Which RB should I go for?!

[CKinNYC]

Hi folks

OK, I''ve narrowed it down to the following two stones in the NY diamond district (same vendor) and need your help in deciding which one. (That is, unless we go custom-made in South Africa... to be determined on Wednesday, I''lll keep you posted as to what the dollar gets out there!).

Stone 1: With the setting I like, this would be $18,500 (1.8mm platinum band, pave set, four prong setting)
Measurements: 7.66 - 7.74 x 4.86 mm
Carat Weight: 1.80
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: SI1
Cut Grade: Very Good
Proportions:
Depth: 63.1 %
Table: 58 %
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 41.2°
Pavilion Depth: 44 %
Star length: 50 %
Lower Half: 80 %
Girdle: Slightly Thick to Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Finisholish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None

Lovely size in person, sparkly, white and eyeclean, but scores a 4.7 on the HCA -

- so that''s not good in my eyes...

Stone 2: This would be $15,900 with the same setting that I like. $2.6k cheaper, same color & clarity, but slightly smaller.
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 7.62 - 7.71 x 4.72 mm
Carat Weight: 1.70
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: SI1
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 61.6 %
Table: 57 %
Crown Angle: 33.5°
Crown Height: 14.5 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5 %
Star length: 50 %
Lower Half: 80 %
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None

This little lady scores a 1 on the HCA, which is great. It''s also totally eyeclean, and sparkles beautifully. It''s smaller, but then again the setting that I like is very thin (1.5 - 1.8mm) so the stone will stand out.

Anyhoo, just want to get your opinions - 1.8 or 1.7?! (I think I already know, but want to gauge your opinions...!)

Thanks!

Claire

 

[Ellen]

Definitely the second one! And the size difference is moot, because the first one is deep, with a thick girdle, so it''s hiding weight.

7.70 vs. 7.66

 

[purrfectpear]

Unless you like paying for weight you can't see, stone #2 isn't really "smaller", it just weighs less and has a better cut. Look at the mm sizes of your stones and you'll see that the 1.7 and 1.8 face up the same. Stone #1 has unnecessary weight.

edited to add that Ellen types faster than I

 

[chrono]

Stone #2 - no questions asked. It might appear lighter in terms of carat weight but the size is about the same due to the depth. Stone 1 has a 63% depth while stone 2 is only 61%. Just a touch smaller is size but stone 2 will APPEAR bigger because the cut maximizes the sparkle. That $2.6K savings is well worth it.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/5/2008 6:08:43 PM
Author: purrfectpear
Unless you like paying for weight you can''t see, stone #2 isn''t really ''smaller'', it just weighs less and has a better cut. Look at the mm sizes of your stones and you''ll see that the 1.7 and 1.8 face up the same. Stone #1 has unnecessary weight.

edited to add that Ellen types faster than I

That''s amazing, cuz I''m a REALLY slow typer!

 

[CKinNYC]

haha, thanks folks!

yes, that''s the direction I was leaning in, for sure! As soon as I saw the depth on the 1.8''s cert, I knew it wouldn''t perform as well at the 1.7 - THANK YOU to pricescope for educating me!

CK

 

[Ellen]

If you get it, please come back with pics!

 

[smooleys]

Can you say where in the diamond district you went...I am looking for reputable vendors to check out there.

1.7 def.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 5/5/2008 10:10:50 PM
Author: smooleys
Can you say where in the diamond district you went...I am looking for reputable vendors to check out there.

1.7 def.

The only person I''d go to in the diamond district is Mark at Engagement Rings Direct. He has many, many positive posts on here!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

And Claire, I will echo the others...the second stone is MUCH better cut and should appear to be almost the same size as the other! No point at all in paying for extra weight that you cannot see!