ACAs - What is Your Recommendation?

[doobaokwei]

First of all, thank you all very much for the great knowledge and lovely jewelries that I have enjoyed lurking over the years.

It is appropriate now that I post my first inquiry about my upgrade. Specifically, I have been looking at a few I color eye-clean SI1 ACAs that are above 2 ct. Which of the following would you recommend?

1. 2.288 ct I SI ACA: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3970295.htm
2. 2.395 ct H SI ACA: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2994225.htm
3. 2.502 ct I SI ACA: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4013664.htm
4. 2.528 ct I SI ACA: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3959046.htm

I have been working with Brittany at Whitefish, who confirmed that they are eye-clean from 10 in. Nevertheless, I would like to reach out to the experts to see if there is one that you would strongly recommend over another.

Thank you in advance for all your expert advice!

 

[MissGotRocks]

Well, size matters so my pick of these four would be #3. Hits the 2.5 mark and it looks like a rather clean SI1.

Just curious, did your Whiteflash rep recommend one over them all?

 

[OoohShiny]

Small table and shorter LGFs on number 2 could be nice and firey but I think I'd agree with the above benefits of number 3 - looks cleaner than 4 and also hits the magic 2.5ct mark!

Although, that said... no.2 gives up barely any spread to number 3 (8.61x8.65 for no.2 Vs 8.69 x 8.72 for no.3) and is also an H rather than an I, while being $3k cheaper!

No.2 does have 'additional clouds not shown' as a comment on the grading report, though, and it does look quite 'warm' in the picture when compared to the pictures of the I stones (if you cycle through the open Internet Explorer tabs quickly, for example) but that might just be the lighting setup on the day or a setting on the camera being out-of-whack.

So... I'm not sure that helps?? lol

Perhaps you could ask for specific comment on whether there are any haziness issues caused by the additional clouds in no.2?

$3k is quite a lot of money to spend if it's not strictly necessary...

 

[ringo865]

Whiteflash will take pics of the two (or three) stones you shortlist. The can also walk you through what they see.

 

[doobaokwei]

Well, size matters so my pick of these four would be #3. Hits the 2.5 mark and it looks like a rather clean SI1.

Just curious, did your Whiteflash rep recommend one over them all?

Hi MissGotRocks

Thank you very much for your input. Brittany at Whiteflash said that they are all beautiful stones and provided more details about the inclusions on the two that I was most interested in (#2 & #3). It sounds like I should also ask for her recommendation.

Best!

 

[doobaokwei]

Small table and shorter LGFs on number 2 could be nice and firey but I think I'd agree with the above benefits of number 3 - looks cleaner than 4 and also hits the magic 2.5ct mark!

Although, that said... no.2 gives up barely any spread to number 3 (8.61x8.65 for no.2 Vs 8.69 x 8.72 for no.3) and is also an H rather than an I, while being $3k cheaper!

No.2 does have 'additional clouds not shown' as a comment on the grading report, though, and it does look quite 'warm' in the picture when compared to the pictures of the I stones (if you cycle through the open Internet Explorer tabs quickly, for example) but that might just be the lighting setup on the day or a setting on the camera being out-of-whack.

So... I'm not sure that helps?? lol

Perhaps you could ask for specific comment on whether there are any haziness issues caused by the additional clouds in no.2?

$3k is quite a lot of money to spend if it's not strictly necessary...

Hi OoohShiny,

Thank you very much for your input. Of course it helps!

Thank you for pointing out the minimal size differences and your thoughts on the color. #2 does look much warmer. Perhaps that is a reason for me to stay away. I saw this other I SI1 ACA that I would love to get your input as well. I will post that separately.

Also, I was not aware of haziness issues that clouds can create. Thank you for the info. Always learning something new here on Pricescope.

You ladies rock!

 

[doobaokwei]

Whiteflash will take pics of the two (or three) stones you shortlist. The can also walk you through what they see.

Hi ringo865,

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I will certainly request a side-by-side of #2 and #3.

Best!

 

[doobaokwei]

Ah... Just to add to the dilemma, I also saw this I, SI1 ACA:

5. 2.321 ct I SI1 ACA: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4018656.htm

 

[OoohShiny]

Ah... Just to add to the dilemma, I also saw this I, SI1 ACA:

5. 2.321 ct I SI1 ACA: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4018656.htm

I think that inclusion in the table might be more noticeable than the other options?

