Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Choosing Diamond for engagement!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Z

zacjanes

Rough_Rock
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
32
Hey all, have had a couple of threads before, but only a couple of people were following them, so I''m starting a new one in the hopes of getting some more help!

So I''ve decided on getting a 1ct diamond (possibly a little more) colour G and VS2 (although would consider going down to a H/SI1). Obviously cut is most important... but also need to stick to the budget of 6k USD (maybe 7k MAX).

Pleaaaase help! I''m thinking of going with James Allen - seems to have best value... though would consider others.

Found this one... http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=947513

what do you think? Please feel free to post as many suggestions as you like, I will appreciate all your help!
30.gif
30.gif
30.gif
2.gif
 
Thanks guys, have checked out those rings, have some great potential. I''ve decided, ideally I''d like to get the nicest 1 ct diamond I can for the price, rather than getting slightly bigger and compromising on cut & clarity.

Also what is the difference with an ACA diamond?
 
Zac, that diamond is pure perfection! ACA or A Cut Above is WF's branded hearts and arrows cut which adheres to strict standards and is arguably one of the finest cut diamonds available. You won't do better than that - I think you have found your diamond!

The JA diamond is nice, it appears to be a standard great Cut, the WF is a Superideal and is cut to display carefully crafted H&A. The JA is a bit deeper than I prefer too, which can show in some circumstances as taking away slightly from the face up size. Both diamonds are lovely, it just depends on whether you want the H&A display and the top craftmanship and attention to detail with the ACA diamond, or the JA diamond which will have plenty of beauty and performance (JA is also a great vendor) or the branded ACA.
 
REALLY? Oh thanks! You have no idea how great it is to hear someone say that!!! Now can I just ask, why do you think it would be worth $1k more than a similar one from JamesAllen?
 
You and your budget may want to figure whether VS2 or SI1 is needed. Jule''s options above for SI1 may be swell.

For VS2, consider this one from WF at $6928 wire and PS discount...there''s a bunch more for $300 more. But SI1 may be fine.
 
One of the reasons why the ACA is more money is because it is a branded cut and crafted to very exacting standards as said above, you would expect to pay more for a brand as in anything. An ACA diamond is a treasure to behold, it depends as I said previously whether you want to pay the extra for the ACA and all that goes with it, or to just get a diamond with a good make or cut. No choice is wrong, it depends on what matters to you and that ACA is a stunner!
 
Thanks for the feedback regular guy, I just assumed a VS2 would be a nicer overall diamond. Considering some SI1''s are not eye-clean... might be safer too. But that F colour one you suggested looks like a good buy! Do you think an ACA cut would be better, or a slightly better colour? As i have never seen ANY of these diamonds, I am really just looking for advice on what you think would look better? is ACA such a big difference? And for that matter, the difference between a VS2 and SI1?
 
Zac, lots of communication in the last few minutes...hard to keep up. Between the F&H...ACA and not...I''d ask them at WF...though the F is attractive. Between either and saving $1K with JA...not sure how to make that call.
 
Date: 9/26/2006 9:57:53 AM
Author: zacjanes
Thanks guys, have checked out those rings, have some great potential. I've decided, ideally I'd like to get the nicest 1 ct diamond I can for the price, rather than getting slightly bigger and compromising on cut & clarity.

Also what is the difference with an ACA diamond?
Click to expand...
Zac - judging by your earlier post I think you might have your answer in what to do. Getting the nicest 1 ct to me means getting the best you can with cut, colour and clarity, it depends on what matters to you most. In which case an ACA with a good colour and VS clarity might be the best choice for you. It can be tricky trying to decide which way to go, listen to what feels best to you and what would be the most suitable to adorn your girl's finger. All the diamonds you have posted and the one Ira added are great choices, just narrow down by priority.
 
Yeah it''s great to have some feedback, I should stay up this late more often!

So basically... there is no noticeable difference between an ACA and a ideal cut from JamesAllen? Is that what you''re saying?
 
Date: 9/26/2006 10:38:59 AM
Author: zacjanes
Yeah it's great to have some feedback, I should stay up this late more often!

So basically... there is no noticeable difference between an ACA and a ideal cut from JamesAllen? Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...
It can depend. Well cut diamonds can have very different appearances with the various components of how they handle light. An ACA would probably outperform most other diamonds. Slight variances with standard well cut diamonds can make a huge difference on how they look, for reliability with beauty and expected and predicted performance the ACA is the way to go. However sometimes you can't pin down with numbers or brands the beauty that some diamonds have even with lesser proportions, but to be reasonably well assured of the best performance the safest choice is the ACA.
 
Okay so obviously, Lorelei, you're a big believer in the ACA... I think I do like the idea of that one. And it seems like EVERYONE suggests getting the best cut possible... and with the ACA being the best you can get, I think I might just go that way!

