What do you think of these diamonds / Help me choose

[blasimon]

So far, I''m thinking of having both of these stones sent to an appraiser and go see them before I purchase one. I have a 5K budget (ring+setting), and am very keen on JA for their service and upgrade policies. Do these two diamonds look good on paper?

In summary: one is a slightly bigger stone (1.28 versus 1.20) and is TIC (versus BIC), the other is cheaper and the difference in price allows me to buy a "fancier" setting. Which one would you pick? Are both options worthy of an appraisal?

Diamond #1:
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1114215.asp
Carat weight: 1.20
Cut: Premium
Color: J
Clarity: SI1 (eye clean per JA)
Certificate: GIA
Depth: 61.8%
Table: 58.0%
Crown: 32
Pavilion: 41
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Slightly thick to thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.73*6.79*4.18
HCA: 1.1 (BIC range)
Ideal scope: attached.

Cost: $3750 after pricescope discount.
Current setting chosen: Vatche Swan, white gold, size 6. slightly over $1000.

diamond #2
Carat weight: 1.28
Cut: Ideal
Color: J
Clarity: SI2 (also eye-clean per JA)
Certificate: GIA
Depth: 61.2%
Table: 57.0%
Crown: 34.5
Pavilion: 40.8
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.94*6.99*4.26
HCA: 1.3 (TIC)
Ideal scope: see next post.

Cost: $4600 after pricescope discount.
Setting: 18k white gold six prong wire basket. $360.

----

Other questions / concern.

I''ve read that well cut J diamonds (if color accurate) look white face up. The swan has sidestones visible from the side. Any chance that these sidestones, in comparison, will make the side of the J diamond look more yellow if I pick option one?

 

[blasimon]

ideal scope for diamond #2.

 

[Lorelei]

Both good images but the second one looks best to me as do the proportions, make sure the diamonds are eyeclean also. I doubt you would notice a contrast with the accent diamonds and centre stone, The Swan is a beautiful setting too!

 

[Ellen]

#2 for me! Ask JA about the sidestones.

 

[blasimon]

Thank you Ellen and Lorelei! So fast, as usual! I have been told that both diamonds are eye-clean.

 

[stone-cold11]

#2 for me too.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/18/2009 2:25:13 PM
Author: blasimon
Thank you Ellen and Lorelei! So fast, as usual! I have been told that both diamonds are eye-clean.

Hehe! We try!

That sounds good - do you have a preference?

 

[blasimon]

Date: 8/18/2009 2:30:16 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/18/2009 2:25:13 PM

Author: blasimon

Thank you Ellen and Lorelei! So fast, as usual! I have been told that both diamonds are eye-clean.

Hehe! We try!

That sounds good - do you have a preference?

Kinda

I prefer the second diamond (for cut and size) but I'm not convinced about the setting (given budget constraints). I know she prefers six prongs, and thin bands (2.5mm max). This seems to be the best I could do with the settings at JA. I guess I'm just not liking this setting.

Out of curiosity, my first impression was that the idealscope looked better on the first than one the second diamond. There seems to be more "white" in the second idealscope, which if I understood correctly means more leakage. Am I misreading it?

 

[blasimon]

thanks stonecold

 

[stone-cold11]

The white is control leakage for better contrast. The first has more black, partial black red areas that could result in obstruction issue, ie. become black, if you view the stone closer than 1 ft.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/18/2009 2:39:27 PM
Author: blasimon

Date: 8/18/2009 2:30:16 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/18/2009 2:25:13 PM

Author: blasimon

Thank you Ellen and Lorelei! So fast, as usual! I have been told that both diamonds are eye-clean.

Hehe! We try!

That sounds good - do you have a preference?

Kinda

I prefer the second diamond (for cut and size) but I''m not convinced about the setting (given budget constraints). I know she prefers six prongs, and thin bands (2.5mm max). This seems to be the best I could do with the settings at JA. I guess I''m just not liking this setting.

Out of curiosity, my first impression was that the idealscope looked better on the first than one the second diamond. There seems to be more ''white'' in the second idealscope, which if I understood correctly means more leakage. Am I misreading it?

You could always get a different setting somewhere else and send it to JA to set, it runs about 100.00. Just thought I''d throw that option out there.

Both IS pics are fine. I think 2 is a better balanced stone as far as brilliance and fire. Great numbers.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/18/2009 2:39:27 PM
Author: blasimon

Date: 8/18/2009 2:30:16 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/18/2009 2:25:13 PM

Author: blasimon

Thank you Ellen and Lorelei! So fast, as usual! I have been told that both diamonds are eye-clean.

Hehe! We try!

That sounds good - do you have a preference?

Kinda

I prefer the second diamond (for cut and size) but I'm not convinced about the setting (given budget constraints). I know she prefers six prongs, and thin bands (2.5mm max). This seems to be the best I could do with the settings at JA. I guess I'm just not liking this setting.