 

[sledge]

Here's another way to view multiple stones. I find it useful, maybe you will too.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3959046,4013664,2994225,3970295

Something that immediately pops out to me in this view is the H looks like it has a brown tint to it. So the I stones actually look whiter to me. Bad photography? I'm not sure, but it's a little concerning.



Not to keep picking on the 2.395ct H but it also says "Inquire" on the eye clean status. This typically means it's NOT eye clean. I know you said Brittany from WF confirmed otherwise. I'm not disputing her opinion or eyes, I'm just letting you know what the website states. Additionally, looking at the cert, having all the crystals & clouds on the table would drive me absolutely bonkers from a mind clean perspective. In general, you want as few inclusions as possible on the table, especially in a larger sized stone.

With that said, I would probably eliminate this stone from your selection. This disappoints me because I liked the fact it had better color and was just under the 2.5 carat magic weight premium, while still offering nearly the same dimensions (8.61mm vs 8.70mm). That small of a difference will never be visible to the naked eye.



While talking clarity and certs -- I'd also personally eliminate the 2.28ct stone. Clouds are the grade setting inclusion with the note "additional clouds not shown". Plus so much of it is on the table. When you watch the video you can see the effects. Granted this is magnified, but you have only GREAT choices, so I am being nit picky on purpose.

I'd also pass on the 2.528ct for clarity reasons. You can really see those twinning whisps in the video.

This leaves the 2.502ct I stone. It has good measurements. The cert is actually pretty clean for an SI1 stone, and the video looks gorgeous. You can really see how the clarity is making the video pop. Plus I have noticed I have a real sweet spot for a 34.5/40.7-40.8 angle combination. You get very close with this stone -- 34.6 crown & 40.7 pavilion. While I'd rather have a smaller 54-56 table, this is definitely acceptable and beautiful at 56.8. IMO, the best table and angle combo of all 4 choices. I do wish the hearts were just a smidge more perfect, but obviously they were close enough to make ACA criteria despite being ever so slightly less perfect than your other choices.

Regardless, I think the 2.502ct is the clear winner here. Hurry and put it on hold while you make a final decision.

 

[doobaokwei]

I think that inclusion in the table might be more noticeable than the other options?

Woo! That was lightening fast response. Thanks OoohShiny!

 

[sledge]

Ah... Just to add to the dilemma, I also saw this I, SI1 ACA:

5. 2.321 ct I SI1 ACA: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4018656.htm

I think that inclusion in the table might be more noticeable than the other options?

I also don't care for this particular stone due to clarity/inclusions. On a positive the crystal appears white, but because of location it sits on an arrow and when the arrow contrasts, that white is quite noticeable against the arrow.

Also, I was not excited to see the indented natural.

More discerning is the notes on the cert:
Clarity grade is partly based on clouds not shown.

I'd also pass on this stone.

 

[doobaokwei]

Here's another way to view multiple stones. I find it useful, maybe you will too.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3959046,4013664,2994225,3970295

Something that immediately pops out to me in this view is the H looks like it has a brown tint to it. So the I stones actually look whiter to me. Bad photography? I'm not sure, but it's a little concerning.



Not to keep picking on the 2.395ct H but it also says "Inquire" on the eye clean status. This typically means it's NOT eye clean. I know you said Brittany from WF confirmed otherwise. I'm not disputing her opinion or eyes, I'm just letting you know what the website states. Additionally, looking at the cert, having all the crystals & clouds on the table would drive me absolutely bonkers from a mind clean perspective. In general, you want as few inclusions as possible on the table, especially in a larger sized stone.

With that said, I would probably eliminate this stone from your selection. This disappoints me because I liked the fact it had better color and was just under the 2.5 carat magic weight premium, while still offering nearly the same dimensions (8.61mm vs 8.70mm). That small of a difference will never be visible to the naked eye.



While talking clarity and certs -- I'd also personally eliminate the 2.28ct stone. Clouds are the grade setting inclusion with the note "additional clouds not shown". Plus so much of it is on the table. When you watch the video you can see the effects. Granted this is magnified, but you have only GREAT choices, so I am being nit picky on purpose.

