shape
carat
color
clarity

All else being equal...

Decision_Decisions

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
297
So I know that I am BEYOND splitting hairs here. I am looking at two super ideal stones. I do not have them on hold and I've been looking for a long time so I am not posting the links. For anyone who loves to nit-pick great stones, I am curious which of these you would choose assuming that all else is equal. So assume same color, same clarity (with similarly positioned inclusions), and same face up size.

Stone 1:
Table: 55.9
Depth: 61.9
Crown Angle: 34.6
Star: 52
Pavilion: 40.7
Crown %: 15.3
Lower Girdle: 77

Stone 2:
Table: 55.6
Depth: 62.2
Crown Angle: 34.8
Star: 50
Pavilion: 40.7
Crown %: 15.4
Lower Girdle: 76

I know they will both be amazing. I know I can't go wrong with either. But I am finding evaluating stones really interesting and I'm trying to learn as much as possible so I'd love to hear people's opinions and why.

Thanks!
 

Slick1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
3,384
If I am nitpicking, I would choose #2 because of the 76 lower girdle and slightly smaller table. I like fatter arrows. That’s all! :) Good luck!
 

DejaWiz

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
487
#2 because of the slightly higher CA paired with the PA and the 76% LGF, which may give it a teensie bit more fire, yet remain well balanced with adequate brilliance.
 

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
22,553
@Decision_Decisions Do you have any photos or video of these stones? Or have you seen them both in-person?

At this point, choosing between these proportions sets - “nitpicking” implies that we can judge that one is slightly, marginally better than the other, or even different from the other. But we can’t. Between similarity of proportions, averaging of scan data, and rounding of reporting - there’s just no point trying to pick these two stones apart based on only these numbers. The numbers for each stone are within error bounds of the other stone.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,203
Echo @yssie.

That said, assuming both of these stones are from the SAME vendor then I would put the sparkle and brilliance videos side by side and start comparing to see which “speaks” to you most.

While video will never replace an in-person evaluation, they can be very powerful when compared from the same vendor that is using the same setups, same light positioning, same stone positioning, etc.

Because I prefer lots of rainbow flashes I generally look for the stone that has the broadest flashes. When you look at enough, all may seem great but some stick out as large broad or small fast. Some will be so big they extend to the edges of the screen and others won’t be quite as powerful.

Getting them lined up to start at the exact time can be tricky. But after watching them go around together I then like to take each and spin frame by frame looking to see the colors, size, etc of the flashes.

If they seem near identical I will cheat a bit more and use Chrome’s built in zoom functionality to zoom the videos further and repeat the process. Most the time I can find one I prefer slightly more even if it’s a tiny margin.
 

Decision_Decisions

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
297
Thank you everyone, I really appreciate the feedback! I have been looking for stones with my preferred parameters for months now so I am surprised that two popped up at the same time. I do have one of them on hold now so here are the links:



They both have teeny tiny inclusions right in the center which I can notice in the huge pictures but I know won't be an issue in real life.

I gravitate towards stones with slightly thicker arrows, so I have reserved the 1.615 but they both seem so similar to me to be honest. If anyone has the time to take a look at the images and videos and has any additional comments I would really appreciate it.

Thanks!
 

DejaWiz

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
487
After looking at both, I feel as if this is one of those extremely rare situations where one could either flip a coin or play "pick a hand" and be content with the result since they appear identical.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,203
I agree both stones are rock solid, and either would make you through the roof happy.

Although fractions of a difference, my mind prefers a smaller table and shorter LGF. Yet I’ve looked at the videos multiple times and my eyes slightly prefer the 1.611.

I would likely have WF pull both stones and do a comprehensive side by side analysis for you, asking them to to send additional videos and photos for your review.

As we know color has range. If color is important to you, then one being slightly stronger may also tip the scales for you.
 

Decision_Decisions

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
297
@yssie , @DejaWiz , @sledge - thank you for taking a look at the videos and weighing in. I didn't expect to find two stones almost exactly the same to pop up at the same time and since I can only pick one, it's making it difficult (plus I'm terribly indecisive in general).

