Narrowing 11 diamonds to 3

[GoGetter]

Okay so I need some help eliminating choices from my search on James Allen. I'm going to see 3 diamonds in person at the James Allen offices in NYC, but need to narrow things down to 3. I'm looking for the biggest rock I can get that's a) eye clean and b) a beautiful ideal cut, but nothing too fancy like a signature cut. It'll be set into this: http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/tapered-tiffany-style-half-round-18k-white-gold-5540w18

First choice is the biggest, but I'm concerned about how it looks distorted in the picture, but people on the james allen chat seem to think its just the picture - http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-SI2-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1533991.asp

And this http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1548983.asp

And finally 9 more here (hoping this comparison link works) - http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds-search/?View=4&Tab=3&Comparison=1497659,1547920,1532894,1543300,1455791,1543632,1370934,1519073,1545045

Any easy eliminations based on having visible inclusions would be greatly appreciated - it's hard for me to tell.

Thank you!

 

[JulieN]

-3300, -3632, -5045, -7920

you have to ask them about the inclusions.

 

[GoGetter]

Thanks! That did provide some clarity.

Any thoughts on fault(s) of this guy? http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-SI2-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1533991.asp

 

[JulieN]

It is a little bit deep. You might not notice in person, but supposedly light performance drops off when dirty.

We can't see the prices once you reserve it... is it a very good deal?

-5791 is also ok

 

[04diamond<3]

I'm not a fan of that one or any of the other SI2's that were posted. My favorite was the 1.51 J SI1 (I'd make sure that it's eye clean). But if you don't mind a K, here's a stunning one:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/K-VS2-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1546157.asp

 

[GoGetter]

Yeah with pricescope discount its 8 even, so it seems like a really good deal. Someone from JA just said that the image is off kilter which is making it look a little weird, but I think I'm definitely going to take a look at it in person.

 

[JulieN]

Ok, so that one and -3632 if it is eye clean; -5045 which faces up really big. I would ask to see those.

 

[GoGetter]

Thanks for all the help! I ended up going for these three:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-SI2-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1533991.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1547920.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1370934.asp

 

[04diamond<3]

Thanks for all the help! I ended up going for these three:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-SI2-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1533991.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1547920.asp
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1370934.asp

That last one isn't on hold. But have you seen this? It's an I:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI2-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1531336.asp

 

[JulieN]

The last one, the 1.58 J SI1, remove that and pick another.

 

[GoGetter]

Thoughts on why the 1.58 should be taken out?

that I color one does look nice hmmm

 

[04diamond<3]

Thoughts on why the 1.58 should be taken out?

that I color one does look nice hmmm

The table on the 1.58 is a bit large. Personally, if you or your SO are picky about color, I'd definitely recommend the I just because you will definitely notice a J color.

 

[JulieN]

The I color one looks no good.

The 1.67 is already leaky, I left it in the lineup because you seem to really like it and it seems to be a good deal. You're going in person, so let your eyes be the judge.

The second, 1.50, is borderline.

The 1.58 is probably as leaky at the 1.67, possibly worse.

If you really like the 1.50, you can keep it in the lineup. But I think my original suggestions of 3632 and 5045 make more sense as a comparison: you get to see the 1.67 that might be a good deal, the 3632 is a little bit more traditionally proportioned, and the 5045 looks like a very nice example of a stone with larger table and shallow crown angle which will make it look almost like 2 cts. Since you're going in person, I wanted to give you a meaningful comparison. The three you have currently picked, I think, is not meaningful, I think they will look very similar to each other, and they are not top cuts.

 

[GoGetter]

Okay I'm starting to understand this stuff - especially using this https://www.pricescope.com/tools/hca

I ended up with these three:

Item #: 1533991
Item #: 1543300
Item #: 1545045

Thanks again