4%

Here is the info on the diamonds again:
Diamond One
$3,256
.778 carats
F SI1
Diameter 5.88
Total Depth 62.2
Crown Ang 33.8
Crown Hgt 15.1
Pavil Ang 40.9
Pavil Depth 43.0
Culet .5
Table Size 54.5
Girdle Thickness 1.8
Proportion 0
HCA 1.2


Diamond Two
$3,598
.8016 carats F SI1
Diameter 5.96
Total Depth 62.3
Crown Ang 33.8
Crown Hgt 14.6
Pavil Ang 40.8
Pavil Depth 43.3
Culet .2
Table Size 55.3
Girdle Thickness 2.3
Proportion 0
HCA 1

Diamond Three
$3,911
.907 carats H SI2
Diameter 6.20
Total Depth 62.4
Crown Ang 34.3
Crown Hgt 15.4
Pavil Ang 40.8
Pavil Depth 43.0
Culet .4
Table Size 54.8
Girdle Thickness 1.7
Proportion 0
HCA 1.2

 

[aljdewey]

I looked at the three diamonds on your spreadsheet.

Of the three, I prefer #3 most.

Having said that, I''m not wild about the depth of any of these stones. I''d rather stick with diamonds in the following parameters:

Total depth between 59 - 61.8%
Table diameter between 55 - 56%
Crown angle between 34.3 - 34.8 degrees
Pavilion angle between 40.6 - 40.9 degrees
Girdle: anywhere from thin to sl. thick.

 

[surand1]

Thanks aljdewey. May I ask what the reason was that you preferred #3 over the others? I''m just trying to figure out the pros and cons to each stone. Thanks.

surand1

 

[niceice]

Date: 5/26/2005 2:34:04 PM
Author: surand1
Thanks aljdewey. May I ask what the reason was that you preferred #3 over the others? I''m just trying to figure out the pros and cons to each stone. Thanks.

surand1

We can''t read Aljdewey''s mind, but from our perspective #3 is the better option because the combination of the crown and pavilion angle are more desireable. However the total depth of the stone is still costing you visible outside diameter. We wouldn''t give any one of them a second glance. Aljdewey is absolutely correct, if you can keep the total depth under 61.8% you''ll get a lot more stone for the $$$.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/26/2005 4:23:11 PM
Author: niceice

Date: 5/26/2005 2:34:04 PM
Author: surand1
Thanks aljdewey. May I ask what the reason was that you preferred #3 over the others? I''m just trying to figure out the pros and cons to each stone. Thanks.

surand1

We can''t read Aljdewey''s mind, but from our perspective #3 is the better option because the combination of the crown and pavilion angle are more desireable. However the total depth of the stone is still costing you visible outside diameter. We wouldn''t give any one of them a second glance. Aljdewey is absolutely correct, if you can keep the total depth under 61.8% you''ll get a lot more stone for the $$$.

R/T were right.....I said #3 was the pick of these three because the crown/pavilion angle combination is more desirable.....but I''d rather keep looking for something with a better depth.

 

[JohnQuixote]

R/T were right.....I said #3 was the pick of these three because the crown/pavilion angle combination is more desirable.....but I''d rather keep looking for something with a better depth.

So... R & T can read minds!

 

[noobie]

Date: 5/26/2005 4:23:11 PM
Author: niceice

.... if you can keep the total depth under 61.8% you''ll get a lot more stone for the $$$.

While I agree with the depth comments and would personally pass on these stones just on my own selection criteria, I think "a lot more stone for the $$$" is a bit of a stretch when compared to the ones posted here.