Reserved an ACA today

[babadi]

If you were me, would you buy this?

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4042801.htm

Thanks!

 

[beardog]

Make sure it's held because the link didn't mention that it was unavailable.
I think it looks perfect. You might want to ask the associate about the crystal to the left of 6oclock but yea I'd but that if I were me

 

[sledge]

All-freakin'-day long!

Great pick! Love the proportions and very, very clean for a VS2. In the video it looks like a couple of the crystals are black, but they are located off the table and without magnification I don't think you will ever see them.

Just out of curiosity, have you and the future Mrs looked at diamonds and have you confirmed you are both okay with an H color? It's a very good value for most people; however, depending on the setting you use you can see a smidge of tint from the sides. I bought my own fiancee an H VS2 stone and thought I was safe. Turns out she is very color sensitive so she can see the tint, but she is also color tolerant meaning that while she sees it, she is not bothered by it.

I mention this because if I got a re-do on my purchase, I would go up in color as my intention was that she always saw a colorless diamond. So while H works for most, I am now more careful with color.

Edited to Add:
Here are some pics of my fiancee's BGD Blue H VS2 for reference.

 

[beardog]

Buy* not but

 

[HappyNewLife]

without hesitation. When I bought my wife's 1.7 G/SI1 NON ideal (60/60 diamond), I paid that. Diamond prices have come down considerably since I bought in 2014 - I'd get that diamond in a heartbeat!

 

[beardog]

without hesitation. When I bought my wife's 1.7 G/SI1 NON ideal (60/60 diamond), I paid that. Diamond prices have come down considerably since I bought in 2014 - I'd get that diamond in a heartbeat!

hi happy, I'm gonna make a post this weekend about ACA flouresence. Hope you catch it & share your thoughts. I've seen you mention it before

 

[doberman]

Beautiful stone! ACAs get a lot of love on this board, and for good reason.

 

[AprilBaby]

Lovely!

 

[marcy]

Beautiful diamond.

 

[holeydonut]

I agree with sledge on this... the stone is cut very well (whiteflash ACAs almost all have amazing proportions). You’ve seen the AGS cert and inclusions, and they should be ok since they’re off of the table.

Assuming you posted here to get some possible issues to address... the type of setting you choose may cause problems with a H color. An H solitaire in yellow Gold has no contrasting stones to compare against, and the ACA cut should face up very bright.

But many halo and pavé settings use F/G melee, and a platinum or white gold setting may provide enough contrast to cause an H to show slightly yellow.

I went with a G color set in platinum with F/G melee, and I’ve noticed the center stone is just a touch yellow compared to the setting in certain situations when viewed from the side. Maybe it’s just catching a bad reflection/light, but if I had to do this over again I would have gone with an F.

 

[babadi]

Great insight, thanks all! We've taken a look at some stones in person and my girlfriend found she wasn't easily able to distinguish up to I color, so I'm hoping for the best Good advice on the settings -- in particular, we were considering a pave setting with stones on the prongs, but it sounds like we may need to exercise caution on that.

 

[sledge]

Great insight, thanks all! We've taken a look at some stones in person and my girlfriend found she wasn't easily able to distinguish up to I color, so I'm hoping for the best Good advice on the settings -- in particular, we were considering a pave setting with stones on the prongs, but it sounds like we may need to exercise caution on that.

Great to hear! If she wasn't sensitive to an I color, you should be good to go with the H.

In regards to the melee, don't overthink this too much. Are you buying the setting from WF too? If so, they will give you ACA stones for the melee which is cool. Also, remind them you are buying an H center stone and have them match your melee so you don't see a color difference.

I did a custom setting with David Klass (DK) in Los Angeles for my fiancee; however, he did the exact same thing as I noted above. Upgraded the stones to a better cut and matched the color of melee so it matched the center stone.

With a little coordination & communication, this is an easy obstacle to overcome.

 

[babadi]

Thanks guys for the replies on this. I had this ACA shipped to a local appraiser. The stone was lovely, of course, but it turned out to have some fluorescence (AGS cert says "negligible"). The appraiser said that it would be considered "faint" by GIA standards. Would this impact your decision to buy this stone? Certainly it's not something I would've seen without a UV light -- but I'm wondering if it affects the value of the stone, which gives me pause since of course there's a bit of a premium with an ACA, or if there's anything else I should look out for before pulling the trigger.

 

[Snowdrop13]

This has come up before,

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-ooo-negligible-fluorescence-lol.243800/

I guess it’s up to personal preference whether you like it or not, but some folk think it’s cool!

