Which would the experts chose and why?

[BrownyJones]

Hello, I'm trying to decide which stone would be the better pick. The 1.46Ct F SI1 is about 2K less than the 1.5Ct G Si1, which makes sense because the F stone has a dark inclusion inside the table, whereas the G stone has the inclusion towards the side and is much cleaner than the F. However, the F is less expensive and is a better color. Both are eye-clean, I've seen high resolution pictures of both, but there are no idealscope or ASET images. Which of these two stones do you think would have better light performance?

 

[pfunk]

I'm not an expert but I think the more expensive one has numbers that will likely equate to better light performance. But I don't know that your eyes would see that difference and even if they did I don't know you'd feel it is worth $2,000 more for the magnitude of difference. I say buy the cheaper one as long as it is from a reputable vendor with great return policy. If you don't find it beautiful, send it back. We can tell you the numbers are better all day long, but that doesnt mean it is a better value for you. Without more info than a grading report its tough to draw real conclusions.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The one on the left is my dream proportions for a MRB... 55% table with good crown height...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I agree with DF that the one on the left has the most ideal numbers. However, I really never advise buying a diamond this expensive without an idealscope image. But the G would be my choice.

You didn't give us the diameters, but that is usually one of the important numbers to include.

 

[Niel]

The one on the left is my dream proportions for a MRB... 55% table with good crown height...

That's what I look for too....also I prefer the lgf% under 80, so I'd also pick the left for that reason. Nice fat arrows.

 

[pfunk]

For what it's worth, in my search a lot of people recommended the smaller tables in the "ideal" range which is what I initially bought. That stone had a table of 55.4% and crown angle of 34.7. I returned that for a larger stone with less "ideal" numbers. It has a table of 58% and crown angle of 35. Honestly I looked at them in a lot of different light and I really can't see any noticeable difference. Maybe I don't know exactly what to look for, but the difference can be subtle I think. Oh and the second stone did not have an ideal scope image. I had the report, h&a image, magnified diamond image, and video and the diamond turned out beautiful. Most here say not to buy without the idealscope images, but I don't think it is absolutely necessary in every case. Especially if you can save money and return the stone later if you don't find it beautiful. I guess what I am trying to say is that I gained a GREAT deal of advice from a lot of great people here, but I think a lot of them are quite experienced in looking at diamonds and demand perfection, while a lot of us consumers just want a beautiful diamond and probably won't tell an AGS 0 from an AGS1 from a good GIA excellent. And to be fair, I was looking at vendors who provided free return shipping if I didn't like the stone. Ask your vendors lots of detailed questions. They will give you honest opinions as they do not want returns.

 

[Ella]

A friendly reminder that trade members cannot critique or recommend stones under consideration for purchase even if the vendor isn't mentioned. As a result a few posts have been removed.

 

[BrownyJones]

G stone: better specs, cleaner.
F stone: 2k less.

Does 0.5 degree matter that much? Will i see the inclusion on the table of the F stone?

2k means 2 tickets to Paris!

I wish I could ask my gf to decide but that would spoil the surprise.

 

[vintageinjune]

I am by no means an expert, but I'd opt for the G colored one out of the two. I wouldn't want those inclusions so close to the center of the stone. Bonus if it does have better light performance.

 

[pfunk]

Well whether you will see the inclusion depends on whether you trust your vendor or not. You were told by the vendor they were eye clean, so unless you have better than 20/20 vision and are really good at picking out inclusions, no you will not see it. Just make sure you understand how the vendor is viewing the stone (ie how far away are they viewing it) when they make the claim it is eye clean. If you can't see it, don't worry about it. It is simply another way for you to identify your own stone with a loupe. If it doesn't bother you knowing that it's there, then it isn't an issue. Why pay for something you can't see anyway? Does the vendor allow returns if you get it and don't love it?

 

[BrownyJones]

Yes, there's a 30 day return policy. I am worried about that inclusion being visible even though the vendor says it's eye clean. If i cant see it, i'm fine with it. I dont have the mind clean syndrome.

 

[pfunk]

They look at hundreds of diamonds and they don't want people returning diamonds as it costs them money. If they say it is eye clean, it should be eye clean. If you're worried about it, ask them again to confirm it is eye clean to your standards before shipping it to you. I learned some things after looking at diamonds on here for over a month and purchasing two different ones to look at. One is that diamonds are a heck of a lot smaller than the images you see online, and the inclusions inside them are a whole lot smaller yet. Some inclusions look hideous online, but in reality are much less noticeable.

Like you said, 2k is a trip for you to Paris. That's A LOT of money for a difference in two stones that might be too subtle for you to notice. But, the difference certainly could be noticeable and worth the extra 2k to you. That is why I said buy the cheaper one and if YOU find it beautiful, you just bought a trip to paris AND a diamond you love. If you feel like it isn't up to your standards, then spend more for a "better" diamond.

 

[BrownyJones]

Yeah, Im leaning towards the F stone. I figured i can see it and if i dont like it, return it for another stone. But i am curious how much difference in bling 0.5 degrees would be. Is there a way to get computer generated light performance images off of this data?

 

[pfunk]

No way to know without more accurate numbers. Gia rounds to the nearest 0.5% with that crown angle measurement. For all you know, they could be almost identical or even further apart than the report makes them seem. One could be 34.2 and the other 34.3 and the rounding ends up showing 34 and 34.5. Or it could be 33.8 and 34.7. Just don't know. You could ask the vendor if the stone has been sarin scanned which will give you each of the angles instead of the averaged, then rounded numbers.

 

[BrownyJones]

Hi all, i just had a diamond expert tell me that the G stone had obstruction issues based on these images. I don't quite understand what he means. What do PSers think? And are obstruction issues?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi all, i just had a diamond expert tell me that the G stone had obstruction issues based on these images. I don't quite understand what he means. What do PSers think? And are obstruction issues?

I hope this is not another violation of forum rules, but I do not see a problem with obstruction in these images nor would I expect it from the numbers. I would ask your expert to explain what is meant by obstruction "issues" and which images are indicating it.

The fatter arrows will make the static magnified image look a bit darker than the thinner ones - they are reflecting the black of the camera lens. But as others have mentioned, many prefer the performance effects of the shorter, chunkier pavilion main facets.

The hearts and arrows images are computer generated from a 3D scan of the diamond. While not actual photos, if generated from a good scan they are indicative of the precision that would be seen in actual photos.

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Agreeing with Bryan, I think we'd all like an explanation on said obstructions. Did the expert ever explain what they meant?