I'd also pass on the 2.528ct for clarity reasons. You can really see those twinning whisps in the video.

This leaves the 2.502ct I stone. It has good measurements. The cert is actually pretty clean for an SI1 stone, and the video looks gorgeous. You can really see how the clarity is making the video pop. Plus I have noticed I have a real sweet spot for a 34.5/40.7-40.8 angle combination. You get very close with this stone -- 34.6 crown & 40.7 pavilion. While I'd rather have a smaller 54-56 table, this is definitely acceptable and beautiful at 56.8. IMO, the best table and angle combo of all 4 choices. I do wish the hearts were just a smidge more perfect, but obviously they were close enough to make ACA criteria despite being ever so slightly less perfect than your other choices.

Regardless, I think the 2.502ct is the clear winner here. Hurry and put it on hold while you make a final decision.

Hi sledge,

Thank you so much for your input. I have been reading a lot about your posts and so glad that you were able to leave me your 2 cents.

My apologies! Brittany told me the 2.321ct (#5) is eye clean from 10 in. Not the 2.395 ct one. I confused myself with all these options and edited my prior post.

Thank you for pointing out the table size of the 2.502ct. I also like small tables personally. However, I can't say that I have the expert eye to tell between 56 or 56.8.

It sounds like the 2.502ct is the winner of these 5 stones while the table and hearts remain as the potential downside. Should I pull the trigger or should I wait? Hmmmm.....

 

[doobaokwei]

I also don't care for this particular stone due to clarity/inclusions. On a positive the crystal appears white, but because of location it sits on an arrow and when the arrow contrasts, that white is quite noticeable against the arrow.

Also, I was not excited to see the indented natural.

More discerning is the notes on the cert:
Clarity grade is partly based on clouds not shown.

I'd also pass on this stone.

Thank you thank you, sledge. I just learned where to find the fine prints on the certificate. #5 is a clear pass!

 

[sledge]

Hi sledge,

Thank you so much for your input. I have been reading a lot about your posts and so glad that you were able to leave me your 2 cents.

My apologies! Brittany told me the 2.321ct (#5) is eye clean from 10 in. Not the 2.395 ct one. I confused myself with all these options and edited my prior post.

Thank you for pointing out the table size of the 2.502ct. I also like small tables personally. However, I can't say that I have the expert eye to tell between 56 or 56.8.

It sounds like the 2.502ct is the winner of these 5 stones while the table and hearts remain as the potential downside. Should I pull the trigger or should I wait? Hmmmm.....

You're very welcome. Glad I could provide some useful information.

I highly doubt you could tell a 56 from a 56.8 table with the naked eye.

If you are comfortable with the dollars, I see no reason to delay the purchase.

Only other potential consideration is color. Have you and your SO seen an I colored stone? It's not "yellow" by any stretch -- I really hate that term. But it does have an ever so slight tint. Those that are extremely color sensitive (and intolerant) may not appreciate them.



I bought my own fiancee an H stone as I thought it mattered not to her. Later I discovered she can see tint, but is okay with it. While I can see tint in certain conditions/angles, her stone is very white overall. However, her setting exposes the sides of the diamond where the most tint can be seen.

Unfortunately I think to go up in color would cost you considerable for this size of a stone. If it's an inkling of concern I might opt for a setting that doesn't expose the sides of the stone like my fiancee's setting. From a face up view, I don't think it's an issue (for most people).

Various angles of my fiancee's ring (BGD Blue, H, VS2)

 

[doobaokwei]

You're very welcome. Glad I could provide some useful information.

I highly doubt you could tell a 56 from a 56.8 table with the naked eye.

If you are comfortable with the dollars, I see no reason to delay the purchase.

Only other potential consideration is color. Have you and your SO seen an I colored stone? It's not "yellow" by any stretch -- I really hate that term. But it does have an ever so slight tint. Those that are extremely color sensitive (and intolerant) may not appreciate them.



I bought my own fiancee an H stone as I thought it mattered not to her. Later I discovered she can see tint, but is okay with it. While I can see tint in certain conditions/angles, her stone is very white overall. However, her setting exposes the sides of the diamond where the most tint can be seen.

