Two diamonds - can''t decide

[wilco200]

Ok, here are the two diamonds I''m down to. Both are approx. the same cost.

This is why I can''t decide. I''ve seen #2 and it''s a pretty clean SI1, I''ve only seen pics of #1, but it also looks clean. They are both AGS000. #1 is H&A and is inscribed that way. #2 I was told was H&A, but there is no inscription. I have the brillancescope report on #1 - scores 3 very highs, scintillation being the lowst of the 3. #2 looked brilliant to my eye, but I don''t have a work up.

Is there any other info I can provide you guys to help me make a decision?
Thanks again

#1 #2
1.018 ct                1.034 ct
ESI1                      ESI1
57%                      57%
60.3%                    59.9%
34.7                        33.7
40.7                        40.6

 

[Iceman]

The price will be the last piece to the puzzel.

 

[Stephan]

I think the second one is much better, if the two stones have the same pol/sym. The cut adviser will tell you the same.

 

[Iceman]

In the real world , if you saw two ladies walking down the street with one of these diamonds on one hand and another lady with
the other, do you know which one did better with the Advisor or fire scope readings ? No

We live in the real world with grease and grim. Yes, its fun to analyze this under supreme conditions with computers and
instruments. But the degree of optimum brilliance that the eye can see can not be judged when the numbers are that close.
If you need more stress in your life or more things to do during the day then I say go for it

At least you come to a place
where you can get straight answers from educated people.

 

[pqcollectibles]

Flip a coin. You can go with the reports and a true H&A, or you can go with your eyes. Tough choice either way.

Best of luck deciding!

 

[niceice]

----------------
On 5/9/2003 7:44:55 AM wilco200 wrote:

Ok, here are the two diamonds I'm down to. Both are approx. the same cost.

This is why I can't decide. I've seen #2 and it's a pretty clean SI1, I've only seen pics of #1, but it also looks clean. They are both AGS000. #1 is H&A and is inscribed that way. #2 I was told was H&A, but there is no inscription. I have the brillancescope report on #1 - scores 3 very highs, scintillation being the lowst of the 3. #2 looked brilliant to my eye, but I don't have a work up.

Is there any other info I can provide you guys to help me make a decision?
Thanks again

#1 #2
1.018 ct 1.034 ct
ESI1 ESI1
57% 57%
60.3% 59.9%
34.7 33.7
40.7 40.6

----------------

Inscription does NOT guarantee that a diamond IS a Hearts & Arrows diamond, only that the cutter had the initials H&A inscribed on the diamond prior to sending it to the laboratory for grading so that the lab would be forced to add the inscription "H&A" under the comments section of the stone...

Find it really difficult to believe that #2 is exhibiting a crisp pattern of Hearts & Arrows with a 33.7 degree crown angle... The arrows are probably weak and fading in and out, but who knows we've been wrong before... Get pictures of the Hearts & Arrows pattern and you should be able to determine whether the pattern is consistent... We received a diamond from a supplier today which was supposed to be "Hearts & Arrows" and the hearts looked like a circle of rabbit ears would look if the rabbits were sitting around a campfire and you were on acid... All floppy and blown apart - NOT Hearts & Arrows by any stretch of the imagination. Strictly from a numbers point of view, we'd lean towards #1... Now as one of the original sellers of Hearts & Arrows diamonds, we'll tell you that the presence of a pattern doesn't necessarily mean that one diamond is going to be more brilliant or dispersive than another diamond that does not exhibit a pattern, but if you're intent on buying a diamond that is supposed to be "Hearts & Arrows" then you should actually receive what you expect to receive.

Hey Iceman, the word is true! Love the way you speak it!