Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

This or That (Two RB 1.5-2 ct)

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
B

boredstiff

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
145
Hello,

Which diamond would you experts prefer?

Diamond A:
1.55 ct / I / SI1 (very eye clean)
7.42*7.45*4.60
Ex/Ex/No Fluor
Depth: 61.9%
Table: 55.0%
Crown: 34.5
Pavilion: 40.8
Star: 50%
Lower Facet: 80%
HCA: 1.3
~$8,500

Diamond B:
1.7 ct / H / SI1 (very eye clean)
7.64*7.66*4.71
Ex/Ex/No Fluor
Depth: 61.6%
Table: 57.0%
Crown: 35.0
Pavilion: 40.6
Star: 55%
Lower Facet: 75%
HCA: 0.9
~$11,000

Anything about cut I should be worried about? What about going from H to I?

Thanks in advance for helping out a n00b!
 
Another question I have is what star to LGF ratio should I be looking for? What produces the best look? If there are different looks, can you describe? Thanks!
 
I'm not an expert but I'd go for the bigger H stone, if money was not an issue.
 
Date: 8/18/2009 1:17:41 AM
Author: boredstiff
Another question I have is what star to LGF ratio should I be looking for? What produces the best look? If there are different looks, can you describe? Thanks!
Click to expand...
It depends, the crown and pavilion angles are most important but the star and LGF percents can help fine tune the performance so to speak. With a well cut and balanced stone various combos of star and LGF %'s will work, star normally between 50 - 60% and LGF of 75 - 80% is a good range. But in any case an Idealscope or ASET image is always useful to see how well everything works together.

See more here to also read how these can affect what you see for performance.

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/articles.aspx?articleid=154&zoneid=14

http://www.goodoldgold.com/classic.php?page=minor_facets.htm

Both diamonds look great also, next step would be to get Idealscope images for each if available.

http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=education-performance
 
dependent on each stone, but with the averaging and rounding of the report numbers, best to just get an IS/ASET image.

From the numbers, both look good.
 
Date: 8/18/2009 2:14:28 AM
Author: Phoenix
I''m not an expert but I''d go for the bigger H stone, if money was not an issue.
Click to expand...

Ditto
 
Both have potential, would like an IS if possible. If not, I''d probably opt for the first.
 
Thanks for the feedback. $2,500 is a pretty big difference in price. I''ve asked for IS images and will post when I get them.
 
Date: 8/18/2009 5:10:38 AM
Author: Lorelei


It depends, the crown and pavilion angles are most important but the star and LGF percents can help fine tune the performance so to speak. With a well cut and balanced stone various combos of star and LGF %''s will work, star normally between 50 - 60% and LGF of 75 - 80% is a good range. But in any case an Idealscope or ASET image is always useful to see how well everything works together.


See more here to also read how these can affect what you see for performance.


http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/articles.aspx?articleid=154&zoneid=14


http://www.goodoldgold.com/classic.php?page=minor_facets.htm


Both diamonds look great also, next step would be to get Idealscope images for each if available.


http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=education-performance
Click to expand...

Thanks Lorelei. I read the GOG link. So in the IS, I should look for a little bit of black at the arrow shafts for fire and scintillation? What other details should I look for? I never would have thought to look for that.
 
IS image for 1.7 ct (Diamond B):

1255291.jpg
 
Second IS:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9813/secondl.jpg
 
Trying again...keep getting error message...

IS image for Diamond A (1.55 ct)

second11111111111111111.jpg
 
Sorry for all the back to back messages. I think I prefer diamond A (the cheaper 1.55 ct.) what do you guys think?

It would help if someone could recommend another top diamond w/ similar specs to compare against
 
Date: 8/20/2009 6:56:30 PM
Author: Ellen
They both look great, I'd go for the first.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ellen. And this is my fault b/c I posted the pictures in reverse order. But by first, do you mean diamond A or the first IS picture I posted? :)
 
Both look good to me. Go with the 1.55c if you prefer it.
 
Both look great!
 
