Which WhiteFlash 1.5 carat F/VS2?

Hi! I just now saw your last question to me on your other thread. I was out of town for a couple of days. I don't find the knife edge uncomfortable. It is not natural for fingers to be pressed together tightly so it really isn't an issue. And as I said before, once you have a wedding band on, you really won't be able to feel the edge on the e-ring since the wedding band will be the same height off the finger.

I choose this one (c.) because it has the largest diameter of the three (just barely!):

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2517134.htm

Written by diamondseeker2006 » February 6th, 2012, 9:14 pm:Hi! I just now saw your last question to me on your other thread. I was out of town for a couple of days. I don't find the knife edge uncomfortable. It is not natural for fingers to be pressed together tightly so it really isn't an issue. And as I said before, once you have a wedding band on, you really won't be able to feel the edge on the e-ring since the wedding band will be the same height off the finger.

I choose this one (C) because it has the largest diameter of the three (just barely!):

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2517134.htm

B is the smallest so I would not choose it. A is fine, too.

I doubt the less than 0.1mm difference in diameter is noticeable in person with the naked eye. I picked B because it looks the cleanest in the images.

I just like a 1.5ct to be 7.4mm, so I'd choose the one that came closest to that. They are all going to be eyeclean.

In fact, this one is only a few hundred more and I would choose it instead of the three above assuming they verify that it is totally eyclean from any distance, of course.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2676050.htm

It is the almost the exact size of my diamond, by coincidence!

Actually, I like this one even better if the budget allows:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2696786.htm

Sounds like I'm basically making a trade-off between eye-clean images (which favors B, I think?) and size (which favors C, followed by A). On the one hand, a few hundreds of a millimeter seems very inconsequential, but on the other hand, the differences in the images seem pretty minor too. Any other perspectives?

DS: You've convinced me on the Vatche Tiffany...thanks for posting all those pictures and for the perspective on the knife edge. Also, I do like the 1.57 ct. options you found, but it'd be getting a little beyond my budget, to the point where I feel like I'd rather save the $800-1000 for something else. Plus I can't get exactly the same ring you got

The stones are all eye clean according to WF's definition, but I think it's more relevant whether they are eye clean to your definition. Please double check with WF if you haven't already.

In my experience, stones with inclusions that show up in the images in this size range may not be eye clean if you want your stone to be clean at 3-6 inches, especially if they are not clear/white.

If they are all eye clean to your definition, I would just pick the cheapest one.

I would choose C, then A, then B, personally. The diamonds in reality are very small compared to those pictures! Unless you are superman, you probably won't see inclusions in most VS2's. I certainly agree with asking the question regarding them being eyeclean from the top and sides at 3". I just hate to see you spend the money for a 1.5 and not get the size that a 1.5 should be. So if C is not eyeclean from the top and sides from 3", then I'd choose A. You can find stones in the 1.4 range that are 7.2-7.3, so I'd certainly want my 1.5 to be as close as possible to 7.4 since there is a price jump at that size. I totally understand sticking to a budget...it is a LOT of money, that is for sure! (My diamond is a G VS1, so we wouldn't really have totally been twins! )

One reason I am telling you this is that I have recently had a 7.6mm diamond and one that is just under 7.5mm and there is definitely a noticeable difference. I realize we are talking about less than a mm here, but when I was looking, I pretty much eliminated all 1.5's that were not 7.4mm because I would rather by a 1.4+mm stone at 7.25mm for thousands less. I don't have a problem with the one that is 7.36-7.38mm, but I probably would have ruled out the other two just on principle. That's really why I showed you those last two stones, because you would definitely have a visual increase in size to 7.5mm over 7.3mm for only $1000 more.

Did I ever show you my video? The first two stones are 7.48 on the left and 7.6mm second from the left. But the price difference between those two stones was much more than $1000. (Third stone was close to 7mm and fourth is 7.2+mm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwiM3COzjFM&feature=BFa&list=UUEV7slr-i-VduBBnfv9MxhA&lf=plcp

Quick question -- how important is it that I get WF to certify that the diamond is eyeclean from any distance? They confirmed that it was eyeclean at the top and sides from 6 inches, but refused to check if it was eyeclean from 3 inches, saying that it makes no practical difference. My salesperson (Victoria) pushed back really hard on this request. Should I be concerned? Or practically speaking, is the fact that it's eyeclean from 6 inches sufficient?

FYI I'm leaning B at the moment. I ruled out A because of the visible specks on the H&A image. C is still in the running but I'm just having a tough time imagining the 0.05 mm making a difference (though DS I understand your point now about getting as close as possible to 7.4 mm).

ALTHOUGH..I just saw that on the AGS report, the center of B is green ( http://pics3.whiteflash.com/jewelry/thumbnail.ashx?itemcode=ci_ags-104048599004.jpg&type=certhouse ) whereaas the center of C is red (http://pics3.whiteflash.com/jewelry/thumbnail.ashx?itemcode=ci_ags-104047005033.jpg&type=certhouse ). Does that mean anything?

IMO it just depends on what you find acceptable. Most people find it hard to focus at some point within 3-6 inches so I'm not surprised that WF says that there's no practical difference. I'm near sighted and have no trouble focusing at 3 inches so I always ask regardless. WF has a good return policy in any case so I wouldn't be too concerned. It's just somewhat of a hassle to return stones that you expect to be eye clean.

Written by bullgrid » February 7th, 2012, 8:35 pm:ALTHOUGH..I just saw that on the AGS report, the center of B is green ( http://pics3.whiteflash.com/jewelry/thumbnail.ashx?itemcode=ci_ags-104048599004.jpg&type=certhouse ) whereaas the center of C is red (http://pics3.whiteflash.com/jewelry/thumbnail.ashx?itemcode=ci_ags-104047005033.jpg&type=certhouse ). Does that mean anything?

Nothing to be concerned about. It's just that the cutoff point for a red/green center is somewhere around a pavilion angle of 40.7-40.8: http://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/optimal-agsl-light-performance-map-question-area-above-culet-t148354.html

Written by bullgrid » February 7th, 2012, 8:35 pm:Quick question -- how important is it that I get WF to certify that the diamond is eyeclean from any distance? They confirmed that it was eyeclean at the top and sides from 6 inches, but refused to check if it was eyeclean from 3 inches, saying that it makes no practical difference. My salesperson (Victoria) pushed back really hard on this request. Should I be concerned? Or practically speaking, is the fact that it's eyeclean from 6 inches sufficient?

FYI I'm leaning B at the moment. I ruled out A because of the visible specks on the H&A image. C is still in the running but I'm just having a tough time imagining the 0.05 mm making a difference (though DS I understand your point now about getting as close as possible to 7.4 mm).

ALTHOUGH..I just saw that on the AGS report, the center of B is green ( http://pics3.whiteflash.com/jewelry/thumbnail.ashx?itemcode=ci_ags-104048599004.jpg&type=certhouse ) whereaas the center of C is red (http://pics3.whiteflash.com/jewelry/thumbnail.ashx?itemcode=ci_ags-104047005033.jpg&type=certhouse ). Does that mean anything?

No, it doesn't mean anything. Those images on the AGS report are computer generated anyway and not the actual stone. All ACA's are top cut quality so you don't have to worry about that. You have to realize those stones are highly magnified, and I am pretty sure you don't need to worry about them being eyeclean from the top. I think the sides from 6 inches should be sufficient, really.

Thanks!! That's reassuring