*-------Which one would you buy and why?-------*

[TigerWoods]

Which one would you buy?
Both are H&A, GIA certed:

.78 Ct, H, VS2
Polish/Symmetry is Ex/Ex
H&A
Diameter 5.97 (5.95-5.99) (0.8%)
Depth 61.3%
Crown angle 34.3 (34.0-34.6)
Crown Height 14.9% (14.6-15.1)
Pavil Angle 40.9 (40.6-41.2)
Pavil Depth 43.2 % (42.8-43.5)
Cutlet 0.6% v.small
Table Size 55.4% (55.1-55.6)
Girdle Thick. 1.5% Medium
Fluour: None

or

.82 Ct, H, SI1
Polish/Symmetry is V.Good/Ex
H&A
Diameter 6.08 (6.07-9.09) (0.8%)
Depth 61.0%
Crown angle 34.1 (33.9-34.5)
Crown Height 14.8% (14.5-15.1)
Pavil Angle 40.9 (40.6-41.2)
Pavil Depth 43.2 % (43.0-43.5)
Cutlet 0.2% none
Table Size 54.8% (54.6-55.2)
Girdle Thick. 1.2% (0.9-1.6) Thin
Fluour: None

The .82 is approx $350 cheaper. Am I just being petty now or is one obviously the better buy than the other?

Please advise.....
Thanks

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

The .82 is approx $350 cheaper. Am I just being petty now or is one obviously the better buy than the other?

Please advise.....
Thanks

----------------
Tiger: The dimensions and variances between all the angles measured are very very close. I would go with the larger stone.You will most likely not be able to detect a difference. The only thing I would advise you of is make sure the si-1 inclusions are ones in where they are white or faint. You will most likely not be able to discern the difference in the si-1 clarity if the inclusions aren't dark. Save yourself a little dough and go with the bigger rock.

-Josh Rioux
Sitka, Alaska

Both stones have nice proportions is there a possibility they might offer b-scope readings.

 

[phoenixgirl]

#2 also scored slightly better on the HCA, courtesy of this website:

#1: 1.4
#2: 1.2

Yes, as long as #2 is eye-clean, I would go with that one.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

There's a 10.8% per carat price premium on a 3/4 ct. H/VS2 versus an H/SI1. With the difference in carat weight, this should (theoretically) place the 0.78 ct at about a 5.4% higher value than the 0.82 ct.

Just more info to help you make your decision (or confuse you more). Heh heh heh...

 

[Talonnav]

My vote is for #2.

 

[Giangi]

I'd take #2...

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Yeah, the DiamCalc seems to like #2 as well (regarding cut). Both stones appear to be awesome and very similar, with the 0.82 edging out the 0.78 just very slightly "on the numbers". Looking at the simulated IdealScope images, the 0.82 has a little more of the dark pink in the center, indicating VERY SLIGHLTY less leakage (as per the numbers, and as per the HCA).

Here's the POSSIBLE profile on these two stones with numbers supplied:

.......................................0.78.........................................0.82
Light Return Mono…….....Very Good 1.01.........Very Good 1.00
Light Return Stereo……….Very Good 1.00..........Very Good 1.00
(Non) Leakage Mono……...Very Good 1.00..........Very Good 1.03
(Non) Leakage Stereo…….Very Good 1.00..........Very Good 1.04
Contrast………….......…....Very Good 0.98.........Very Good 0.99
(Non) Fisheye Effect……..Very Good 1.00.........Very Good 1.00

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated. The image shown has perfect symmetry, which is rare, and the star facet/lower girdle facet lengths may vary from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or when the Sarin data is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in indicating the major light performance aspects.
-----------

 

[Richard Sherwood]

0.78 simulated IdealScope image

 

[Richard Sherwood]

0.82 simulated IdealScope image

 

[Rhino]

When you've got 2 stones so close in measurements the next question that comes to mind is how are the minor facets arranged. Certain arrangements of those facets can affect the appearance in a way you may or may not prefer. This past weekend I had the opportunity of showing some clients 2 stones that both had similar crown/pavilion/table measurement but had notably different minor facet measurements. Most of these clients could see the difference between the 2 quite easily. I would say however that both are beautiful. Measurements look good on the stones you listed.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[fire&ice]

#2 - its bigger & cheaper. Is there any way to do a visual on both - then decide?

Good luck.

 

[TigerWoods]

Thanks very much to Rich for the calculations. And thanks to everyone else for confirming to me that #2 is the better buy.

I'll keep the forum posted on what happens...

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Uhhh, Tiger, forgive me for asking, but is that you impersonating you, or someone else impersonating you?

 

[TigerWoods]

Of course it's me. C'mon, you taught me how to play, remember?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Oh yeah, it's coming back to me now...

By the way, here's my new address for those commission checks:

640 S Washington, Ste 175
Sarasota, Florida 34236

Thanks Tige! Good to hear from you again...