Need feedback on these diamonds!:

[Carnell]

OK. I think I have narrowed down the list to 5 diamonds. 1 of them are from Blue Nile and 4 are from White Flash. Please give me your preference on these. I am a newbie to this so I am hoping you guys will show me something I am missing on these. Thanks for your help! I will start from the least expensive to the most expensive. I included the links as well so you can look at the inclusions.


(1)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6131506#

Item Code: AGS-6131506
HCA Score: 1.1 (EX/EX/EX/VG)(Spread was VG)
Price: $7,077 (Pricescope Discount)
Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.510
Color: J
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 60.9
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.7
Pavilion %: 42.8
Girdle: Thin - Med
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 7.42-7.44X4.52

I have a call into WhiteFlash on the clarity and they are having it pulled and described. They are also going to put a clearer image on the report so I can see the inclusions since it is not showing up on the current one. It seems to be an eye clean SI2. Needless to say, the price is the thing this one has over the other ones below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(2)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=GIA-13111631

Item Code: GIA-13111631
HCA Score: 1.2 (EX/EX/EX/VG)(Spread was VG)
Price: $8,191 (Pricescope discount)
Report: GIA
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 1.54
Color: I
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.9
Table: 57
Crown Angle: 34.4
Crown %: 14.7
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 42.9
Girdle: MEDIUM Faceted
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 7.44-7.48X4.54

It seems there are only crystals and clouds on this one but I dont think any are visible to the naked eye even though they seem to be on the eye of the diamond. I like the fact that this one is SI1 and I colored instead of SI2 and J colored like the previous one eventhough I dont think you could tell a difference with the naked eye unless the previous one''s report is just not showing up good on the website. I will find this out later.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=GIA-14272182

Item Code: GIA-14272182
HCA Score: 1.4 (EX/EX/EX/VG)(Spread was VG)
Price: $8,019.00 (Pricescope Discount)
Report: GIA
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 1.64
Color: I
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 60.4
Table: 57
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 14.7
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43
Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 7.62-7.68X4.62

I think the advantages of this one over the previous 2 is size. The spread is bigger at 7.62 instead of 7.42 and 7.44 and the total weight is bigger at 1.64 instead of 1.51 and 1.54. Will this diamond look clearly bigger than the previous 2 if you are really looking at? The disadvantage on this one is it is not eye clean. It has one major inclusion but will anybody notice it just looking at it on my fiance''s finger? I guess I have to measure how much bigger this one will look compared to the previous 2 vs having the inclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4)

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00345524&query=2&filter_id=0

Stock number: LD00345524
HCA Score: .6 (EX/EX/EX/EX)(All 4 are EX!!!)
Carat weight: 1.53
Cut: Ideal
Color: I
Clarity: SI2
Depth %: 60.3%
Table %: 56%
Symmetry: Ideal
Polish: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium, faceted
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 7.48x7.51x4.52 mm

I like that it scored EX on all 4 categories on the HCA and I do not see any major inclusions on this one even though it is a SI2 grade. I would have to make sure of the report before buying though. The size and spread is not as big as 2 others on here. Also, Blue Nile seems to be a little more expensive than White Flash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5)

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-5950101

Item Code: AGS-5950101
HCA Score: .6 (EX/EX/EX/EX)(All 4 are EX!!!)
Price: $8,955 (Pricescope discount)
Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.613
Color: J
Clarity: VS2
Depth: 60
Table: 56
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown %: 15.1
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Pavilion %: 42.8
Girdle: Thin Faceted
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 7.63-7.65X4.59

This one is VS2 which is nice and the weight and spread is bigger than all except #3. I also like the fact that on the HCA, all 4 categories are Excellent. The minus on this one is the price and it is J colored.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. There it is. Please let me know what you think of each and if I am missing something on any of these. THANKS!!!

 

[Mara]

wow these are all different enough where it''s hard to comment....because alot of it depends on your priorities...

i like #1 because i have a stellar J SI2 from WF and i adore it. mine is a 1.60 J SI2 and i wouldn''t trade it for a VS or a G or anything. it has one dark tiny inclusion that is visible with your eye right against the stone but other than that, nothing visible. great deal. your numbers on #1 are great but the only thing i dont love is that the spread is kind of small compared to your other options.

