Expert opinion needed

[yaozza]

Hi, I need expert opinion on which of the two stones below is better looking, better bling, more stunning and brilliant and better value if both are around the same price (Rock #1 is $200 less).
As well, which of the rocks below would look better in a 3-stone ring with two side stones that are 0.20 carat, G color and VS2 clarity each? (The rock below would be slightly raised middle stone).
Thanks in advance for all your opinion.

ROCK #1
carat: 0.78
clarity: SI1
color: G
cut: excellent (h & a)
5.92 - 5.95 x 3.64 mm
total depth: 61.3%
table size: 57%
crown angle: 34.5 deg
crown height: 15%
polish: excellent
symmetry: excellent
fluorescence: none

ROCK #2
carat: 0.74
clarity: SI1
color: E
5.76 - 5.83 x 3.60 mm
total depth: 62.1%
table size: 57%
pavilion angle: 41%
pavilion depth: 43.5%
cut: excellent
polish: excellent
symmetry: very good
fluorescence: faint

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

in both cases you left out vital crown or pav angles.
assuming they are OK we cant help more unless you get images and details about the inclusions and eyevisibility?
But you would not be able to pick G from E and the G is bigger

 

[yssie]

Not an expert, but ditto that.



Can they back up the H&A claims?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am confused about how the G is only 200 less than the E... perhaps cut quality? Or some other feature? Typically 2 color grades would cost more than that, all else being equal...

 

[yaozza]

Hi Garry, I''ve included all the specs I have for both rocks that I previously forgot, including the GIA numbers, if it helps. Sorry, no pictures.
In response to the 2nd respondent, I saw the hearts and arrows pattern for both rocks inside the viewer.
Thanks guys.

ROCK #1 (GIA 5106497050)
carat: 0.78
clarity: SI1
color: G
cut: excellent (h & a)
5.92 - 5.95 x 3.64 mm
shape: round brilliant
total depth: 61.3%
table size: 57%
crown angle: 34.5 deg
crown height: 15%
pavilion angle: 40.8%
pavilion depth: 43%
star length: 50%
lower half: 80%
girdle: med
faceted: 3.5%
culet: none
polish: excellent
symmetry: excellent
fluorescence: none
clarity characteristics: cloud, crystal, feather
comments: none

ROCK #2 (GIA 1109578411)
carat: 0.74
clarity: SI1
color: E
cut: excellent (h & a)
5.76 - 5.83 x 3.60 mm
shape: round brilliant
total depth: 62.1%
table size: 57%
crown angle: 35 deg
crown height: 15%
pavilion angle: 41%
pavilion depth: 43.5%
star length: 50%
lower half: 80%
girdle: med to stk
faceted: 4%
culet: none
polish: excellent
symmetry: very good
fluorescence: faint
clarity characteristics: crystal, feather
comments: none

 

[yssie]

Numbers for 1 are very nice, you''ll want an IS for 2.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

then the first stone is the winner

 

[stone-cold11]

#1 stone is my pick too.

 

[Lorelei]

Easy choice - the first one.

 

[yaozza]

Why is first one the top choice? Can any of you explain why so I can be educated?

Would Rock #1 also look better in a 3-stone ring with two side stones that are 0.20 carat (would 0.25 side stones look better?), G color and VS2 clarity each? (The rock below would be slightly raised middle stone).

Thanks for everyone''s opinions so far.

 

[yaozza]

yssie, what do you mean by IS for rock #2 (I assume)

 

[stone-cold11]

Slightly bigger in diameter, angles are slightly safer than #2.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/9/2010 8:09:03 AM
Author: yaozza
Why is first one the top choice? Can any of you explain why so I can be educated?

Would Rock #1 also look better in a 3-stone ring with two side stones that are 0.20 carat (would 0.25 side stones look better?), G color and VS2 clarity each? (The rock below would be slightly raised middle stone).

Thanks for everyone's opinions so far.

IS = Idealscope image, read more here.

The first diamond has much safer proportions than the second, the second diamond has borderline steep deep angles which could mean the stone could show light leakage - various factors could affect this for good or bad but without an Idealscope image, the first is the safest choice.

 

[yaozza]

I was able to see Rock #1 through an IS and it looked good. I wasn''t able to see Rock #2 as it was not available then. At this time, I would have to trust the jeweler to look at it and be the judge for Rock #2 because I''m not able to go to the store any time soon. The jeweler is a certified gemologist and seems trusthworthy.

It seems I should just go with the majority of the opinion...Rock #1.
Is there a big difference visually with Rock #1 being color G and Rock #2 color E or does the other specs make up for it?

Also, with the 0.78 carat Rock #1, would the 0.20 or 0.25 carat side stones be better?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/9/2010 11:43:28 AM
Author: yaozza
I was able to see Rock #1 through an IS and it looked good. I wasn''t able to see Rock #2 as it was not available then. At this time, I would have to trust the jeweler to look at it and be the judge for Rock #2 because I''m not able to go to the store any time soon. The jeweler is a certified gemologist and seems trusthworthy.

It seems I should just go with the majority of the opinion...Rock #1.
Is there a big difference visually with Rock #1 being color G and Rock #2 color E or does the other specs make up for it?

Also, with the 0.78 carat Rock #1, would the 0.20 or 0.25 carat side stones be better?

There would be little - if any - visual difference between the two stones once set in a ring. Side stones, this is down to individual preference but between those sizes there again wouldn''t be much difference, however personally, I would be inclined to go with the larger ones.

 

[stone-cold11]

Ditto.

 

[yaozza]

Thanks for all your opinions. I now know what to choose.

 

[Lorelei]

Glad to help, please post some pictures when you have the finished ring!