I''ve narrowed it down to two, would love some opinions!

[gryffindor]

These are the two round brilliants I am trying to decide between. At this point, I'm concerned about the cut - looking for maximum sparkle here. Each stone has 1 major off-center inclusion in it. I like the shape of the inclusion in the D more, it is a straight crystal whereas the inclusion in the F is more a round crystal. However, I'm not opposed to getting the F either since it is slightly larger and a few hundred less. I'd like some objective opinions here. When I put them into the HCA, the D is a 2.7 while the F is a 1.8. The hearts and arrows are strong on the D, not as strong on the F (sorry, I'm not sure if I described that correctly).

#1:
7.78 - 7.83 x 4.86 mm
Carat: 1.82
Color: F
Clarity: SI2
Cut, Polish, Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: none

Table: 55%
Depth: 62.3%
crown: 36.0
pavillion: 40.6
Girdle: thin to medium

#2:
7.71 - 7.77 x 4.81 mm
Carat: 1.79
Color: D
Clarity: SI2
Cut, Polish, Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: faint

Table: 57%
Depth: 62.1%
Crown: 35.5
Pavillion: 40.8
Girdle: medium to slightly thick

 

[Mrs W]

If cut is your main objective then i would probley pass on both stones....sorry

 

[honey22]

Why have you narrowed it down to these stones in particular? Are they eyeclean? I would be worried about SI2 inclusions under the table, I doubt they would be eyeclean. Why not drop a little in size and up in clarity, or drop colour and up clarity and get a better cut stone?

 

[gryffindor]

At this point, I want to get a stone into FF's hands so the setting can be made and an engagement can happen. He won't make the engagement official to our families until he has the actual ring to give me, no substitutions.

I have looked at a lot of stones over the past 6 weeks. This included going out of town to see some at one of the recommended vendors on here. I want to decide between these two because I am willing to compromise on clarity to get the size and color I want within our budget. I have gone to see these stones four or five times now and my jeweler has been very patient. I get the feeling that clarity is huge around here. However, I read the helpful threads archive on "eye clean" and I am happy with the imperfections in clarity present in either stone. The presence of these inclusions really don't bother me.

Since I have carat, color, and clarity decided upon, the last thing I'm trying to judge is cut. This is the hardest for me to "visualize." I think it would be easier for me to make a decision if the stones were already set since I want to judge the look of the whole ring (diamond sparkle + setting attractiveness) and not just the diamond. I would love to be able to continue searching, but I don't have time anymore. I see myself purchasing other stones in the future, so there is always next time!

Thanks for your help so far!

Any other opinions on the cut of either diamond?

 

[Mrs W]

well, every thing else is good but the crown angles are just supposed to be like 33.9-35.1......yours are not, If these were the last 2 diamonds on earth i would choose #2 but i know you can do better on cut in another diamond. Maybe we could help you find a good stone if you gave us your budget?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/27/2008 2:03:13 AM
Author: Mrs W
well, every thing else is good but the crown angles are just supposed to be like 33.9-35.1......yours are not, If these were the last 2 diamonds on earth i would choose #2 but i know you can do better on cut in another diamond. Maybe we could help you find a good stone if you gave us your budget?

Actually you can have more leeway with crown angles than pavilion, the first diamond falls into what we call fiery ideal cut range. A steeper crown can aid the production of fire if the pavilion angle is a good fit. Gryff it would appear the first diamond is the better performer here, but you have an advantage on judging these diamonds as you have seen them - and if you want an arrow pattern then maybe consider a branded hearts and arrows diamond, or look at some more?

 

[Mrs W]

gryffindor, sorry for giving you some wrong info about the crown angles, It sounds like i only know 1 kind of diamond and that is TIC. So, i read up on steeper crown angles and here is what i got.....35.5+ crown angle can be nice too, it would be a FIC. So both of your diamonds could be nice. According to the HCA stone #1 is better. I found this thread very informative....

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-on-fic-diamonds.34377/

 

[neatfreak]

I''d prefer the F here if these are our 2 options.

 

[gryffindor]

I returned home on Monday thinking I''d make a decision this week, only to have the jeweler call me to say the D is sold! Someone swooped it up on the day after Thanksgiving. Oh well. I went back and looked at the F today, but I asked him to bring in some more stones next week to compare.

Thank you everyone for your help and knowledge. I really appreciate it!

 

[John P]

Date: 11/27/2008 3:02:30 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/27/2008 2:03:13 AM
Author: Mrs W
well, every thing else is good but the crown angles are just supposed to be like 33.9-35.1......yours are not, If these were the last 2 diamonds on earth i would choose #2 but i know you can do better on cut in another diamond. Maybe we could help you find a good stone if you gave us your budget?

Actually you can have more leeway with crown angles than pavilion, the first diamond falls into what we call fiery ideal cut range. A steeper crown can aid the production of fire if the pavilion angle is a good fit. Gryff it would appear the first diamond is the better performer here, but you have an advantage on judging these diamonds as you have seen them - and if you want an arrow pattern then maybe consider a branded hearts and arrows diamond, or look at some more?

Good point Lorelei. In fact, the inverse crown-pavilion relationship can be extended both ways. While a range of numbers can be useful to guide someone to a certain make there are possibilities beyond the oft-quoted ranges we see here... Some of them may require some qualification or description, but there are stunning combos outside the 'normal' ranges.

Here is an example.

Table 55%
Crown Angle 37.0 degrees
Pavilion Angle 40.2 degrees

The numbers don't seem too friendly but sometimes a stone will be polished to this kind of configuration. I have graded several that were beautiful. While it requires attention to all the numbers, minors especially, as well as cut consistency there are some unconventional humdingers out there (by the way, the numbers above also qualify for AGS Ideal in light performance).

 

[strmrdr]

How was the obstruction on the 40.2 pavilion John?
I have seen a 40/38.2/54T/79lgf% that was awesome from 12" or more but a little dark at 8".
But better than a lot of oecs so was actually pretty.

 

[John P]

Date: 12/5/2008 12:16:54 AM
Author: strmrdr

How was the obstruction on the 40.2 pavilion John?
I have seen a 40/38.2/54T/79lgf% that was awesome from 12' or more but a little dark at 8'.
But better than a lot of oecs so was actually pretty.

The specific stone I'm thinking of @ 40.2/37.0 had no problems until you got pretty close (actually 36.9 but we rounded in that GIA workshop). It had long lower halves. I'd need to get my paperwork out but certainly > 80%. I thought it was tiny a bit dug out too but we were not making that evaluation so I can't say for certain. I've graded a few others with shallow pavilions and high crowns that Garry would no doubt like. I'm with you on 8" as a threshold for the good ones and the ones that survived closest had good cut precision and long lower halves... Usually a little bit small for their weight.

 

[JulieN]

I''m inclined to agree with HCA, and would go with the F. Good luck!

 

[Lorelei]

Thankees Sir, it is important to remember to keep an open mind and that sometimes stones with less 'conventional' proportions that we see here can be screamers! Plus not everyone reading or posting here is looking for the same type of cut quality that most of the cut nuts prefer. It also proves you don't always have to fear a shallower pavilion angle from your experience.