And the winner is . . . ? Expert advice needed!!!

[Riagain]

Last night, I posted a thread entitled "URGENT: Which WF stone would you choose?" in which I listed several possibilities. Based on the responses [Thank you to all who took the time to post an opinion], I''ve narrowed my choices down to two:

1.26 G-VS1 "A Cut Above H&A" $10,269 [HCA = 1.4]

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-2167489.htm

1.30 G-VS2 "Expert Selection" $9,652 [HCA = 1.0]

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2318227.htm

My primary concern about the 1.26 is that the "arrowhead" at 12:00 on the Ideal Scope image [6:00 on the 40x Zoom image] appears to be "broken off" from the shaft.

My primary concern about the 1.30 is that both the Polish and Symmetry are "Excellent" rather than "Ideal." It also seems strange that the AGS report does not specifically grade the Cut as "Ideal."

Naturally, I''m hesitant to buy a $10K diamond that I''ve never seen (even with WF''s nice 10-day return policy) so I''d appreciate hearing from any "experts" (e.g., "JulieN" although I know there are MANY of you out there) who can make an educated guess based on reports (i.e, AGS, Sarin, Ideal Scope and HCA) and/or can make value comparisons (i.e., ACA H&A vs. ES Ideal, VS1 vs. VS2, 1.4 HCA vs. 1.0 HCA, etc.).

I''ll look forward to reading your posts . . . .

 

[JulieN]

I'm not an expert. Simply my thoughts based on what I understand. Naturally, it can be dangerous to be spouting off these opinions on public forums, especially when people are spending thousands of dollars. Just trying to understand all of this the best I can.

Stone 1, you absolutely do not need to worry about that arrowhead being broken.
Stone 2, you have an AGS Diamond Quality Report. WF does not buy the full grading report from AGS for ES stones because it costs more (and they do not charge an extra branded premium on ES stones vs. ACA.) However, I think you can ask them if it did get a 0 for light performance. I do not know if AGS gives out the Ideal grade for polish/symm on DQRs. Ex vs. ideal on pol/symm again should not be a huge worry.

While the PA on 2 varies from 40.2 to 41.2...opposite extremes of shallow and deep, the IS image shows that it does not suffer too much from this.

Perhaps you could talk to WF on the characteristics of both. I don't know what more they could say than, "both are beautiful and are very brilliant and perform well," but it's always better to have the stone in front of you and talk about it.

Strictly speaking, stone 1 is the "better" stone, but the second one is a little bigger for a little less. I'm not sure how much of a difference in performance you could actually see.

 

[Riagain]

Thanks, JulieN for your post (AND for being the first person to suggest the 1.30 as an lower cost alternative to teh 1.26)!!!

As a result of posting on this message board, I''m getting better with my diamond acronyms, but what is a "DQD"?

 

[JulieN]

Ahem, my bad. DQR: Diamond Quality Report.

DQD: Diamond Quality Document, the first stone has this one

 

[Scintillating]

The ES selection looks like a beauty to me.
I don''t think you can go wrong with either one.
I don''t think visually you''d see any difference between the stones, so why not opt for the lower cost option?

I guess I''d call a representative at WF and ask their option about the two stones. They are known for being a helpful bunch, and when in doubt ask an expert.

Scintillating...

 

[Mara]

can''t go wrong with either, i like the larger one for less still and i''d call WF and ask them to pull both stones and eyeball and let you know which they suggest. it can''t hurt. good luck.

 

[Kaleigh]

Call WF tomorrow, have them put them side by side and give you their opinion. Both are awesome stones, but I''d want the final word from someone that has them in front of them. Good luck!!

 

[Gypsy]

Not an expert in anyway shape or form... but I agree about letting WF recommend one. Our jeweler recommended to us (before we went into see)... and he knew what he was talking about. He got 6 in. One was perfect in #''s and this one was a little off... but boy! When we went in, did this one blow the others away (and it was a wee bit cheaper than the perfect one). There''s a point where you have to have someone look at the thing and say... "This one."

Can''t wait to see the completed ring.

 

[Riagain]

Thanks again to EVERYONE who took the time to post very useful advice/suggestions. I definitely WILL post a picture of the completed ring so that you all can see what you helped me to create!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I was making the same decision a week or so ago between two H VS1''s and one H VS2. The H VS2 was minimally larger than the other two, but the least expensive of the three. I had the vendor look at all three, and they picked the H VS2 as the most beautiful visually even though it cost less than the other two. So I definitely agree with the others that you need someone at WF to look at those two stones side by side and compare them. If they are equally beautiful, then you''ll have to decide if the better clarity or size are more important to you. I''d be glad to have either of those stones myself.

 

[Small]

I don''t think you can go wrong with either but my choice would be the 1.3. I agree with the others...have WF look and give you their opinion. Let us know what you decide

 

[diamondfan]

It can be funny to see the "perfect" and the slightly less "perfect" together, sometimes the less perfect one grabs you more. they both seem great, again, if someone at WF is helpful, it would be worth getting a concensus from them too...good luck!

 

[Riagain]

Earlier this week, I posted thie above query. Many of you suggested going with the 1.300 G-VS2 ''Expert Selection.'' I learned today, though, that I cannot use that stone because the Girdle is NOT faceted (which I need since the diamond will be ''channel set in a hollowed-out crescent and appear to be floating'' in the setting setting). Thus, I''ve now narrowed my choices down to one of the following:

1.216 F-VS2 ''A Cut Above H&A'' [HCA = 1.0]

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6550510

My major concern with this stone is that this link says the Girdle is ''Thin - Slightly Thick'' (which might be hard to set in my ring). However, the link for the Sarin Report says the Girdle is ''Thin - Medium'' [1.2 - 1.4] which seems fine.

1.260 G-VS1 ''A Cut Above H&A'' [HCA = 1.4]

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6782310

My major concern with this stone is that the Sarin Report says the Crown Angle is "34.5 - 35.3" which seems like a large variation. Is it??? Would this be hard to set?

As always, I''d appreciate any thoughts you all might have regarding my concerns and/or other pros/cons you see with each stone . . . .