Thoughts on these 2 RB's? (IS images included)

[toolifog]

Hello,

Just heard back from JA regarding 3 stones I requested for analysis/comparison. Please take a look at the top two, as identified by their gemologist; he preferred option 1, indicating that he was "impressed" by its performance and ranking it as the brightest stone. I'm unsure though, there seems to be some leakage in option 1 that isn't present in the second option. Debating if I should jump on one of these, or keep looking..

Option 1: 1.02 I SI1, GIA XXX, $5500 PS price


Link to full size: http://71.194.204.158/option1_complete.png


Option 2: 1.10 I SI1, GIA XXX, $5700 PS price


Link to full size: http://71.194.204.158/option2_complete.png



Thoughts? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Gypsy]

IS for stone one is tilted. I'd go with gemologists recommendation.

 

[toolifog]

Thanks for your input. I'm curious, did you determine the IS in option 1 to be tilted based on what appears to be uneven leakage around the table (right side), or some other aspect of the image? Mostly just trying to learn what to look for.

All else being equal, would it be wise to choose a marginally smaller stone with slightly better light performance over a few points heavier stone with slightly lesser performance? Looking at the measurements, the 1.02 is 6.45x6.48x4.00mm while the 1.10 is 6.59x6.61x4.11mm. Put another way, would this be considered an imperceptible size difference, such that the slightly better performing, yet smaller stone would be perceived as larger or more prominent?

Hopefully my questions aren't completely asinine... I just find it incredibly difficult to get a sense for these things without being able to view analogous comparisons in person. Thanks again everyone.

 

[04diamond<3]

I like the second one better. But as far as noticing a size difference between a 6.45 and a 6.59mm, you won't really notice it...i would imagine if you stared at the two for a long time you might...

 

[toolifog]

Anyone else care to chime in? I'd really appreciate some more opinions, as I need to make a decision today. Should I pass on these and keep looking?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

They are both outstanding and assuming they are equally eyeclean, then absolutely choose the one that has the larger diameter (#2)! Easy choice!

 

[toolifog]

They are both outstanding and assuming they are equally eyeclean, then absolutely choose the one that has the larger diameter (#2)! Easy choice!

Thanks for your insight diamondseeker. Based on the response verbiage, it seems that option1 may be more eyeclean. Tough to say...

The actual response I received from the comparison is as follows:

You'll be happy to hear that diamond **option1** (1.02crt I SI1) has excellent fire, brilliance, and scintillation. This is a fantastic option and the gemologist was very impressed with its performance. It has a beautiful cut, and since its inclusions blend so well, it will face eye clean to the average eye.

Diamond **option2** (1.10crt I SI1) has great light performance and the gemologist ranked it as your second brightest option. It has a beautiful cut as well and will appear eye clean to the average eye. Diamond **option3--not shown** (1.01crt I SI1) is your third brightest option and offers very nice light performance. It blends somewhat, but you may pick up on its feather.

I highly recommend diamond **option1** because it's an excellent value and possesses superior light performance.

This response, combined with the images posted above, is all the information I have to work with. Perhaps going with the gemologist recommendation would be wise? Gah, analysis paralysis!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I would ask more questions about the second stone regarding clarity. I think 6.6mm is worth pursuing. That stone has an outstanding idealscope image so I see no reason it would not be as bright as the first one. This is when it is important to speak with the actual gemologist viewing the stone.

 

[ChrisES]

I don't think you'll be able to see a lick of difference between them. Same color, equally good ISes, and based on the gemologists slightly waffly descriptions they both sound eye-clean but perhaps not as eye-clean as some pickier PSers prefer.

For me it would come down to a little more size vs a little less cost. Given how close the costs are I would go bigger, but I also agree with diamondseeker that it would be worth following up on that stone. You might ask if the gemologist can expound on the difference in brightness, what causes it, would it be noticeable once outside of a lab, etc.

 

[toolifog]

Thanks guys. I've submitted a request for the gemologist to elaborate regarding light performance differences between the two stones, as well as assess inclusion characteristics/eyeclean distance for the 1.10. I'll post the results when I receive a response. Thanks again.

 

[toolifog]

Just received an update.

A few excerpts from their response:

**Referring to option 2**
The surface graining/twinning shouldn't be picked up by the unaided eye, but they are what caused it to be a close second in terms of light performance.

When it comes to Idealscope images of diamonds, while they are great at "predicting" light performance of the diamond, nothing compares to a trained eye looking at the same diamond and giving us feedback. The trained eye of a gemologist will trump any tool used to "predict" the light performance and I can assure you that diamond **option 1** is the best performer of the three diamonds.

Sounds to me like their light performance is nearly equivalent, with the minor graining/twinning in option 2 causing the perceived difference. I suppose my untrained eye would likely never notice a difference (aside from size). Thoughts?

 

[yssie]

I don't think you'll be able to see a lick of difference between them.

Ditto.
For size, light return, type of light return, quantity of light return...
I'd go with the cheaper one and call it a day.

 

[ChrisES]

I don't think you'll be able to see a lick of difference between them.

Ditto.
For size, light return, type of light return, quantity of light return...
I'd go with the cheaper one and call it a day.

This was actually my first instinct, but then I thought that it might be worth $200 for the mental satisfaction of "bigger than 6.5mm." It would only be mental though.

The fact that the gemologist insists that the light performance is every so slightly better on the cheaper stone might in turn trump bigger.

Sleep on it, flip a coin, whatever. They're both great.

 

[toolifog]

Thanks again for your input, everyone, it's extremely helpful. I hate to throw a wrench in the works, but there's one more stone that I'd love to get opinions on:


Option 3: 1.23 I SI2, GIA XXX, 1.5 HCA , $6200



Link to full size: http://71.194.204.158/option3_complete.png



Confirmed to be eye-clean with a prongable feather inclusion. Idealscope looks excellent to my untrained eyes. Though it'd be stretching my budget a bit, seems like a great value and the extra size would be really nice....

I'll be making the purchase on Monday, but would love some additional input to mull over the next 2 days. Thoughts?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I like the size increase, but I am not wild about the feather being near the girdle. But I just prefer higher clarity than SI2 in general for an engagement ring. I'd probably go with the 6.6mm stone since the light performance was close (as you said, you probably couldn't tell the difference from the other one).

 

[toolifog]

I like the size increase, but I am not wild about the feather being near the girdle. But I just prefer higher clarity than SI2 in general for an engagement ring. I'd probably go with the 6.6mm stone since the light performance was close (as you said, you probably couldn't tell the difference from the other one).

Is there some specific drawback with having an inclusion near the girdle? I was under the impression it's the about the best possible placement, given that it can be hidden by a prong.

I'd definitely prefer a higher clarity stone, but the 1.23 carat, 6.9mm size is enticing... Ugh, such a tough decision!