#3 is a really nice option in all categories except that it''s not eye-clean. do you know which inclusion will show up more...the smattering of black carbon dots or that feather across the table? hard to tell from the picture but it looks like one or the other may be visible, probably the black carbon dots more than the feather. but again, ask about how far away you''d need to be to see the inclusions on this. if brian or whoever else at WF has to put their eye close to the stone to see them, i think you''d be safe with regular wear. but if on the hand 3-4 feet away they can be seen at various angles then that may bother you.

#5 is a nice option too due to size and all the specs etc...but the price is just so much more than the first one!

so i dont know what your priorities are...aka if it''s the biggest diamond for under $9k then get #5. but if budget was really more around $7500 and you would be stretching to get to $8900 or something...then really consider option #1 because it looks very nice. if you feel like inclusions may not bother you, i like #3.

it''s really hard to say definitively though! if *I* were buying, I''d look very hard at #3 on those inclusions because the size and price and everything else is sweet....but some people do not like any hint of visible inclusions. the fact you are considering VS2''s as well says to me you may be bothered by seeing anything in the stone? if so, stick with a very eye clean SI...so maybe #1 or #5....the diff between #1 and #5 for me is just the price. and a big difference there!!

good luck!

 

[Carnell]

I just wonder how much bigger #3 and #4 will look compared to the other 3 diamonds. (???)

I guess I will call to see how visible that inclusion on #3 is.

Others, please give me your opinions! Thanks!!!

 

[Mara]

My opinion is that you can see a .20mm difference in that size of stone...some may argue not...but we had a 7mm and a 7.15mm side by side once and could easily pick out which is bigger. Even on the hand it looked bigger.

But could you see a .10mm difference as the stones get bigger? Probably not really.

So again, if size is a big priority, then consider one of the bigger ones. Shrinkage can set in fast mentally!

Otherwise get one of the ~1.5c''s which is still a very good size.

 

[Carnell]

Out of the 1.5''s, I will probably pick #1 if the clarity comes back eye clean with no major inclusions. I am waiting for that info. I still do not know on whether to pay the extra money for #2 or #5 for a little more size. It will be an easier decision if there #1 is not eye clean but is hard to pay about 1k more for #2 when it has it is not eye clean and it is even harder to pay $1900 more for #5 if #1 is eye clean.

 

[fire&ice]

I follow your logic. But, if one doesn''t pan out to be relatively eyeclean - I like the #3 - it bigger & not a magic mark (i.e 1.75) to make the price jump.

I don''t know - if you can swing the extra 1k - I like 3 for the value, better color & size.

Maybe you can have someone pull both of the stones at WF & report about the pros and cons of both.

Good luck.

 

[Dancing Fire]

gang,don't forget #1 and #5 is ACA H&A stone. we must compare apple to apple.

 

[Mara]

Date: 5/23/2005 8:02:13 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
gang,don''t forget #1 and #5 is ACA H&A stone. we must compare apple to apple.

Honestly that is superfluous to me...as long as the specs are hot and the Idealscope images are great with prominent arrows, I would take a nonACA over an ACA if the rest of the priorities were spot on for me.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/23/2005 8:20:57 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 5/23/2005 8:02:13 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
gang,don''t forget #1 and #5 is ACA H&A stone. we must compare apple to apple.

Honestly that is superfluous to me...as long as the specs are hot and the Idealscope images are great with prominent arrows, I would take a nonACA over an ACA if the rest of the priorities were spot on for me.

Mara
i was refering to the price premium for ACA,not the cut quality.i agree,if a stone is well cut it doesn''t matter.

 

[Mara]

oh yes....take prices into consideration re: branding as well.

 

[Carnell]

Did you look at the idealscope and the magnified view of #3? Also, I will post the links again to #1 and #3 so anybody can look at it.

#1) Seems to be pretty good clarity for a SI2. It appears to be eye clean with no major inclusions.

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6131506#

#3) This one has a little better color and better spread and weight (size) but the inclusion seems visible to me. I can call and ask how visible it is to the naked eye I guess.

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=GIA-14272182#

 

[belle]

Date: 5/24/2005 10:36:50 AM
Author: Carnell
#3) This one has a little better color and better spread and weight (size) but the inclusion seems visible to me. I can call and ask how visible it is to the naked eye I guess.

yes, that would be a good idea. remember, those pics are greatly magnified so they will look much bigger than they actually are.

 

[Mara]

Date: 5/24/2005 10:36:50 AM
Author: Carnell
Did you look at the idealscope and the magnified view of #3? Also, I will post the links again to #1 and #3 so anybody can look at it.

#1) Seems to be pretty good clarity for a SI2. It appears to be eye clean with no major inclusions.

