Advice/Opinions appreciated

[chris888]

Hey everyone. I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum. I'm looking at a Whiteflash ACA stone, 1.537ct, F, SI1. They sent me a comparison view of two stones here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGp5Nlb4Hw&feature=youtu.be
I am interested in the 1.537 over the other mostly due to staying within budget. The 1.537 I am considering is on the left at the start of the clip. I'm looking for some reassurance as to how this stone looks on paper and in the video. I was also wondering if it would it be wise to sacrifice color, perhaps to H, in order to get an ACA 1.7ct? My lady has a 6.5 size ring finger and want to be sure I find something that looks amazing. I will have it in a high set 4 prong setting with micropave.
Link to the AGS certificate
http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104074746007-PGRH.PDF
Images of the stone...what do you think? The white at the 2:30 position in the hearts image is a reflection from the viewer.






Thank you in advance for the help.

 

[chris888]

The first stone discussed and the 2 H color options for opinion:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3435430,3337349,3408393

 

[ecf8503]

All ACA's are stunning - no need to worry there. I think personally that going down to an H is fine, as an ideal cut stone will face up whiter and larger than a less ideal cut one. As long as an H ACA is eye-clean, I think you are good - H faces up nice and white. I have diamonds in various colors, and to my eye an H is beautiful!

 

[D_]

Yup, an H is not an F, but it will face up plenty white.
It will be apparent when compared side by side with an F, but how often that will be done anyway.

I'll be more concerned about the additional twinning wisp & surface graining on an SI1.
You may want to ask to make sure it doesn't look a tiny bit scratched up (though it's eye clean).

the 1.7 H isn't eye clean.

Numbers and pictures wise, the 1.647 H VS2 looks most attractive.