Had ins. claim, need replacement, pics included! Please help!

[jill_s]

So, long story short, I was wearing my 1.97 K SI1 upgrade WF ring a few weeks ago when I noticed something was rattling. The stone had come loose in the setting. I sent the stone back to WF for them to fix. While my upgrade ring was at WF, I pulled out my original ering and was wearing that when I noticed that there was a crack in my diamond! Yikes - good thing I had it insured with State Farm. I filed the claim, got a *very* fair settlement (State Farm claims process was awesome), and decided that instead of replacing my original diamond, I wanted to apply some of the settlement to an upgrade on my 1.97 K SI1. I really wanted to get into a 2.3-2.4 carat J stone. The K was just a little too warm for me, and I really wanted something bigger. I had a J stone before my K, and the J color didn''t bother me like the K color. After a couple stones I found got sold before I could reserve them, I came across these two stones. I''m really torn about which to choose and would love some opinions. This stone will be my *it* stone for a while - I''m not sure I can convince DH to let me upgrade again anytime soon! Plus, it just gets to be too cost prohibitive once you start jumping over the 2.5ct mark. While they are both SI2 stones, I have been told that they are eye-clean.

Stone #1 - 2.40 J, SI2
8.63x8.76x5.28mm
60.7 depth
56 table
34.5 crown
40.8 pavilion
75%

Stone #2 - 2.33 J, SI2
8.47x8.52x5.26mm
61.9 depth
56 table
34.5 crown
40.8 pavilion
75%

 

[jill_s]

Stone #1 Sarin

 

[bgray]

number 1--providing the other is not superior visually

 

[jill_s]

Stone #1 image

 

[jill_s]

Stone #1 Idealscope

 

[jill_s]

Stone #1 ASET

 

[jill_s]

Stone #2 Sarin

 

[jill_s]

Stone #2 Image

 

[jill_s]

Stone #2 Idealscope

 

[jill_s]

Stone #2 ASET

 

[jill_s]

If it helps, my order of preference of the 4 C''s is - Carat (I like big diamonds!), Cut, Color, Clarity. I''m really fine with SI2 clarity as long as it''s eye-clean.

 

[jill_s]

Almost forgot - a comparison shot of the diamonds side by side.

 

[jill_s]

And one more comparison shot of the stones on a hand.

 

[bgray]

#1--its bigger and #2 had a yucky inclusion in the table. they are both well cut. so go with bigger and better inclusion placement

 

[Dreamer_D]

I like number 1 as well. Bigger and the inclusions look to be lovely twinning wisps. Table inclusions can of course be eye clean, but avoiding them is nice too. Makes for better photos of your diamonds on PS

I am jealous. I would love to get a J SI2 in that size! Maybe one day...

 

[Dreamer_D]

Oh, and interesting about the K! I too have traded my K in for a higher color recently. I had a J, then a K and I felt the K was a little too tinted for me. The J never bugged me. The price was right though on a similarly sized G SI2 so that is what I got since I wasn't going up in size. But if I even jump over the 1.5 mark it'll be a J SI2 baby!

Can't wait to see this one on your finger. How much bigger is it in mm?

 

[stone-cold11]

Both look good to me. How''s the eye-cleanliness?

 

[Lorelei]

Both great diamonds but in this case I prefer the first one.

 

[jill_s]

Date: 12/18/2009 1:13:16 AM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
Oh, and interesting about the K! I too have traded my K in for a higher color recently. I had a J, then a K and I felt the K was a little too tinted for me. The J never bugged me. The price was right though on a similarly sized G SI2 so that is what I got since I wasn''t going up in size. But if I even jump over the 1.5 mark it''ll be a J SI2 baby!


Can''t wait to see this one on your finger. How much bigger is it in mm?

DD - I''ve been reading your posts about upgrading to the G - congrats on that, I''m sure you''ll LOVE it! And that''s now making me second-guess if I''ve gone up *enough* in color to be happy. My previous J had faint fluor, so I don''t think that fluor really made it appear that much whiter. Who knows? The problem is that given my budget, to go up to even just an I color, I would only be able to stay around the 2 ct. mark and I really want something closer to 2.5. So my fingers are crossed that I will love this J as much as I loved my other one. My 1.97 faced up at 8.15mm, and this new stone faces up around 8.7mm. I''m hoping that''s enough to notice the difference!

Can''t wait to see your reset with the Truth head - I really prefer that head over the legato.

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 12/18/2009 5:52:05 AM
Author: Lorelei
Both great diamonds but in this case I prefer the first one.