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6131506#

#3) This one has a little better color and better spread and weight (size) but the inclusion seems visible to me. I can call and ask how visible it is to the naked eye I guess.

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=GIA-14272182#

Definitely, please call WhiteFlash to ask them about these stones ASAP. You don''t have all the information yet to make an educated decision and we have never seen these stones, we can only see what you see re: the images. WF has them in-house and could pull them to look at them and discuss them with you.

So please call them, ask them about the inclusions on those stones, and then when you have more information, I''m sure it will help you (and us). If #3 is 99% eye clean I would say go for that one, for me it has the best ''blend'' of priorities. But if #3 has inclusions that may be visible per my original post (it looks like the black smattering of carbon inclusions MAY be visible but I''m not sure from how far away, that is the important Q), and #1 does not, then you may have a decision.

Good luck.

 

[Carnell]

I am starting to lean towards #5 now or maybe #1. If I only have to spend $900 more for #5 over #3, then I will probably go with #5. My original budget was 7k to 10k and this is within the budget at $8955. I think I was either going to get #1 or #5 because the price difference is so much. It is not that much of a difference between #3 and #5 though. If #3 and #5 were priced the same or within $300-$400, would you not take #5? I know #5 is J colored but the cut is so good, I doubt there is a difference in I and J colors. I think my decision is #1 or #5.

 

[Mara]

Did you CALL WhiteFlash yet?

Again, you do not have all the information on #1 which is still a contender. Please call.

 

[Carnell]

Here is the info on #1 from WF:

Per your request, I have had one of our diamond experts look at the diamond and he has confirmed that it is eye-clean from the face up position. The standard that is used industry wide for eye-clean when viewing the diamond is at 8-12 inches away from the diamond. Please keep in mind that the image that I provided to you is at 40x magnification. To put everything into perspective, that actual size of the diamond is only 7.42-7.44X4.52. The magnified picture is HUGE compared to the actual size of the diamond!

This diamond is an amazing deal! We feel very confident that you will love this diamond and it will be eye-clean!

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

I think #1 is the best deal but am I really going for the best deal? I think she will very happy with both of them but I think #5 is considerably bigger at 7.63 vs 7.42 spread and .103 more wt. and I may always have doubts about not going bigger. The spread is the bigger selling pt to me than the VS2 vs SI2 since the SI2 is eye clean. If she is always going to have this one, is $1800 more that big of a deal? I guess these are questions I am asking myself now. haha Well, at least I have it narrowed down to 2 now. Will make a decision soon.

 

[belle]

Date: 5/24/2005 1:08:01 PM
Author: Carnell
Here is the info on #1 from WF:

Per your request, I have had one of our diamond experts look at the diamond and he has confirmed that it is eye-clean from the face up position. The standard that is used industry wide for eye-clean when viewing the diamond is at 8-12 inches away from the diamond. Please keep in mind that the image that I provided to you is at 40x magnification. To put everything into perspective, that actual size of the diamond is only 7.42-7.44X4.52. The magnified picture is HUGE compared to the actual size of the diamond!

This diamond is an amazing deal! We feel very confident that you will love this diamond and it will be eye-clean!

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

I think #1 is the best deal but am I really going for the best deal? I think she will very happy with both of them but I think #5 is considerably bigger at 7.63 vs 7.42 spread and .103 more wt. and I may always have doubts about not going bigger. The spread is the bigger selling pt to me than the VS2 vs SI2 since the SI2 is eye clean. If she is always going to have this one, is $1800 more than big of a deal? I guess these are questions I am asking myself now. haha Well, at least I have it narrowed down to 2 now. Will make a decision soon.

definitely go with what you are comfortable with. best of luck in your decision!

 

[researcher]

I don''t know anything about rounds, but I would most likely pick #5. The reason? Just because it''s eye clean using the standard definition doesn''t mean it''s 100% eye clean. I have a friend who has an F/SI2 stone and refuses to let people look at it up close because of her inclusions. While the majority of people will not look at the diamond from a distance of less than 12 inches, the people who are closer to the two of you probably will. I just think it would suck to be embarrassed to let people really check out your stone.

That being said, my own stone is an SI1 and is 100% eye clean. There are exceptions to the rule, but I don''t think it''s as likely with SI2 stones as SI1. However, if #1 is 100% eye clean I would jump all over that stone. If it''s not, #5 would be my choice hands down.

 

[Carnell]

They are pulling them both to compare the sizes to see what the difference is to the naked eye. I will let you know my decision soon. Thanks.