Date: 8/20/2009 8:37:56 PM
Author: boredstiff

Date: 8/20/2009 6:56:30 PM
Author: Ellen
They both look great, I''d go for the first.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ellen. And this is my fault b/c I posted the pictures in reverse order. But by first, do you mean diamond A or the first IS picture I posted? :)
Click to expand...
Sorry I wasn''t clear, I meant the 1.55! It looks like a great diamond.
28.gif
 
Thanks for the feedback. I released the 1.7 ct back into the wild. I will ask the gemologist to confirm that the 1.55 is eye clean and maybe request any additional information I can get my hands on, e.g., sarin report, etc. so I know I am making the right decision...

I don''t plan on proposing for a while, do you think it is safe to keep it in a safe deposit box at the bank without insuring it?
 
I don''t know, I tend to be overly cautious when it comes to diamonds. If it were me, I''d insure it as soon as I got it. But that''s just me!
 
I think I''m going with the 1.55 I-SI1. I noticed some asymmetry in the IS. I made the attached animated GIF to highlight the asymmetry. The image is deeper red on one side than the other. Is this from the person''s shadow and limitations of the IS or is this intrinsic to the diamond?

Thanks!

f403d1914a8afcc2593fdb22df4c057f.gif
 
Here''s a better animation:

e1a30c7d56a068faff78100d675e5404.gif
 
If you are planning on a platinum engagement ring, I would stay with H color assuming GIA or AGS certs--if EGL, I would not go lower than G. While platinum can enhance the whiteness of a diamond, the yellower a diamond is, the more the yellow will show, and color is something you can see with the naked eye, unlike clarity, where inclusions and features are generally invisible to the naked eye unless seriously pronounced. The key in clarity is a clean table. Cut, proportion, fire, the overall life of the stone, often this you will not know until you actually see it in person, so if your supplier has a return or exchange policy take advantage of it if you are not completely satisfied.
 
Thanks for the feedback, Matt. Due to budgetary reasons, I will try the I, but will return if it is too tinted for my tastes.

did you have any thoughts about the asymmetry in the idealscope?

Also, James Allen offers Sarin reports. Should I ask for a Sarin report, or is this largely unnecessary in light of the pavilion and crown angles on the GIA report?

I was going to ask the gemologist if the stone is eye clean and whether it is a high-I or low-I. anything else I should ask her?
 
Date: 8/24/2009 4:45:49 PM
Author: boredstiff

I think I''m going with the 1.55 I-SI1. I noticed some asymmetry in the IS. I made the attached animated GIF to highlight the asymmetry. The image is deeper red on one side than the other. Is this from the person''s shadow and limitations of the IS or is this intrinsic to the diamond?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
lol I can see that! I think this is a first.
9.gif
Funny.

I would ask JA about the stone looking off. It could be because the diamond was slightly tilted, or not, most likely the former. See what they say. And I see no reason not to get a Sarin, the more info on a diamond the better.


As for I color in WG/Plat, with all due respect to Matthew, a very well cut (key) I or lower for that matter, is not going to look "yellow", slightly creamy might be a better description, but not yellow. I think all the ladies on this board with I''s and lower would agree.
2.gif


Here''s an interesting thread.
1.gif
 
Date: 8/24/2009 9:01:04 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/24/2009 4:45:49 PM
Author: boredstiff

I think I''m going with the 1.55 I-SI1. I noticed some asymmetry in the IS. I made the attached animated GIF to highlight the asymmetry. The image is deeper red on one side than the other. Is this from the person''s shadow and limitations of the IS or is this intrinsic to the diamond?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
lol I can see that! I think this is a first.
9.gif
Funny.

I would ask JA about the stone looking off. It could be because the diamond was slightly tilted, or not, most likely the former. See what they say. And I see no reason not to get a Sarin, the more info on a diamond the better.


As for I color in WG/Plat, with all due respect to Matthew, a very well cut (key) I or lower for that matter, is not going to look ''yellow'', slightly creamy might be a better description, but not yellow. I think all the ladies on this board with I''s and lower would agree.
2.gif


Here''s an interesting thread.
1.gif
Click to expand...
This one would.
4.gif
 
28.gif
 
Unfortunately, the gemologist said that this stone is not eye-clean. Guess I misread the GIA report. The inclusion is depicted as a circle, but I guess that means the whole thing is a black carbon mass.

I''ve asked them to provide IS images of some additional stones and I will post here when I get them.
 
Sorry to hear that, we''ll be watching for the new diamonds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top