Unfortunately I think to go up in color would cost you considerable for this size of a stone. If it's an inkling of concern I might opt for a setting that doesn't expose the sides of the stone like my fiancee's setting. From a face up view, I don't think it's an issue (for most people).

Various angles of my fiancee's ring (BGD Blue, H, VS2)

That is one beautiful ring, sledge! I wish hubby appreciates diamonds as much as you do. Let's just say that he appreciates the price tag the most. lol

I am actually shopping for an upgrade. My current stone is a J. I can definitely see the color difference when it is put next to a higher color but do not mind the warmth when it is on its own. I originally was wanting to look at H color. After reading and looking at many beautiful I-color ACAs here, I thought I can give I-color a try & save a few bucks. It is an upgrade from my current stone. Plus, I can also upgrade later with Whiteflash. Right?

With your words of encouragement, I will proceed with the next steps. I would love to look at the diamond before it is set. I will share more photos when they become available.

Thank you again! Best~

 

[sledge]

That is one beautiful ring, sledge! I wish hubby appreciates diamonds as much as you do. Let's just say that he appreciates the price tag the most. lol

I am actually shopping for an upgrade. My current stone is a J. I can definitely see the color difference when it is put next to a higher color but do not mind the warmth when it is on its own. I originally was wanting to look at H color. After reading and looking at many beautiful I-color ACAs here, I thought I can give I-color a try & save a few bucks. It is an upgrade from my current stone. Plus, I can also upgrade later with Whiteflash. Right?

With your words of encouragement, I will proceed with the next steps. I would love to look at the diamond before it is set. I will share more photos when they become available.

Thank you again! Best~

Thank you for the kind words. I have to be honest, until I started shopping for diamonds for my fiancee I really had no idea I was passionate about diamonds. Now, I can't shut up about them.

Ah, this makes it much easier that you had a J and will be the actual wearer of the stone. You know your tolerances best.

By chance, is your current stone a WF super ideal, and you are just upgrading to a larger stone? Just asking because super ideals tend to surprise people in the fact they look bigger and whiter because they are so well cut. Depending what you have now, this could potentially be a much bigger impact than you originally thought -- at least I hope it is.

If you explain to WF you want to inspect the diamond loose, they will accommodate you and ship the stone loose for your inspection and then you can return for them to set (assuming they are setting the stone for you). Just make sure you are clear on insurance. No doubt, they will send it insured and probably give you an RMA with insured return shipment. I'm thinking insurance while in your possession after it arrives and before it ships back.

 

[doobaokwei]

Thank you for the kind words. I have to be honest, until I started shopping for diamonds for my fiancee I really had no idea I was passionate about diamonds. Now, I can't shut up about them.

Ah, this makes it much easier that you had a J and will be the actual wearer of the stone. You know your tolerances best.

By chance, is your current stone a WF super ideal, and you are just upgrading to a larger stone? Just asking because super ideals tend to surprise people in the fact they look bigger and whiter because they are so well cut. Depending what you have now, this could potentially be a much bigger impact than you originally thought -- at least I hope it is.

If you explain to WF you want to inspect the diamond loose, they will accommodate you and ship the stone loose for your inspection and then you can return for them to set (assuming they are setting the stone for you). Just make sure you are clear on insurance. No doubt, they will send it insured and probably give you an RMA with insured return shipment. I'm thinking insurance while in your possession after it arrives and before it ships back.

Haha! I hope this is a passion that your fiancee also shares.

No, my current J is no where close to a super ideal. I will keep it for sentimental reasons. I am certainly looking forward to being pleasantly surprised by how much brighter, whiter and bigger the ACA would be in person.

Hopefully, I will be back soon to share some photos of this beauty resting on my finger

 

[doobaokwei]

Hi everyone. Update for you here.

Brittany at WF actually suggested that I have the stone set to inspect rather than to inspect it loose. After waiting for 3 weeks, I just received glamour shots from WF for this 2.5ct I SI1 set in the Vatche U113. I will post in SMTB after I receive the ring tomorrow. Nevertheless, I wanted to share the WF pictures here to keep all those all chimed in updated.

Thank you all again. I am so excited yet anxious to see the ring IRL