Which one to chose?

[tuer]

1. 0.86c, H/VS2, SYM/POL: ID/ID
Cut:Ideal
Depth %: 61.6%
Table %: 54%
Girdle: Thin (1.0-1.1%)
Fluorescence: None
HCA:1.7 (EX/VG/VG/VG)

2. 0.78c, G/VS2, SYM/POL: EX/EX
Cut: Ideal
Depth %: 61.6%
Table %: 55%
Girdle: Thin to medium, faceted
FL: none
HCA 0.6 (EX/EX/EX/VG)

Price #1- Price#2=120 dollars, price seems no big difference.

my concerns: 1. Is the thin girdle a problem?
2. I use six-prong platinum setting. Will H is too lower for platinum?
3. Does the HCA number above give a big difference?

Can anyone give me some suggestions? Thanks.

 

[Mara]

I think you are okay with the thin girdle, its not as though the girdle is .5-.7 which would be too thin. Possibly someone else can respond on that. The H/VS will be fine in plat though I would not go lower unless your budget really required it. G or H will face up white in plat...my stone is a G and its very white...we have seen H's posted on here that face up white..I think you should be fine. Also the better the overall cut, the whiter the diamond will face up to your naked eye. More shine, brilliance, sparkle, etc. The difference in the HCA IMO is no difference at all. As long as you are under 2.0 then both stones are considered excellent and within the top 5%.

It ends up being your call, are you more comfortable with the girdle, G color and HCA score of the second stone and sacrificing carat weight? The naked eye may detect a small difference in size between the two stones, have you seen them in person? Does one speak to you more?

Good luck!!

IMO either stone should be very nice.

 

[Giangi]

I'd take #1... More bang for the bucks!

 

[dimonbob]

Hello Tuer,

I also take #1. It is larger, the thin girdle is no big deal and the difference in a G and an H once mounted is nothing. They both look like good performers.
Get it while it is still available.

 

[tuer]

Thanks a lot for your suggestion!!

I am gonna take #1. I have another concern that the stone was certified on sept.2002. Is it too old? The #2 certified on March, 2003.

I wonder if someone return the ring, what the company will do? They will take the diamond out and sell it again? How you know if your stone is returned or not?

Thanks.

 

[Giangi]

Sept 2002 is just fine...

 

[Mara]

The cert date is fine. Sometimes stones can be certed and then not made available for sale right away depending on the wholesaler/stone owner's inventory at the time. If they get a 1c stone certed but their inventory for 1c is heavy already, they may hold that new stone and not put it up for sale until they clear out the existing 1c's. Just an example. Our stone was certed a year before we bought it.

On your Q about re-selling, stones can be returned or re-sold (for an upgrade or just a re-sale)...there is a possibility at any given point in time that a stone you are considering may be one or both of those. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter who owned it before you...many of the older stones have been around for generations, worn by countless people. It's just a diamond

On this same note, I've always thought it would be cool to have some sort of global owner database. So if I bought a 1906 cut stone, I could find out who all owned it from then until now. Esp for the older cut stones, this would be amazing history on your old stone. Could be something like when the stone is purchased, its info is sent to somewhere (central repository?) and data entered in. They do this for houses...why not diamonds?

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 3

3:20 PM Mara wrote:


On this same note, I've always thought it would be cool to have some sort of global owner database. So if I bought a 1906 cut stone, I could find out who all owned it from then until now. Esp for the older cut stones, this would be amazing history on your old stone. Could be something like when the stone is purchased, its info is sent to somewhere (central repository?) and data entered in. They do this for houses...why not diamonds?

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

I've wondered about this myself, and think this would be an excellent idea. Odd that no one has done something like that before now.

Mara, with your interest in the subject matter, seems like this might be a shoe-in for you!