Trying to choose between 2 stones...

[B2THEI]

Hello, all,

I believe that I''ve narrowed my search down to 2 stones, and I was hoping to gather some opinions on which one might be the better bet to bring in for appraisal. As always, any input is welcome and greatly appreciated!

1.50 ct
7.32x7.20x4.5
G
SI1
Depth 62.1
Table 58
Crown 14.8
Pavilion 43.2
Crown angle 35.3
Pavilion angle 40.7
Girdle medium to thick faceted
Polish VG
Sym VG
Fluoresence strong blue
Cutlet none
Holloway Cut = 1.9

1.50 ct
7.21x7.16x4.55
F
SI1
Depth 63.4%
Table 57%
Crown 14.8%
Pavilion 43.2%
Crown angle 34.3
Pavilion angle 40.9
Girdle Medium to very thick faceted
Polish VG
Symmetry EX
Fluorescence Faint
Cutlet none
Holloway Cut = 1.7


Both stones are EGL USA certified, and I am aware of the caveats with bringing in an EGL USA certified stone. I have been assured that both stones are indeed eye clean. I unfortunately do not have access to any idealscope images at this time.

Thanks so much!

B2

 

[stone-cold11]

Prefer the first stone.

 

[jet2ks]

#1

 

[B2THEI]

Can I ask why you prefer the first stone? Being new to all this, I was leaning towards the 2nd stone because of the higher color grade. Thanks!

B2

 

[B2THEI]

I guess I should also add some information that the vendor is passing along from the dealers regarding the stones.

The first stone he says "faces up" as an F. I believe he means this because of the strong fluorescence. If it were to be graded by GIA, he is saying that it will be rated an H. Again, it is eye-clean and at worst would be SI2.

The second stone he is saying would be rated as a G in terms of color. It is also from a "reputable dealer" from NYC and it is totally eye clean. He is being told that it is a very brilliant diamond. This stone is also about $200 more expensive, which is not a huge difference but worth considering.


Thanks!

B2

 

[B2THEI]

Also not sure how useful this info might be, but the certification for the first diamond is from October 2008, while the cert for the 2nd diamond is from December 2009. I''m not sure if this is meaningful at all - if it means that the first stone has been around for some time with no takers?

 

[Lorelei]

Hi B2

I also prefer the first diamond. The cons of this stone however is that it is facing up a bit small for the weight ( 1.5cts should have the diameter of around 7.4 - 7.5mm) and the diameter itself isn't as tight as I would like to see, although this needn't be a deal breaker.

The second is too deep and it is facing up quite small for the weight. As these are EGL if you choose one, I would get it in writing that you can return the diamond within an agreed period should it not appraise as sold.

The age of the grading reports doesn't always mean anything, there are various possibilities with all diamonds as to why they haven't sold quickly but in the scheme of things the report dates aren't particularly old.

 

[B2THEI]

Thanks so much for the input. It sounds like the first stone is the better of the two.

Everyone has been immensely helpful.... Thank you!

B2