Which of these 2 rounds is better? GIA & images included

[Samara83]

I have two rounds to choose from. One is 2.41ct D the other is 2.52ct F. Both SI2, both excellent cut/polish/symmetry. I am told both are eye-clean, the 2.52 is eye-clean from 12 inches away (if a prong is set over the inclusions). The other I was assured is very eye-clean.

The 2.52ct is $1,000 more than the other. Which do you think is a better diamond?? The spreads are very similar (8.71 vs 8.77)

The image of the GIA cert for the 2.52 is bit small, so here's some key points if it's too tiny to see:
measurement: 8.77-8.84 x 5.45
thin-medium fauceted 3.0%
table 56%
pinpoints are not shown

 

[JDCgolfr]

I like the 2.41 it looks cleaner from the images given. Why not go down a size and be sure it's eye clean. 12 inches Is a long way when it's constantly being inspected by love one but then again who would complain when their getting a 2+ct diamond.

 

[thediamondshopper]

It sounds like the 2.52 isnt really "eye clean" as there is the condition that the group of inclusions must be covered by the prong to make it eye clean, and in my books that isnt eye clean. I cant really make out info from the report on the 2.52 but I think it is a 61.9 depth with a 56 table compared to a 60, 58 for the 2.4. These will have slightly different looks as shallower stones with larger tables tend to be brighter while deeper stones with smaller tables tend to have more fire. In this respect there isnt a better just a matter of taste.

I cant make out the pavilion and crown angles for the 2.5, but for the they score very well on the HCA the pavilion angle is a little steeper than what I usually go for, but I think it works very well with the shallower crown angle and the 58 table and 60 depth.

I like alot of what the 2.4 is offering except the fact that it is a D. I am assuming that your preference is to buy what you can see, as you are going with an SI2 and with that assumption I would say you would be safe going as far as a G or a Nice H. A D color will cost you quite a bit more, and will show little to no visual difference once set. I would ignore the SI2 as I dont like conditional eye clean stones and they arent favored well in terms of resale.

 

[Samara83]

I would ignore the SI2 as I dont like conditional eye clean stones and they arent favored well in terms of resale.

Do you mean you would recommend not going with an SI2? I was initially looking for F color, because when I have seen them in stores, I can see a difference between F and G in some lighting. Therefore, I wanted to stay colorless. There seems to be quite a price hike for a colorless SI1 and to be honest, I can't really tell the difference between an SI1 and a proper "eye clean" SI2.

 

[doberman]

Well I am one of those people with very good eyes, and I don't think either of these stones would be completely eye clean. While the price differential between categories of color and clarity can be substantial, I think you should consider going down bit in size and up to a truly eye clean SI1 (AGS SI1 best of all, since their clarity grading is quite strict, but that's just my opinion, others may disagree).

And a stone isn't really eye clean if it has to have an inclusion hidden beneath a prong.

Good luck!

 

[ecf8503]

I'd take the D if these are the only 2 options. I have a D, 2 G's, an I-J OEC, and a J, and I can clearly see the difference. I like the G's - they are perfectly white face up alone, but compared to the D there is a difference. I really like the stark whiteness of the D, but ironically I really like the warmth of my J too - the D is not "better", it's just a matter of taste. Often times I think consumers get swayed by the fact that the higher you go on the color scale the higher the price gets, so therefore it must be "better". Not true.

Besides - the D seems more eye clean. I'd skip that F SI2 - those inclusions look bigger than just prong- sized.

Can you get idealscope images?

 

[UrsTx]

Of these two options, I like the 2.41 D. I'm worried the group of inclusions in the larger stone will make it look darker or hazier on that side of the stone in real life. Save the $1k and apply it to a nicer setting (I agree with a halo bc it adds width to the stone and can make it appear a half to whole carat size larger).