Does anyone else have any suggestions or ideas on the diamond?
 
I think if you want an easy way to get the best cut and performing diamond possible, then ACA is it or Expert Selection next. Apart from that it is more work sifting through others and trying to see which diamonds are likely to perform best. ACA is an easy choice for beauty - you know if you buy one of these diamonds you can rest assured it will rock - pardon the pun!
 
Just to give a contrasting view from someone else conducting a search, Zac --

As Lorelei says, the ACA is a branded cut, and as a "brand", is held to a certain degree of standards. Where I think confusion arises is that merely being "branded" does not guarantee a better stone -- rather, it guarantees a stone -consistent- with that brand''s standards of quality, or tolerances, or whatever. Think of Coca-Cola -- drinking a "Coke" over some other soft drink does not immediately mean it''s going to be "better", it just means that whenever you drink a Coke, wherever you are in the world, you will have the same "Coke" experience.

(Anyone bringing up sugar vs. HFCS at this point will be shot.;)

Anyway, the important point here is that a brand denotes a guarantee of consistency, not quality. That''s not to say that the ACA stones aren''t quality -- they seem to be held in high regard by a large number of Pricescopers, largely due to the rigid standards required for the brand. However, the distinction between quality and consistency iis an important one to make, because it means that you *can* find "as good or better" out there -- ACA or SC or 8* or HoF do not hold a monopoly on well-cut stones -- you just have to sort the wheat from the chaff *yourself*, rather than trusting a set standard. Buy a branded stone if you like the look of their stones and/or want a particular, repeatable level of quality (could be high /or/ low, that depends upon the standards, and everything is subjective -- there are some "SuperIdeal" brands with very high standards that many people claim not to like!). Go with an unbranded if you like the look of some OTHER stone, and/or you trust the feedback of your jeweler, or if there''s some other consideration at play (such as price, as "branding" often comes at a premium).

You''re looking at two great stones, both scoring well on the HCA, either of which would probably make your lady very happy. Don''t immediately assume that branded >> unbranded, though -- look at the information (most online jewelers will provide additional information on a stone upon request if it''s not already on the site, from what I''ve seen), compare them vs. what you feel to be important, weigh everything vs. your budget, and make a decision you can live with ("mind-clean" -- you don''t want to be second-guessing yourself down the line...trust me, I do this a lot.;)

Best of luck, and I hope this cleared things up a bit for you!

Cheers!
 
Date: 9/26/2006 11:10:57 AM
Author: alucard
Just to give a contrasting view from someone else conducting a search, Zac --

As Lorelei says, the ACA is a branded cut, and as a 'brand', is held to a certain degree of standards. Where I think confusion arises is that merely being 'branded' does not guarantee a better stone -- rather, it guarantees a stone -consistent- with that brand's standards of quality, or tolerances, or whatever. Think of Coca-Cola -- drinking a 'Coke' over some other soft drink does not immediately mean it's going to be 'better', it just means that whenever you drink a Coke, wherever you are in the world, you will have the same 'Coke' experience.

(Anyone bringing up sugar vs. HFCS at this point will be shot.;)

Anyway, the important point here is that a brand denotes a guarantee of consistency, not quality. That's not to say that the ACA stones aren't quality -- they seem to be held in high regard by a large number of Pricescopers, largely due to the rigid standards required for the brand. However, the distinction between quality and consistency iis an important one to make, because it means that you *can* find 'as good or better' out there -- ACA or SC or 8* or HoF do not hold a monopoly on well-cut stones --you just have to sort the wheat from the chaff *yourself*, rather than trusting a set standard. Buy a branded stone if you like the look of their stones and/or want a particular, repeatable level of quality (could be high /or/ low, that depends upon the standards, and everything is subjective -- there are some 'SuperIdeal' brands with very high standards that many people claim not to like!). Go with an unbranded if you like the look of some OTHER stone, and/or you trust the feedback of your jeweler, or if there's some other consideration at play (such as price, as 'branding' often comes at a premium).

You're looking at two great stones, both scoring well on the HCA, either of which would probably make your lady very happy. Don't immediately assume that branded >> unbranded, though -- look at the information (most online jewelers will provide additional information on a stone upon request if it's not already on the site, from what I've seen), compare them vs. what you feel to be important, weigh everything vs. your budget, and make a decision you can live with ('mind-clean' -- you don't want to be second-guessing yourself down the line...trust me, I do this a lot.;)

Best of luck, and I hope this cleared things up a bit for you!

Cheers!
Click to expand...