 

[ac117]

Gorgeous stone! I would not be at all concerned with Faint fluorescence. AGS Negligible supposedly encompasses both GIA None and Faint (but we have seen stones that have more fluorescence than this).

 

[Kaycee2018]

Thanks guys for the replies on this. I had this ACA shipped to a local appraiser. The stone was lovely, of course, but it turned out to have some fluorescence (AGS cert says "negligible"). The appraiser said that it would be considered "faint" by GIA standards. Would this impact your decision to buy this stone? Certainly it's not something I would've seen without a UV light -- but I'm wondering if it affects the value of the stone, which gives me pause since of course there's a bit of a premium with an ACA, or if there's anything else I should look out for before pulling the trigger.

Everyone has a different tolerance for fluorescence and there are differing opinions if and when it can be an enhancement or detriment to a particular diamond. However, I think most people agree that fluorescence of AGS Negligible / GIA None - Faint are completely fine and not detrimental to a diamond's performance. My e-ring diamond is GIA Faint and I'd even consider a GIA Medium without much hesitation. GL!

 

[sledge]

IMO you have different concerns that need resolved.

First, if the ACA cert says negligible and the appraiser has confirmed the fluor level would be considered GIA faint, then the ACA is exactly what it is promised to be -- a great stone with negligible fluor!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligible

Negligible - so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faint

Faint - lacking strength or vigor : performed, offered, or accomplished weakly or languidly : hardly perceptible

The second issue is if it causes any visual irregularities/negative impacts and/or causes your mind to be uneasy for whatever reason. What I'm hearing is this stone has no negative performance as a result so any issues are mind related. I'm not condemning as I like mind and eye clean stones even though many are okay with just eye clean. Only you can answer this; however, you should be aware it may be very difficult to find an AGS stone with truly no fluor. If so, would you be okay switching to a GIA stone to meet your fluor desire of none instead of faint/negligible?

The third and last issue is dollars. The short and sweet is that AGS negligible and GIA none/faint trade stones trade without discount for their fluor (or lack thereof) levels. Both AGS and GIA medium and above fluor stones trade at a discount level. To my knowledge all ACA stones are negligible, as they are all AGS certified. Some of their expert and premium select stones are GIA certified and may have medium+ fluor levels. I know the ES and PS stones trade at a discount already as they aren't quite as exacting as ACA's but if you find one with medium+ fluor I suspect it would be price adjusted even further.

If it helps I bought my fiancee a BGD Blue super ideal. It is similar to an ACA but has medium blue fluor. As a result I got a discount when buying the stone. It's been my experience the fluor has no effect until I put the stone under a black UV light.

 

[ctsamg]

Also since it's Whiteflash I wouldn't be as worried about resale ability, you can always upgrade to something else.

 

[holeydonut]

Thanks guys for the replies on this. I had this ACA shipped to a local appraiser. The stone was lovely, of course, but it turned out to have some fluorescence (AGS cert says "negligible"). The appraiser said that it would be considered "faint" by GIA standards. Would this impact your decision to buy this stone? Certainly it's not something I would've seen without a UV light -- but I'm wondering if it affects the value of the stone, which gives me pause since of course there's a bit of a premium with an ACA, or if there's anything else I should look out for before pulling the trigger.

IMO, I don't think asking us if we'd be ok with flour makes that much sense... primarily because we're not the ones that are going to get the diamond and ring in the end and wear it all the time

I think PS has some people who know very well what they'd buy for themselves in their own unique circumstances, but their perspective may be different than the unique expectations you and your future wife would have.

I don't know if your ultimate goal is to 100% surprise your finance with a proposal and engagement ring, but I think you would be better served to get some general idea of what your fiance would like in terms of the diamond and/or setting. The WF ACA you linked is a nice stone, and I'm assuming it's going to look really nice even in outdoor sunlight. But due to the importance and expected duration of this purchase... getting some input from her may be more useful than getting input from us.

I'm not saying medium fluorescence automatically means you're screwed, but it's something to consider. I believe Whiteflash, Brian Gavin, High Performance, Cut by Infinity, etc have reputational risk on the line so they won't list a diamond in their top-tier categories unless the diamond was going to look good in indoor and outdoor lighting. But your future wife isn't going to know these online vendor reputations, so you may have to reach a different threshold to be "mind clean."

