Two Choices, need your opinion

[DJENKINS]

I''ve narrowed my choice to two stones. Below are the figures. At least the one''s I remembered to write down. I''ll probably take both stones to David Atlas''s AGA for independent appraisal before deciding, since these are from a store right around the corner. Asssuming both pass with flying colors, what would you recommend? Setting will be either in 14K white gold or Platinum, ring being a 0.30 tcw channel bead set.

Stone#1:
GIA 14609771
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: SI1 (main inclusion is a feather on outer edge that could be covered with a prong)
Depth: 62.9
Table: 57
Carat: 1.21
Girdle: ETN to TK
Culet: None
Fluour: None
Symm: GD
Polish: VG
Price: $6900 (compares to $7,750 on Blue Nile and $7,899 on Pricescope search, assuming excellent cut)

Stone #2
GIA 14609876
Cut: Ideal
Color: I ( I could only tell the slightest difference with the F and I next to each other)
Clarity: VS2
Depth: 61.7
Table: 58
Carat: 1.21
Girdle: Med, F
Culet: None
Fluor: None
Symm: VG
Polish: VG
Price: $5800 (compares to $6,000 on Blue Nile and $6,500 on Pricescope search, assuming excellent cut)

Thanks for your input in advance,
Dave

 

[mrssparkles]

My vote goes to diamond #2

 

[valeria101]

Where does the ideal cut label come from... since these are GIA graded, and GIA is months away from releasing cut grades ?


For the money, you could as well know these are ''excellent cut'' rather than assume.

 

[pearcrazy]

I also vote for number 2. Aside from the price difference between the two, the extremely thin girdle on number 1 would worry me a bit.

 

[Mara]

do you have more information or other stones to bring in for comparison? it seems like a big leap to narrow it down to two stones that are so far apart in color....did you see G and H stones too?

it always bothers me when i see an ideal rated stone have VG VG or GD VG for polish and symmetry. not that the diamond could not be 'ideally cut' without that, but to me it is almost like well if you are looking for that ideal rating, why not ensure EX or ID? just me being picky.

i don't like stone #1's depth...62.9? yikes. that's not ideal to me. and that thick girdle too. the second has numbers more inline with what could be ideal, but it's hard to say anything without seeing more information on the stones like crown or pavilion angles or ideal scope images...

my one other comment is that if you are buying offline in a store, see more stones. i only saw a few in person originally that the jeweler brought us in to choose from, and we made a booboo in choosing at the time. then later you regret it. be sure you buy what you are looking for.

good luck!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/11/2005 1:22:24 PM
Author: Mara
do you have more information or other stones to bring in for comparison? it seems like a big leap to narrow it down to two stones that are so far apart in color....did you see G and H stones too?

it always bothers me when i see an ideal rated stone have VG VG or GD VG for polish and symmetry. not that the diamond could not be ''ideally cut'' without that, but to me it is almost like well if you are looking for that ideal rating, why not ensure EX or ID? just me being picky.

i don''t like stone #1''s depth...62.9? yikes. that''s not ideal to me. and that thick girdle too. the second has numbers more inline with what could be ideal, but it''s hard to say anything without seeing more information on the stones like crown or pavilion angles or ideal scope images...

my one other comment is that if you are buying offline in a store, see more stones. i only saw a few in person originally that the jeweler brought us in to choose from, and we made a booboo in choosing at the time. then later you regret it. be sure you buy what you are looking for.

good luck!

My thoughts exactly. What proof do we have that these are ideal? If you are comparing prices to the "excellent cut" in the PS search... where''s the beef?

 

[MissAva]

I dont like the fact that the symmetry is listed as good, and the cut as Ideal...where are you getting this info? Honestly from what you have given us...well I think I would pass on either. Take them to Dave and see what addtional information he gives you, but remember if a deal seems too good to be true it proably is.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Assuming that they both come from the same seller, I would take my money and run.

Stone number 1 has way too much depth for a round brilliant, the girdle being extremely thin at the minimum and varying up to thick is a serious warning, and the fact that the stone is called Ideal-cut with all that, while the symmetry is only Good, is not serious. It is like selling a brand-new Mercedes, of which the engine has been switched, while it also has two dents from the side.

Anyone who sells a stone like that with that combinations of wording either does not know his business or cannot be trusted.

In the second stone, it is more difficult to spot the contradictions between ''Ideal'' and the stone''s inherent quality, but after checking stone number 1, I would not trust anything about the second stone anymore.

Live long,

 

[Kaleigh]

Ditto what everyone else said.

 

[DJENKINS]

Thank you for your opinions. I appreciate the feedback. I was wrong in stating these as ideal cuts. I had specified ideal cut as my criteria when at the store, but without the crown and pavillion angles, know I can not assume the cuts were ideal. I think I have a good base knowledge after reading the tutorials here and elsewhere but realize I have much more to learn.

 

[skphotoimages]

I tend to be a *little* less about the numbers than others on PriceScope. I think you have an amazing advantage in that you've been able to see both stones in person. I used pricescope for a lot of research, and to narrow down my choices, but in the end I chose the stone that was prettiest to my eye. It was a stone that some PS'rs said they wouldn't chose. People were against it because it was a 60/60 stone. It wasn't all that long ago that 60/60 was thought of as perfect, and while we know better now, there are still GREAT 60/60's out there. I love it and couldn't be happier. I do understand why so many diamond educated people would want a very well/ideal cut stone, I chose to go with a stone that was in the perameters of being a well cut stone, and pleasing to me. It is stunning and I got it for one heck of a price. It has an excellent HCA score. Bottom line, do you prefer the light return on one over the other? Just based on the numbers I would choose #2 becasue I like diamonds with a little more color, and I think the depth is better. Do they look very different to you?