which one?

[Diamondseeker007]

Help me decide. Thanks!

#1 or #2.

 

[bright ice]

I like #1. Please tell more

 

[diamondseeker2006]

#1 is the better image of the two.

 

[Lula]

Ditto -- I mean, thritto. #1.

 

[Diamondseeker007]

awesome thanks. Do you think there would be a noticeable difference between the two diamonds to the naked eye?

 

[Lula]

awesome thanks. Do you think there would be a noticeable difference between the two diamonds to the naked eye?

There could be -- it's too hard to tell with just the images. If you have the table, depth, crown, pavilion, star, and lower girdle percentages, along with carat weight, we could tell you more. One thing that bothers me about the second stone is it looks like the girdle has been heavily painted (it's red all the way to the edges of the stone, with no white triangle shapes) and that type of painting can greatly affect the appearance of the stone, both in a good way or a bad way.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Can you also post magnified images of the actual stones? Certainly the first is the best cut, but the other might be okay depending on the price difference. I'd pay a more for the first one if all other specs were equal.

 

[Diamondseeker007]

awesome thanks. Do you think there would be a noticeable difference between the two diamonds to the naked eye?

There could be -- it's too hard to tell with just the images. If you have the table, depth, crown, pavilion, star, and lower girdle percentages, along with carat weight, we could tell you more. One thing that bothers me about the second stone is it looks like the girdle has been heavily painted (it's red all the way to the edges of the stone, with no white triangle shapes) and that type of painting can greatly affect the appearance of the stone, both in a good way or a bad way.

sorry for my ignorance, what is painted?

#1.
1.72 GIA ex-ex-ex, I/VS2. T:58% D: 61%, Crown: 34.5, Pav. 40.8 Mid faceted 3.5%, lower girdle 75% Star: 55%

#2: 1.8 AGS 000, I/VS2 T: 59 D: 59. Crown: 33.9, Pav 40.8 Faceted 0.9%-3.5% (thin-med) lower girdle 78% Star 54%

I was under the impression a AGS 000 is a tougher to achieve than a GIA ex-ex-ex.

 

[Diamondseeker007]

Can you also post magnified images of the actual stones? Certainly the first is the best cut, but the other might be okay depending on the price difference. I'd pay a more for the first one if all other specs were equal.

Mag #1 and Mag #2

 

[diamondseeker2006]

awesome thanks. Do you think there would be a noticeable difference between the two diamonds to the naked eye?

There could be -- it's too hard to tell with just the images. If you have the table, depth, crown, pavilion, star, and lower girdle percentages, along with carat weight, we could tell you more. One thing that bothers me about the second stone is it looks like the girdle has been heavily painted (it's red all the way to the edges of the stone, with no white triangle shapes) and that type of painting can greatly affect the appearance of the stone, both in a good way or a bad way.

sorry for my ignorance, what is painted?

#1.
1.72 GIA ex-ex-ex, I/VS2. T:58% D: 61%, Crown: 34.5, Pav. 40.8 Mid faceted 3.5%, lower girdle 75% Star: 55%

#2: 1.8 AGS 000, I/VS2 T: 59 D: 59. Crown: 33.9, Pav 40.8 Faceted 0.9%-3.5% (thin-med) lower girdle 78% Star 54%

I was under the impression a AGS 000 is a tougher to achieve than a GIA ex-ex-ex.

You are correct that GIA Excellent is a broader category than AGS Ideal, however, because many more stones are graded by GIA than AGS, there are probably many more stones graded by GIA that would meet ideal cut standards than there are from AGS. You just have to weed out the better ones, and I think you just have. I think the GIA stone is better in this case. It is the stone I would choose of these two. I have seen much better AGS Ideal's than this one. It's certainly a nice stone, but I like everything better about the other stone. GIA is also slightly stricter on color, so that is another reason I might choose the GIA stone if I cannot compare color in person.

 

[Lula]

awesome thanks. Do you think there would be a noticeable difference between the two diamonds to the naked eye?

There could be -- it's too hard to tell with just the images. If you have the table, depth, crown, pavilion, star, and lower girdle percentages, along with carat weight, we could tell you more. One thing that bothers me about the second stone is it looks like the girdle has been heavily painted (it's red all the way to the edges of the stone, with no white triangle shapes) and that type of painting can greatly affect the appearance of the stone, both in a good way or a bad way.

sorry for my ignorance, what is painted? Painting means that the edge of the stone has been altered by the cutter. Note how the edge of one of the stones in the Idealscope image is almost all red, without any white triangles? That's an indication to me that the cutter may have altered the girdle of the stone to add carat weight or change the appearance of the stone's sparkle and flash. Painting and digging are also referred to as brillianteering. You can read about painting and here:http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/. There is also information about digging on the same website.
I believe that if painting or digging are excessive, AGS and GIA note that on the grading report. Painting and digging are not always bad. Eightstar brand diamonds are heavily painted to create a distinctive look.

#1.
1.72 GIA ex-ex-ex, I/VS2. T:58% D: 61%, Crown: 34.5, Pav. 40.8 Mid faceted 3.5%, lower girdle 75% Star: 55%

#2: 1.8 AGS 000, I/VS2 T: 59 D: 59. Crown: 33.9, Pav 40.8 Faceted 0.9%-3.5% (thin-med) lower girdle 78% Star 54%

I was under the impression a AGS 000 is a tougher to achieve than a GIA ex-ex-ex.

 

[Diamondseeker007]

Thanks for the replies. How would I tell if the digging/painting is bad? Arent all AGS reports supposed to have a ASET image on them?

 

[Lula]

Thanks for the replies. How would I tell if the digging/painting is bad? Arent all AGS reports supposed to have a ASET image on them?

If the painting or digging is significant, I believe it will be noted on the lab report. No worries with stone #1 with regard to painting or digging. It's stone #2 that has the suspect red edges. However, even if stone #2 was painted, it may not be significant enough to note on the lab report.

 

[brandeegardiner]

I like the first one. Too much black makes the diamond strange.

 

[04diamond<3]

Definitely 1!

 

[maccers]

Another vote for number 1.

Number two has some funky cutting at 9 and 3 o'clock.

 

[k_darling]

Number 1.