That was the point I was trying to make with the ACA - it saves having to sort the wheat from the chaff. Also the ACA brand is highly renowned for beauty so as I said before it is a safe choice to be able to say with certainty that one of these diamonds will be beautiful and will out perform many of the diamonds out there. Finding a standard top cut diamond can involve more work, knowledge and luck, it depends on what the purchaser is willing to put into the process as well as the money. Also the HCA isn't the main predictor of a diamond's performance, it is a tool to weed out lesser ones
1.gif
Also as Zac said earlier, he wants to buy the best 1ct diamond he can for his money, an ACA will provide the cut part of that if that is the way he decides to go.
 
Lorelei wrote: "...but to be reasonably well assured of the best performance the safest choice is the ACA."

With all due respect, I have to disagree with this statement. Rather, I''d restate it as "...to be reasonably well assured of a particular level of performance which I (you:) personally think is beautiful, without spending a lot of time researching the stone yourself, the safest choice is the ACA." I think it''s misleading to throw around terms like "best performance" without being specific to yourself, when that''s something which is completely subjective.

Case and point -- as you know, I''m seeking an FIC, because I want a stone with more dispersion. (Well, I *think* I want an FIC. I''m still working on getting to see one in person next to a TIC.:) I have read other noted experts from these forums similarly report that they liked the look of an FIC (the one I''m thinking of in particular mentioned an FIC w/ long LGFs, I believe), and bemoan that cutters do not usually go this route for a number of already known reasons. To someone looking for a stone like that, an ACA will -not- assure them of "the best performance", as ACA stones are not cut with steep crown angles such as one looks for in an FIC. Similarly, someone who likes the particular look of other known, branded stones would not find the ACA giving "the best performance".

I know (and sincerely appreciate!) that the veterans on these forums are just trying to give the sum of their wisdom and experience in a few short words, and I''m genuinely not criticizing anyone for taking the time to respond to questions (I''m grateful that you do, I''m learning a lot!). I''m just asking that when "guiding" us impressionable first-timers, you try to remember to remain objective, as our desires might not be the same as yours.:)

zacjanes wrote: and with the ACA being the best you can get

^^^ Quod erat demonstradum.
 
I am not understanding the latin at the bottom of your post?

I was not 'throwing' around terms hopefully, but saying to Zac in my opinion that the ACA offers the best cut quality and performance. Of course this is subjective - everyone's opinion of beauty is different. I was trying to ascertain Zac's desires and wants and advise accordingly, of course if my opinion is of no use to him then he is quite free to disregard it. Zac asked for my opinion which I gave.

However you failed alucard to use the other part of my post - However sometimes you can't pin down with numbers or brands the beauty that some diamonds have even with lesser proportions

which I would hope made it clear that I wasn't disregarding other diamonds, but trying to advise him to the diamond I felt would suit his needs the most.

My intention was merely to advise Zac the easiest way to get the best he could for his money as it seemed there was a lot for him to think of and I would hope that all my posts take into account the needs of the poster - as with your thread the other day alucard where I seemed to be of help - and that I am not biased in any way. I would like to think that I helped you on your path to finding the diamond you want.

ETA - of course if like yourself, Zac was looking for a FIC then I would in no way advise him to look at ACA diamonds. Maybe I am guilty of skipping over some points that I think would be self evident to those who have some diamond knowledge, that for example, an ACA is unlikely to be suitable if a FIC is what you want, but perhaps I shouldn't assume that everyone realises this.
 
I apologize, mme. Lorelei, I meant no offense.:)

The abbreviation "QED" (quod erat demonstrandum, or, "which was to be demonstrated") was written at the bottom of mathematical proofs to mark that the theorum had been definitely proven. In this case, it was intended to highlight my concern that to some, your comments might have appeared less objective than you intended. In the span of only a few posts, Zac went from "what do you think of this (non-ACA) stone" to "with ACA being the best you can get" based primarily upon your input. That seems a pretty large swing for objectivity, and something Zac noticed when he said, "so obviously, Lorelei, you''re a big believer in the ACA".

The highlighted comment you suggest I omitted also, in fact, carries a bias. You refer to the proportions that "some diamonds" have as "lesser", carrying an implication that the proportions ACA diamonds have as "greater" -- and it''s precisely this **unintended** bias to which I was referring. I do not think you have any sort of "secret agenda", nor do I think you''re trying to steer anyone wrong. You''ve provided your opinion, I just think it''s important to make sure that it cannot be misinterpreted as "fact". Particularly for the veterans.:)

Again, I apologize if my comments were ill received, they were only intended to provide an "outsider''s" perspective and some possibly constructive advice. Feel free to disregard if you''re confident they hold no value.

I''m dropping out of this thread so as not to hijack.:) Zac, you''ve received one PoV, which as you''ve indicated seems to favour one particular brand. That brand has a good reputation for quality, and Lorelei has a good reputation for being helpful, so you can probably take that opinion to the bank. You may also wish to contact the vendors of the other stones in question to receive their opinions on /those/ stones, particularly the ones which do not already provide IS or other reports. All of the jewelers you''ve mentioned or have been mentioned to you are well-respected here and should not steer you wrong, so feel free to reach out to them and pester them with questions ad nauseum regarding the stones you''re considering. It''s what they''re there for.:)

Good luck!
 