In my own situation, I'm familiar with some acquaintances where the man got mislead (duped?) by their salesperson that fluorescence wasn't that big of a deal except under a UV/black light. So the buyers thought they get a great deal during the transaction, but in outdoor daytime lighting the diamond looked a bit cloudy. Since I hear these stories (and myriad other horror stories) over and over... I had to be cautious. Even though fluorescence wasn't one of the four C's, it definitely was important to consider in my circumstance so I could achieve "mind clean" status.

 

[gm89uk]

Faint/negligible fluorescence is a none issue, and very unlikely you'd notice it even in direct sunlight.

I'm not saying medium fluorescence automatically means you're screwed, but it's something to consider.

I believe medium fluorescence almost never means"you're screwed". I've only ever seen a handful of people complain about ill effects of medium fluorescence.

 

[holeydonut]

Faint/negligible fluorescence is a none issue, and very unlikely you'd notice it even in direct sunlight.


I believe medium fluorescence almost never means"you're screwed". I've only ever seen a handful of people complain about ill effects of medium fluorescence.

I agree, for most people it isn't an issue. The funny thing is some people want fluorescence (presumably as long as it doesn't manifest as a cloudy or milky appearance), while others don't. In this case from another thread the "faint" assessment may not really be "faint" at all. And some users here view this as a good thing!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-ooo-negligible-fluorescence-lol.243800/

But my point remains, the only people in this thread who should be able to say for sure what they'd be ok with (negligible fluorescence, faint fluorescence, or medium fluorescence) are the OP and his future wife.

Maybe she doesn't care at all (for the OP since it seems he has a great stone picked out). Or maybe she does care... and it's something to consider.

 

[Kaycee2018]

I agree, for most people it isn't an issue. The funny thing is some people want fluorescence (presumably as long as it doesn't manifest as a cloudy or milky appearance), while others don't. In this case from another thread the "faint" assessment may not really be "faint" at all. And some users here view this as a good thing!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-ooo-negligible-fluorescence-lol.243800/

But my point remains, the only people in this thread who should be able to say for sure what they'd be ok with (negligible fluorescence, faint fluorescence, or medium fluorescence) are the OP and his future wife.

Maybe she doesn't care at all (for the OP since it seems he has a great stone picked out). Or maybe she does care... and it's something to consider.

OP specifically asked “Would this impact your decision to buy this stone?”, so he was asking for others opinions on the fluorescence of his diamond.

 

[sledge]

Just some food for thought @holeydonut. Your beloved little BGD stone is also certified as "negligible".

Opinions aside, negligible IS the best rating for fluor that you get from any AGS certified stone. Period.

It doesn't matter the source (JA, WF, BGD, VC, etc). By the pure definition of negligible, it does NOT guarantee ZERO fluor. It says there could be an amount that makes no difference to the value or visual performance of the stone.

You can take additional measures to test the fluor level of your stone. However, even when doing that there is different temperatures and levels of UV bulbs. Unless you are utilizing the exact bulbs utilized by the laboratories your results may not be 100% accurate.

While the following information is based on GIA grading I do think it has relevance here. This particular page explains there is no price breaks for faint or none grading.

https://www.fourmine.com/education/diamond-education/diamond-fluorescence

So if price is unaffected, the only other meaningful concern is rather it affects performance or not and this is what GIA says:

https://4cs.gia.edu/en-us/blog/understanding-diamond-fluorescence/

What impact does fluorescence have on the appearance of a diamond?

GIA studies show that for the overwhelming majority of diamonds, the strength of fluorescence has no widely noticeable effect on appearance. In the GIA Fluorescence Study, it was found that the average person could not make a distinction between a diamond withfluorescence and a diamond without.

In many instances, observers prefer the appearance of diamonds that have medium to strong fluorescence. In rare cases, some diamonds with extremely strong fluorescence may appear hazy or oily; fewer than 0.2% of the fluorescent diamonds submitted to GIA exhibit this effect

Coming full tilt back to the OP's stone from WF that has been questioned. There is no meaningful reason to reject the stone.

 

[holeydonut]

Just some food for thought @holeydonut. Your beloved little BGD stone is also certified as "negligible".

Opinions aside, negligible IS the best rating for fluor that you get from any AGS certified stone. Period.

It doesn't matter the source (JA, WF, BGD, VC, etc). By the pure definition of negligible, it does NOT guarantee ZERO fluor. It says there could be an amount that makes no difference to the value or visual performance of the stone.

You can take additional measures to test the fluor level of your stone. However, even when doing that there is different temperatures and levels of UV bulbs. Unless you are utilizing the exact bulbs utilized by the laboratories your results may not be 100% accurate.