I agree, I am going to haven't SA pull them both and do a side by side evaluation of color and let me know her personal thoughts.

Regarding the inclusions, are the grade setting clouds an issue with the 1.615? Especially right in the middle of the table? Or are the magnified images just messing with me? I know I won't be able to see them at normal distance but may be able to when I close up scrutinize it. Which then is just a mind clean issue of course.
 

DejaWiz

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
487
@yssie , @DejaWiz , @sledge - thank you for taking a look at the videos and weighing in. I didn't expect to find two stones almost exactly the same to pop up at the same time and since I can only pick one, it's making it difficult (plus I'm terribly indecisive in general).

I agree, I am going to haven't SA pull them both and do a side by side evaluation of color and let me know her personal thoughts.

Regarding the inclusions, are the grade setting clouds an issue with the 1.615? Especially right in the middle of the table? Or are the magnified images just messing with me? I know I won't be able to see them at normal distance but may be able to when I close up scrutinize it. Which then is just a mind clean issue of course.


If it were me, I wouldn't worry at all, being a VS2 clarity.

Here are some head-on screenshots of both the sparkle and brilliance videos...I'm on my cell phone, so I'm sorry if they come out a little stretched/pixelated.

Screenshot_20210621-085527.png

Screenshot_20210621-085428.png



[EDIT]
Here are the screenshots from my desktop computer:

WF ACA 1615 Sparkle.png

WF ACA 1615 Brilliance.png



If the 1.615 isn't clean for your mind due to the tiny cloud at the center of the table, then you can't go wrong with the 1.611, either.

Alas, that is merely my own subjective opinion, so here's a nice grain of salt to go with it:

GrainOfSalt.jpg
 
Last edited:

Decision_Decisions

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
297
If it were me, I wouldn't worry at all, being a VS2 clarity.

Here are some head-on screenshots of both the sparkle and brilliance videos...I'm on my cell phone, so I'm sorry if they come out a little stretched/pixelated.

Screenshot_20210621-085527.png

Screenshot_20210621-085428.png



[EDIT]
Here are the screenshots from my desktop computer:

WF ACA 1615 Sparkle.png

WF ACA 1615 Brilliance.png



If the 1.615 isn't clean for your mind due to the tiny cloud at the center of the table, then you can't go wrong with the 1.611, either.

Alas, that is merely my own subjective opinion, so here's a nice grain of salt to go with it:

GrainOfSalt.jpg

Thank you, that is helpful! So many stones that I have looked at have tiny blips right in the center of the table. I know I have to be ok with a little something in a VS2 or else pay for a VS1!
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,203
Thank you, that is helpful! So many stones that I have looked at have tiny blips right in the center of the table. I know I have to be ok with a little something in a VS2 or else pay for a VS1!

Clarity grades don’t dictate location, so even a VS1 or VVS stone may have inclusions on the table.

Also it’s important to remember that all clarity grading is done using a 10x scope. Most online videos and photos are in the 30-40x range. This is good and bad. It helps us easily see imperfections which is good for the transparency of a sale, but it can also cause unwarranted concern that those inclusions will be as easily visible to the naked eye. My own opinion is that as we see more buyers shift to online purchases, the amount of higher clarity stones will increase as a result of these magnified videos.

Shape and size also come into play. For instance, round diamonds are more forgiving than fancy shapes. And while VS2 is generally expected (but not guaranteed, and should be verified) to be eye clean, the slope gets a little more slippery as size increases and you push into larger sizes such as 2 carats or so.

You also have to consider a person’s own visual acuity. Factors like age and corrective vision measures (glasses, contacts or laser eye surgery) can have an effect either positively or negatively. What may drive you insane, may not phase your friend. Or vice versa.

