Need some help picking from these three diamonds

[cal_sig]

I''ve been reading posts and visiting jewellers for the past 6 months trying to find the perfect round diamond for my girlfriend. I''ve narrowed the search down to the following three, but could use some advice as to which one you would purchase and why. Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated.

1. 1.023 H VVS2 H&A - $5400 (Internet)
61.1% Depth
55.6% Table
35.1'' Crown
40.5'' Pavil
0.3 % Culet
1.4 % Girdle
Excellent Polish
Excellent Symmetry
No Flourescence

2. 1.015 H VS1 H&A - $5750 (Local Jeweller)
61.4% Depth
55.3% Table
35.0'' Crown
40.8'' Pavil
0.7% Culet
1.4% Girdle
Excellent Polish
Excellent Symmetry
No Flourescence

3. 0.976 H VVS2 (looks like H&A, but not cert) - $4760 (Local Jeweller)
61.0% Deth
54.7% Table
34.3'' Crown
41.1'' Pavil
0.2% Culet
1.4% Girdle
Excellent Polish
Excellent Symmetry
No Flourescence

 

[Stephan]

RUN for the first one, I believe that this diamond has a lot of fire and scintillation...
The price is not the best but the diamond is worth it.
Don't tell me that it is an EGL certificate !!!

 

[cal_sig]

No, all three are GIA certified and No. 2 also has an AGS triple 0 cert.

 

[Stephan]

No. 1 is the best.

 

[lucy]

hey cal_sig-
just wondering from your name if you are a sigma chi? EX?

 

[Mara]

My two cents is stone #1 or stone #2..depending on what is driving your purchase. Is it the VVS clarity over VS? Is it saving $400? Or is it seeing the stone offline first and then purchasing...hence you'd want to purchase offline vs online.

If there is no difference between online and offline, I would definitely go for stone #1...because it's got better clarity (more fun esp when you don't pay extra for it!) and its cheaper.

Nix stone #3 as it may be cheaper, but its also lighter on CTW so there is your price difference, and the HCA score is nowhere near the first two. Plus 'looks like H&A' is not H&A because it can look like H&A but be rejected for a true H&A grade due to lack of real detail etc.

My top choice would be #1 but if you wanted to buy offline, #2 sounds good too.

Best of luck!

 

[Heyjud]

I must say that I agree
Number ONE sounds best to me!

(go for it...!)

 

[cal_sig]

It looks to me like the decision really comes down to #1 or #2. I forgot to include the measurements for both, but am wondering now if #1 is too out of round and makes #2 a better stone.

#1 6.47-6.54x3.98
#2 6.46-6.49x3.98

From what I've learned, on paper #1 is a better stone for a better price, but I have some hesitation purchasing online and like being able to see the stone in person. I can have #1 sent to an independent appraiser like David Atlas, but in doing so, I start to offset the cost savings. While #1 is H&A, it is not laser inscribed on the girdle and the vendor cannot say whether or not it is crisp H&A. I live in the SF Bay Area and #2 is laser inscribed H&A as well as the GIA # from Derco Jewelers. I don't know if that adds any value or not. Again, any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 7/23/2003 1:37:29 PM cal_sig wrote:
I live in the SF Bay Area and #2 is laser inscribed H&A as well as the GIA # from Derco Jewelers. I don't know if that adds any value or not.

----------------

A laser inscription is good for security purposes, but you should be aware that the fact that it's got "H&A" inscribed on the girdle means **nothing**. There are currently no rules about laser inscriptions and no restrictions on what might be inscribed beyond possible deceptive trade practice regulations. I have begun to suspect that there are unscrupulous parties inscribing "H&A" on non-H&A stones because the inscription shows up on the grading report and the consumers then assume that the lab has somehow certified H&A when it's simply reporting what's inscribed. Word to the wise.

 

[cal_sig]

Please excuse my ignorance, but does GIA ever certify a diamond is H&A? I was told by the sales person, that the diamond has both a GIA and AGS000 cert and that GIA inscribed the H&A after certifying it as a H&A diamond.