HI:

Ditto. No stones with central inclusions for me.

cheers--Sharon

 

[jill_s]

Date: 12/18/2009 5:08:44 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Both look good to me. How''s the eye-cleanliness?

I think they are relatively equal in terms of eye-cleanliness. I have an appt today to talk with Bryan at WF about the two stones, I plan to ask him which he thinks is better.

 

[jill_s]

Date: 12/18/2009 5:52:05 AM
Author: Lorelei
Both great diamonds but in this case I prefer the first one.

Lorelei - thanks for your thoughts. Any particular reason why you prefer #1?

 

[jill_s]

Date: 12/18/2009 8:54:16 AM
Author: canuk-gal

Date: 12/18/2009 5:52:05 AM

Author: Lorelei

Both great diamonds but in this case I prefer the first one.

HI:


Ditto. No stones with central inclusions for me.


cheers--Sharon

Sharon - thanks for your thoughts. I''m hesitant about the table inclusion but WF said that it kind of "blended in" with the stone, but I think it looks rather prominent. I think I''m definitely leaning towards #1.

 

[Laila619]

Stone number 2 actually looks brighter and cleaner to me when placed side by side with the other one. Look at the shot on your hand also...stone number 2 looks brighter again to me.

 

[jill_s]

Date: 12/18/2009 9:02:04 AM
Author: Laila619
Stone number 2 actually looks brighter and cleaner to me when placed side by side with the other one. Look at the shot on your hand also...stone number 2 looks brighter as well to me.

Laila - I had noticed that as well. I''m not sure if it''s just the lighting or more due to the cut proportions (i.e. #2 is a little deeper) and if it''s a "higher" J? Would you pick #2 based on that?

 

[Circe]

I like #1: it looks ... crisper, somehow, and the table inclusion on stone #2 would bug me, even if it did blend. A mind-clean issue, I guess. That said, they''re both beautiful stones - and BIG! I will look forward to seeing the finished product.

 

[D&T]

I honestly wish there were videos from WF becuase you can't see the personalities of these stones via pictures only, kwim

but in one of the WF photo, the 2.33 looks like a higher graded J than the 2.4 and on the hand it also looks the brightest too Anyways, I think they are both beautiful and its a toss up. The 2.4 just has an oh so slight fatter arrows and I'm probably just overanalyzing and would go with whatever one your rep chooses, becuase they get to see it in person and probably has a completely different personality altogether. Either will be be beautiful imo.

 

[Dreamer_D]

What do the peers at WF say about the two diamonds? They have actually seen them. I am not personally too bothered by table inclusions for the right stone, they can be the easiest to hide since it is the most active part of the diamond. I actually see what the others are saying about the brightness, so I think you should ask. And maybe if you ask they can make a little video just for you? I know they are working on having that option generally available, but it isn''t ready for mass consumption yet because it isn''t as wel lset up at it is at GOG, for example.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 12/18/2009 8:50:02 AM
Author: jill_s

Date: 12/18/2009 1:13:16 AM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
Oh, and interesting about the K! I too have traded my K in for a higher color recently. I had a J, then a K and I felt the K was a little too tinted for me. The J never bugged me. The price was right though on a similarly sized G SI2 so that is what I got since I wasn''t going up in size. But if I even jump over the 1.5 mark it''ll be a J SI2 baby!


Can''t wait to see this one on your finger. How much bigger is it in mm?

DD - I''ve been reading your posts about upgrading to the G - congrats on that, I''m sure you''ll LOVE it! And that''s now making me second-guess if I''ve gone up *enough* in color to be happy. My previous J had faint fluor, so I don''t think that fluor really made it appear that much whiter. Who knows? The problem is that given my budget, to go up to even just an I color, I would only be able to stay around the 2 ct. mark and I really want something closer to 2.5. So my fingers are crossed that I will love this J as much as I loved my other one. My 1.97 faced up at 8.15mm, and this new stone faces up around 8.7mm. I''m hoping that''s enough to notice the difference!

Can''t wait to see your reset with the Truth head - I really prefer that head over the legato.

Well it is all about compromise. If I was able to get above 1.5ct for my money, or to the size you are going, and the way to do that was to have J color diamond, then I would get a J color diamond

You can always go up in color later. My primary reason for going up in color was that for my budget right now I could NOT go up in size... the only next step is above 1.5ct and that is out of the question right now. So I got a diamond that is much more ideal for me *at the size I am at*. If I can''t get bigger than I wanted much less tint!

I think that size different will be VERY noticable to you. Have WF take a picture next to a diamond the size of your current, it will bring it home.

 

[vespergirl]

I like stone #2 - it looks like a whiter J to me - I prefer higher color, and inclusions don''t bother me as much.