In the case of ACA’s, WF has defined a narrow set of parameters their stones must achieve. What some don’t realize is part of that selection process includes clarity issues. To some degree, the smallest inclusion technically impedes light performance to a certain degree. However, many have negligible effects and this is exactly what WF looks for in their ACA line.

However, degradation of light performance doesn’t necessarily guarantee an “eye clean” stone. So if you are bothered in the least by inclusions I would encourage you to share the concern with your WF SA and ask them to scrutinize both stones on your behalf. Like many vendors, WF defines eye clean by looking at the top of the diamond from 10-12” away in good lighting and 20/20 vision. If you are more particular and/or have high visual acuity, then I would tighten the parameters. For instance, when I was shopping for my wife, I wanted “eye clean” from 6” away looking at top, sides and any way possible with 20/20 vision and good lighting. Also not a casual glance but a true examination.

I fully expect either of these stones to be perfectly acceptable; however, at this point, we are deciding between nuances. Gaining as many warm fuzzies as possible is important to the decision process. So I would have WF also analyze both stones for clarity as well.




BC7AEB54-4D79-4923-9FB9-E177789FE6E8.jpeg
 

Decision_Decisions

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
297
Clarity grades don’t dictate location, so even a VS1 or VVS stone may have inclusions on the table.

Also it’s important to remember that all clarity grading is done using a 10x scope. Most online videos and photos are in the 30-40x range. This is good and bad. It helps us easily see imperfections which is good for the transparency of a sale, but it can also cause unwarranted concern that those inclusions will be as easily visible to the naked eye. My own opinion is that as we see more buyers shift to online purchases, the amount of higher clarity stones will increase as a result of these magnified videos.

Shape and size also come into play. For instance, round diamonds are more forgiving than fancy shapes. And while VS2 is generally expected (but not guaranteed, and should be verified) to be eye clean, the slope gets a little more slippery as size increases and you push into larger sizes such as 2 carats or so.

You also have to consider a person’s own visual acuity. Factors like age and corrective vision measures (glasses, contacts or laser eye surgery) can have an effect either positively or negatively. What may drive you insane, may not phase your friend. Or vice versa.

In the case of ACA’s, WF has defined a narrow set of parameters their stones must achieve. What some don’t realize is part of that selection process includes clarity issues. To some degree, the smallest inclusion technically impedes light performance to a certain degree. However, many have negligible effects and this is exactly what WF looks for in their ACA line.

However, degradation of light performance doesn’t necessarily guarantee an “eye clean” stone. So if you are bothered in the least by inclusions I would encourage you to share the concern with your WF SA and ask them to scrutinize both stones on your behalf. Like many vendors, WF defines eye clean by looking at the top of the diamond from 10-12” away in good lighting and 20/20 vision. If you are more particular and/or have high visual acuity, then I would tighten the parameters. For instance, when I was shopping for my wife, I wanted “eye clean” from 6” away looking at top, sides and any way possible with 20/20 vision and good lighting. Also not a casual glance but a true examination.

I fully expect either of these stones to be perfectly acceptable; however, at this point, we are deciding between nuances. Gaining as many warm fuzzies as possible is important to the decision process. So I would have WF also analyze both stones for clarity as well.




BC7AEB54-4D79-4923-9FB9-E177789FE6E8.jpeg

Wonderful analysis, thank you! I do know that the clarity grade has nothing to do with the placement of the inclusions. It just seems to me that all the stones I've recently been evaluating have spots right dab in the center which is just annoying! I'm actually losing my vision in one of my eyes (which is honestly terrible) and with correction I can't see close up with my good eye either! But I can see close up without correction with my good eye and I like to stare as stones from a few inches away to check them out. But I'm sure I could never see the table inclusion in this stone with my contacts on which of course is how I'll look at it 99% of the time. It's a really beautiful stone!
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    The King of Diamonds
    The King of Diamonds
    National Moon Day 2021: Moonstones
    National Moon Day 2021: Moonstones
    Style File: Jennifer Lopez
    Style File: Jennifer Lopez

Holloway Cut Advisor



Top