Two 1.5 C''s....... which one? gimme some love people!

[RockyVegas]

I have come to a compromise (hopefully) between size, cut & color. After viewing all the stunning J''s floating around this board, I was tempted by the size demon.....and gave in! In the B&M''s that I have been in, the size difference between a carat and a carat and a half seemed to be quite noticeable yet wont destroy my piggy bank(that yes, is in fact named Piggy).

Without further adoooooooooooooooooooooo:

no.1 GIA

Measurements: 7.29 X 7.37 X 4.54
Carat: 1.50
Color: J
Clarity: SI1
Cut: excellent
Polish: exc
Symmetry: exc
Flour: none

Table: 56
Depth: 61.9
Crown angle: 35.5
Pavillion angle: 40.6
HCA: 1.3
light return: exc
fire: exc
scintillation: exc
spread: vg

no.2 GIA
Measurements: 7.43 X 7.44 X 4.58
Carat: 1.55
Color: J
Clarity: SI1
Cut: excellent
Polish: exc
Symmetry: exc
Flour: med blue

Table: 59
Depth: 61.8
Crown angle: 34.5
Pavillion angle: 41.2
HCA: 3.8
light return: vg
fire: gd
scintillation: gd
spread: vg

They are priced with a few hundred clams of one another, so it really comes down the proverbial "best" stone.
I''ve been working with Tracy at Whiteflash and she has been wonderful! She is bringing them in so I should have an idealscope of each soon....and i''m interested to see what some good ol'' whiteflash eyeballs think of them side by side as well as your esteemed and entertaining opinions!

Regards,
RockyV

 

[Mara]

based just on the #''s i like the first one better..i am not a real fan of the 60/60 kind of stone and i don''t like the angles mixed with table depth on the 2nd. the first to me would be one i''d be interested in seeing in person, i probably wouldn''t even call in stone #2 but if you want something to compare it to, i could see.

i love a great J. keep us posted.

 

[fire&ice]

Gut says #2. I like the larger table w/ a J color & I especially like the medium blue fluor.

I'd eyeball both. And, SI1s are not created equal. One could be more eyeclean than the other.

 

[Rod]

So, were just going to confuse you

Like fire&ice, I appreciate (maybe because I own one) larger tabled diamonds (within reason of course). Only you can decide what appeals to your eyes. Both diamonds are likely quite nice. And having WF view them for you is a good idea.

Good luck with your hunt..........

 

[Lynn B]

#1 is definitely a more "traditional" ideal cut, but I bet #2 is a looker, too. I would be interested in hearing more details after you talk to WF, particularly about how/if the flouro affects the overall color of the stone. And OH, photos of both would be awesome!

BTW, congrats on considering a J color stone! You are a savvy newbie!

I have a beautiful AGS-0, 2.36 J and I have never been sorry. And you are right, there is a HUGE difference between a 1 carat and a 1.5! You are gonna LOVE your new stone!!!

Keep us posted!

 

[fire&ice]

These are two very different stones. Conventional wisdom would choose the first. Thinking outside the box - the second - due to the J color. You probably will have more white light throw off w/ the larger table & the blue fluor could make it face up whiter.

I''d really try to see them both. Honestly, the numbers alone on #1 have more pedigree. But, factor in two variables (table & blue fluor in #2) and you may have a prettier stone.

Good luck!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The other problem with #1 is that it has a smaller diameter than it should. A 1.5 should have a 7.4mm diameter. That turns me off of #1. And there''s no way I''d choose #2 unless I could see it personally. How about starting over with some more stones???

 

[Go Blue 99]

Date: 8/29/2006 6:34:21 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
The other problem with #1 is that it has a smaller diameter than it should. A 1.5 should have a 7.4mm diameter. That turns me off of #1. And there''s no way I''d choose #2 unless I could see it personally. How about starting over with some more stones???

Is there a chart or link that shows what diameter a certain carat size should be?

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 8/29/2006 7:39:33 PM
Author: Go Blue 99

Date: 8/29/2006 6:34:21 PM

Is there a chart or link that shows what diameter a certain carat size should be?

HI:

On the FAQ forum here on PS, a poster named Cflutist scanned in this information, titled "mm conversion chart..."

cheers--Sharon

 

[RockyVegas]

Me likee the spirited debate! Thank you all for your insights. It sounds as though these two stones are quite different in the way they will reflect light. I guess i have been.....umm.......for lack of a better word, weaned on Mr. Holloways cut advisor and so gravitated towards the first, but Tracy said she was very keen to see the 2nd more "out of the box" stone. Hopefully the idealscope image will help, as well as potentially some pics!

This will be mounted in a rather simple pave halo. Any thoughts on whether either stone''s characteristics of more fire(smaller table) vs. brightness(larger table) would lend itself to sharing the limelight so to speak?

Both of these stones represent what I think to be a truly great monetary value(considering they should be eyeclean, face up white, and should offer lots O'' light. Its been a long search to find these nice balances of the 4C''s.....in a 1.5.

Thank you so much for your replys.

RockyV

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/29/2006 7:39:33 PM
Author: Go Blue 99

Date: 8/29/2006 6:34:21 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
The other problem with #1 is that it has a smaller diameter than it should. A 1.5 should have a 7.4mm diameter. That turns me off of #1. And there''s no way I''d choose #2 unless I could see it personally. How about starting over with some more stones???

Is there a chart or link that shows what diameter a certain carat size should be?

Here you are Go blue,

MM to carat weight conversion chart.

 

[Giangi]

They are both promising. I agree with F&I, a slightly larger table and medium fluorescence can actually be a plus. Eye-cleanliness would be a decisive factor, too.
I just wanted to point out that the first stone is only 0.06mm or so shy off the 7.40mm mark. It wouldn''t be a determining factor if I was to choose.

 

[RockyVegas]

Traci sent me the Sarin and Idealscope images and we have a clear winnah! The large tabled 1.55 though beautiful shouldnt be an excellent cut according to Traci and furthermore the 1.5 is eyeclean and a sparkler........

I have included the images for comparison but I think this 1.5 J SI1 is a steal at $6674 before the pricescope discount.

You guys likee?

RockyV

 

[RockyVegas]

R

 

[RockyVegas]

r

 

[RockyVegas]

r

 

[RockyVegas]

r

 

[Mara]

is the 2nd one the 1.5c? if so, i vote for that one! the 1.55 has a nice light return for what it is, but that symmetry or lack thereof is a total turnoff to me. for someone who didn''t used to have arrows in a stone originally, now having arrows for me is a total must for a ring stone. it''s like a little surprise, they show up when you least expect them!!! and that light return is great. if that was a virtual stone they called in, it looks REALLY GOOD!!!

 

[Giangi]

I agree with Mara. I was all for the 1.55ct, but seeing the pics I stand corrected. The other one just looks better. Much better symmetry, better light return and it doesn't seem to have a dead-center inclusion like the 1.55 does. Pricing sounds really good, too. I must say you picked a winner!