While the following information is based on GIA grading I do think it has relevance here. This particular page explains there is no price breaks for faint or none grading.

https://www.fourmine.com/education/diamond-education/diamond-fluorescence

So if price is unaffected, the only other meaningful concern is rather it affects performance or not and this is what GIA says:

https://4cs.gia.edu/en-us/blog/understanding-diamond-fluorescence/



Coming full tilt back to the OP's stone from WF that has been questioned. There is no meaningful reason to reject the stone.

Yeah, and one of the things that was important in my specific transaction was to let BGD know that I'd have the stone appraised during their 15 day window, and if it came back as "faint" by the appraiser, I may have to go a different route... causing a big headache for everybody. So if the diamond was on the "edge" to just let me know up front and I'd go a different direction.

In my posts in this thread, I'm not discouraging people from providing their feedback. But I am challenging whether it makes sense to consider the posts of strangers on the internet over the thoughts held by his future wife. I'm still advising that the OP to get her opinion on the fluorescence topic (and the diamond in general).

Best case... she doesn't have an opinion about these subtleties of diamond characteristics, and she is just fine with everything because look at it, it's an ACA and it sparkles like crazy. There isn't a meaningful Price-Scope reason to reject a Whiteflash ACA in general... WF isn't putting the ACA tag on something unless it hits a high standard.

Safest Case... Find out if she does have an opinion about things; and the OP would have to ask about it. Seems like she's not color sensitive, but what about fluorescence?

Worst Case... OP gets a diamond + ring and later finds out she has some thoughts on nuanced diamond topics outside of the 4-C's because one of her friends has a cloudy-ish diamond and has complained about it. There could be a meaningful reason to reject a faint-fluorescence stone... that's if the future wife has negative thoughts around fluorescence.

 

[Kaycee2018]

In my posts in this thread, I'm not discouraging people from providing their feedback. But I am challenging whether it makes sense to consider the posts of strangers on the internet over the thoughts held by his future wife. I'm still advising that the OP to get her opinion on the fluorescence topic (and the diamond in general)

But isn't that exactly the purpose of this forum?

 

[holeydonut]

But isn't that exactly the purpose of this forum?

At first, I agreed with you. The purpose of this forum on its surface is to educate. But I've also seen that there's a certain level of group-think for PS, which can be to the detriment of the people asking questions. There was a post a few weeks ago about "analysis paralysis" and you could quickly see how the PS-ers steered the conversation with their personal agendas.

There's a "PS-er" way of looking at things, and that perspective rarely considers what the ring recipient would want. Most of the time it's just people posting their own personal preferences and specs. So, many of the recommendations tend to move very quickly to say something is good/bad based on the PS-concept rather than recommending something that is more subjective to the situation at hand. Most of the time the recommendations are constructive, but many times the recommendations play down some issues because they aren't important to the PS-er.

For example, you'll have threads where the OP posts "she wants a VVS" ... but then the PS-ers will band together to try and push the concept that VS is enough since the vast majority of people here believe a good SI and VS is enough. And if a woman really wants a IF or VVS, they must be ignorant and stuck up.

Some PriceScope users often push their knowledge-set as gospel. I simply want the OP to be reminded the opinion that matters the most isn't going to come from this forum.

 

[Kaycee2018]

At first, I agreed with you. The purpose of this forum on its surface is to educate. But I've also seen that there's a certain level of group-think for PS, which can be to the detriment of the people asking questions. There was a post a few weeks ago about "analysis paralysis" and you could quickly see how the PS-ers steered the conversation with their personal agendas.

There's a "PS-er" way of looking at things, and that perspective rarely considers what the ring recipient would want. Most of the time it's just people posting their own personal preferences and specs. So, many of the recommendations tend to move very quickly to say something is good/bad based on the PS-concept rather than recommending something that is more subjective to the situation at hand. Most of the time the recommendations are constructive, but many times the recommendations play down some issues because they aren't important to the PS-er.

For example, you'll have threads where the OP posts "she wants a VVS" ... but then the PS-ers will band together to try and push the concept that VS is enough since the vast majority of people here believe a good SI and VS is enough. And if a woman really wants a IF or VVS, they must be ignorant and stuck up.

Some PriceScope users often push their knowledge-set as gospel. I simply want the OP to be reminded the opinion that matters the most isn't going to come from this forum.

While I don’t disagree with you, I don’t think anyone on this particular thread was pushing their own agenda or preferences regarding fluorescence.