ZJ, I'd say it depends on your eyes. Some people can definitely prefer an Infinity over a Hearts on Fire, some people can definitely prefer a New Line ACA over a Classic ACA, and some people cannot tell between 3.5 HCA and <2 HCA, and some people do not prefer a stone with perfect optical symmetry over one with none. The differences in these examples may only be noticeable or not noticeable in specific conditions.

But that is not to say that the JA stone is in any way worse than the ACA. Why don't you get an Ideal Scope of it?
 
firstly, Alucard, thanks a lot for your point of view, I really appreciate it! I can see that neither you or Lorelei are trying to be biased or cause arguments at all, hearing both sides of the ''argument'' (for lack of a better word) - actually opens my eyes to a few things. You have both been very very helpful, and PLEASE both keep giving more feedback!!!

To be honest, I like the idea of a "branded" diamond with good reputation, as I am very very new to diamonds, and from the little time I can dedicate to researching, it does seem to be a safe(r) way to go... but at the same time, I definitely want to get my girl the BEST DIAMOND that I can afford!!! So if I can find a better diamond for a similar price, of course I would like to go that way.

Lorelei, when you first said about the WF diamond being pure perfection, it was just great to hear that I actually chose a good one! But obviously I will still be calling around other retailers, and trying to see differences between the retailers, and what they will offer me.

If I can just ask... what *is* a TIC and FIC? And long LGFs? and what is the difference between a new line ACA and a classic ASA? what are all these things??



p.s. I will be the first to admit that my mind is easily swayed, so the more feedback all of you give, the better informed I will be, so if i can please just re-emphasize, please keep giving feedback, even if you think no-one else here will agree!!!
36.gif
30.gif
thanks in advance :)
 
Zac, firstly thank you for realizing that I am not trying to be biased, regular PSers also know that isn't the case. One of the reasons I thought the ACA would be suitable for you was as you seemed to like the idea of a branded diamond. Of course call round the other retailers and look and compare so you are satisfied that you have bought the most suitable diamond for your needs. You can work with any of the PS vendors and they will take excellent care of you.

I wish you the best of luck in finding your diamond Zac, you are putting a lot of thought and effort into it and asking the right questions.

Good luck to you
35.gif


Also as you asked

TIC= Tolkowsky Ideal Cut

FIC= Firey Ideal Cut

LGF= Lower girdle facets = the facets you see below a diamond's girdle on the pavillion of the diamond.

Info on new line V classic here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-new-line-classic-owners-tradeoff.38678/=


Here too
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-stone-new-line-or-classic.36907/=
 
Date: 9/27/2006 5:41:41 AM
Author: zacjanes

If I can just ask... what *is* a TIC and FIC? And long LGFs? and what is the difference between a new line ACA and a classic ASA? what are all these things??
Click to expand...
More from Garry''s original HCA site on TIC, FIC and BIC. BTW, Alucard...though I have an FIC, I got it by accident, and even though they''re now more readily available because AGS has opened up the world to them...they may be too hard to find to really make a project of it.
 
Thanks for the info guys. Comparing the two WF diamonds still...

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-52591.htm#

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-51955.htm

on the HCA cut adviser, the non-ACA diamond actually gets a 1.2, and the ACA gets a 1.3... and if it''s an F colour, I think that could be better value...

Also I''m assuming the difference between the excellent for symm/polish on the non-ACA diamond is a negligible difference from the ideal on the ACA diamond, is this correct?
 
Despite any reasonable and conceivable internal bias that would go towards one over the other, I really think your best source of info, comparing the two, will be an expert at WF.

They may even tell you they will use their requirements to help you pick.

OK....

Any, if you do this, please share back with us.

Warm regards,
 
Also, Bob from WF is recommending the 1.02 non-ACA cut. this is what he says about it...

"This is one of our diamonds that was cut to be an ACA diamond but did not make the cut. Probably because the Hearts are not perfect. WF has the highest standards in the industry for H&A and if Brian says they are not perfect then they do not get the ACA brand. These diamonds that are cut to be ACA diamonds perform pretty much like the ACA diamonds for a little less money. Being an F color is also a plus. I think it might be a better choice."

26.gif
28.gif


Would this be typical salesman talk to get me to spend $500 more? or would it really perform pretty much like the ACA?
 
Ira is on the money, with these diamonds it would be WF's call to really advise you which has the edge. ES diamonds are superb too and many shoot for these. Bob also knows his stuff, you can trust his judgement. From what I understand the ES are gorgeous diamonds too with many happy owners here!
 
ES Diamonds? And do H&A make a big difference? And lastly just about the polish/symmetry... what difference does that make?
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top