Which of these 2 diamonds would you pick?

[d3kim]

(My apologies, but my original post was missing half of the images, so I have decided to repost so that everything is together and complete!)

Hello everyone!

I have been searching diligently for the last several months for the ''perfect'' diamond to use in my engagement ring for my lovely girlfriend. Let it be known that finding Pricescope was the best thing that ever happened during my search as I have learned SO much from everything I have read here and from all the advice I have received thus far on my previous posts. Thanks so much already!!!

I think I have narrowed it down to two candidates from two equally reputable online vendors. The service I have received from each vendor has been superb and it pains me to have to pick one over the other. Here is all the information I have for the two diamonds (both are Princess cuts):

Candidate 1 - 1.53ct G SI1 (GIA)

Report Details - Polish: VG, Symmetry: VG, Fluorescence: None, Culet: None
Dimensions - 6.57 x 6.33 x 4.67 mm
L/W Ratio - 1.04
Depth - 73.8%
Table - 64.3%
Crown - 7.9% (0.50 mm)
Crown Angle - 29.3
Pavilion - 62.4% (3.95 mm)
Pavilion Angle - 42
Girdle - Medium 3.1% (2.6 - 3.6)

Candidate 2 - 1.34ct G VS2 (AGS)

Report Details - Cut Grade: AGS Ideal, Light Performance: 0, Proportion Factors: 0, Polish: Ideal, Symmetry: Ideal, Fluorescence: Negligable
Dimensions - 6.14 x 6.05 x 4.39 mm
L/W Ratio - 1.01
Depth - 72.6%
Table - 65.9%
Crown - 10.9% (0.66 mm)
Crown Angle - 36.6
Pavilion - 59.7% (3.61 mm)
Pavilion Angle - 39.7
Girdle - Thin 2.4% (1.9 - 2.9)

ImageScope/LightScope

Candidate 1

Candidate 2

Magnified Photo

Candidate 1

Candidate 2

Both stones are eye-clean from a clarity perspective, both are comparable in price (~$8700), and once again, both vendors are equally reputable IMO. Based on all the information available to me, I have made some conclusions and am leaning one way. But I would LOVE to hear the thoughts and opinions of the PS community in order to both validate some of the things I am thinking and, more importantly, learn some things I may not have taken into account yet since I am nothing more than a novice when it comes to diamonds.

So which diamond would you choose and why ???

Thank you in advance for your help!
- Dan

 

[Slykat12]

I chose stone 2 as a 7.9% crown depth is scary to me.

 

[researcher]

#2 is the clear winner. It has the best crown height, and #1 will be slightly rectangular (although they say it will look square up to 1.05, my stone is 1:1.02 and I can tell which side is longer). Also, I prefer the ideal scope on #2.

 

[jszweda]

I am a tad confused here. The picture looks better for the 1st one, but...the lighting isn''t the same so it''s biased on that.

Secondly, if the first one is an SI1, where is the inclusion at? It''s not on the face of that stone from that picture. I have a feeling it''s only visible from a profile view, which is fine.

I don''t like the grading report on the second one because it''s not specific enough. I can''t tell the color for sure on number 2 even though it is a VS2 (which appeals to me more). Then again, the lighting isn''t good on that picture.

To be honest, if I were to spend that money on that diamond, I would loupe it myself in person and not rely soley on the picture.

I do like the cut on both though.

I love princess cut stones.

 

[Hest88]

#2, for the reasons others have stated.

 

[d3kim]

Thanks for the replies thus far! Keep them coming...

Anyone have anything specific to say about the ideal-scope images? What things they like about one over the other?

BTW, the inclusion in candidate 1 (SI1) can be seen in the right half, central region on the magnified photo.

Cheers!

 

[BrownEyes]

# 2 looks much better to me.

 

[belle]

it totally depends on what your priorities are. these stones are remarkably similar. the first one is significantly bigger so if you want size, #1 is easily the top pick. if you want mind clean, go with the vs clarity. you can''t go wrong with either one.