Out of curiosity, my first impression was that the idealscope looked better on the first than one the second diamond. There seems to be more 'white' in the second idealscope, which if I understood correctly means more leakage. Am I misreading it?

This is intentional controlled leakage which looks a bit like watermelon pips this helps aid contrast and scintillation which are desirable visual properties.

And ditto Ellen, both images are fine, the first diamond will be probably geared more towards brilliance but the second diamond is the best balanced and has the best IS image.

 

[Stephan]

Nr 2 looks much better for me.
It will have more contrast and less obstruction than nr 1.

 

[blasimon]

Date: 8/18/2009 3:24:08 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/18/2009 2:39:27 PM

Author: blasimon

Date: 8/18/2009 2:30:16 PM

Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/18/2009 2:25:13 PM


Author: blasimon


Thank you Ellen and Lorelei! So fast, as usual! I have been told that both diamonds are eye-clean.

Hehe! We try!

That sounds good - do you have a preference?

Kinda


I prefer the second diamond (for cut and size) but I''m not convinced about the setting (given budget constraints). I know she prefers six prongs, and thin bands (2.5mm max). This seems to be the best I could do with the settings at JA. I guess I''m just not liking this setting.


Out of curiosity, my first impression was that the idealscope looked better on the first than one the second diamond. There seems to be more ''white'' in the second idealscope, which if I understood correctly means more leakage. Am I misreading it?

This is intentional controlled leakage which looks a bit like watermelon pips this helps aid contrast and scintillation which are desirable visual properties.


And ditto Ellen, both images are fine, the first diamond will be probably geared more towards brilliance but the second diamond is the best balanced and has the best IS image.

Thanks stone-cold and lorelei for the explanation about the idealscope. I think I understand now...

@ellen, with respect to getting a different setting. Is it better for me to ship it to JA or to have the diamond set by whoever supplies the setting? does this affect my warranty/upgrade policies at JA in anyway?

 

[glitterata]

I think it''s important to get a setting you & your fiancee love (unless you plan to upgrade the setting). The setting will have a huge impact on the look of the ring--probably a bigger impact than subtle differences in cut, color, or clarity.

 

[Lula]

Date: 8/18/2009 3:58:21 PM
Author: glitterata
I think it''s important to get a setting you & your fiancee love (unless you plan to upgrade the setting). The setting will have a huge impact on the look of the ring--probably a bigger impact than subtle differences in cut, color, or clarity.

Ditto, Glitterata!

The setting makes a huge difference; it''s what catches people''s eyes first (after the sparkle of the diamond, of course!).

It would be far better in the long run, IMO, if you had the second diamond (if that''s the stone you prefer) set in a temporary setting (an inexpensive Tiffany solitaire from JA, e.g.) and then had it reset in the Swan later, if it''s not in your budget now to get the Swan.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/18/2009 3:36:07 PM
Author: blasimon

@ellen, with respect to getting a different setting. Is it better for me to ship it to JA or to have the diamond set by whoever supplies the setting? does this affect my warranty/upgrade policies at JA in anyway?

You want the place you bought the diamond from to set it, as they will insure it should something unfortunate (very unlikely) happen during the setting process. i.e. it chips/cracks, etc. So that would mean sending the setting to JA. However, Pearlman's will also insure the diamond if they had a setting you liked (so then you'd send the stone to them), they and JA are the only vendors I know of, who will insure a diamond they didn't sell you.

It is best to ask JA any other questions, but I doubt it would affect anything like an upgrade.

 

[blasimon]

@glitterata & @sarap333: Thank you that makes a lot of sense. And that''s also why I was asking between the two stones + setting packages. I wish I could just wait and get more money and get both, but realistically I feel that 5K is already stretching my "graduate student" finances. I don''t think I can do the 1.28 with the Swan, even if I wait a little.

I''m not sure I really like the idea of upgrading the setting. I feel that she should be in love with it right when she gets it, when she''s happy to show it around to her friends and family. And that''s when, perhaps, it''s most important that the ring + setting make their effect.

@ellen But what about settings like the Swan? My understanding is that it has to be set by Vatche.

 

[blasimon]

What do you all think diamond #2 would look like in this setting?

Real life pics here (.7 carat).

I actually showed it to the miss, with a bogus excuse, and she said she liked it a lot.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/18/2009 7:19:05 PM
Author: blasimon

@ellen But what about settings like the Swan? My understanding is that it has to be set by Vatche.

Ok, yes, some designer settings have to be set by the designer. Sorry, I was speaking of nondesigner settings, that you might find on another vendors site.

As for the last setting you linked, if she really likes it, it doesn''t really matter what we think! The size diamonds you are looking at will look good in any setting.