 

[d3kim]

My top priority is Cut since this affects performance the most.

As for Clarity, as long as it is perfectly eye-clean (as I have been assured they BOTH are) that is good enough for me.

Though the bigger I can get the better, I certainly do not want to sacrifice performance. 1.53 is nice, but if the 1.34 will perform noticeably better, then it is big enough for me. At the same time, if performance will be roughly the same (no noticeable difference), then 1.53 for the same price is nice.

 

[belle]

again, i think these stones are remarkably similar. the cut on both is very good. is there any way you could see them both to decide?

 

[d3kim]

I guess I could purchase both diamonds, examine each of them in person, and then return the one i did not prefer. For some reason, I feel like this is wrong to do. Though I''m not quite sure why I feel this way.

Has anyone ever purchased a diamond online this way? Do people ever do this???

 

[belle]

there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this and i would actually encourage it. it would be the best way to compare these two very similar, yet very different diamonds.

 

[d3kim]

Looks like that is what I am going to have to do. Now I just need to figure out where to get the money to pay for both!

Between the two candidates, I was actually leaning slightly toward the 2nd, due to the low crown height of the 1st and I seem to think the idealscope image of the 2nd looks better (since there are more black spots and they are more evenly dispersed throughout the diamond than those in the 1st image). This seems to match the consensus of the replies.

However, I do not know enough about diamonds to know how much these observed differences in numbers/images correlate to actual observable differences in light performance. If the difference is minimal and relatively unobservable, then I would obviously prefer to go with the bigger stone.

In addition, I know there has been a lot of praise on this forum for the new AGS Ideal Princess diamonds (which #2 is one of - see grading report). At the same time, I have read contradictory posts on one of the other forums (DiamondTalk). This makes for some confusion for me. Based on everything I have read on PS, I have no reason to doubt the opinions of the experts here as I have learned a ton from them. At the same time, I find myself unable to completely ignore the negative comments I have read on DT (see Are the AGS Princess Cuts All That?).

So I think maybe the only way I can decide is to see both side-by-side in person. I wish there was an easier way...

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

The arguments on the other forum were very hard, but contained no substance.

The first part of their argument was that because of the high depth in AGS-0 princess-cuts, the spread would be lower. It has been more than often explained in threads here, and in articles in the Pricescope-Journal, that there is no direct inverse relationship between depth and spread in a princess-cut.

The second part of their argument was based upon one example, in which the Brilliancescope of an AGS-0-princess was mediocre at best. This was brought forward by a vendor, who claims that his strenght lies in visually assessing the beauty of a stone, while at the same time, he rests the presentation of light performance on the Brilliancescope. Jonathan of GOG had a very interesting thread here, in which he explained his surprise about one AGS-0-princess getting less than expected results on the Brilliancescope. However, he liked that stone very much. And when showing the stone to colleagues and consumers in his store, the general agreement was that it was a smashing stone. Hence, some might have noticed that GOG has less results of Brilliancescope on their website, and also less verbal defense of the machine.

Live long,

 

[valeria101]

The Bscope misses some types of stones that are considered desirable by other comparable tools (say, ISee2). Sure enough, you could say this the other way around too - that the ISee2 misses some stones with great BS metrics... and any two cut grading systems may have a range of choice over which they disagree. At some point, you will have to choose which to go for.

Online the Bscope may have been promoted better than most. For ex. Isee2 doesn''t want to be online. Also, it should help if cutters of H&A offer their stones with BScope charts to retailers. I don''t know if other cut grading tools are similarly supported online. Such considerations may make the BScope look more established in a certain small circle (online retailers on H&A).

With cut grading relatively new and little consensus about what is ''best'', there is a bit of room for personal choice, as far as I can tell. IMO, each of these tools were built to represent a certain ''taste'' - since the results they convey contain a certain judgement of value that is not obvious from technical metrics. (i.e. there is nothing straight technical about beauty).

Best of luck!