Choosing the best 1 ct Super-ideal

diamondseeker2006 · Oct 9, 2017

Of the original stones posted, I would choose the Whiteflash diamond because it is G VS2, and if I am paying for superideal cut, I'd like a balance in the specs including good clarity. My diamond earrings are Whiteflash ACAs H VS2. I do have antique cuts in lower colors than H, but I prefer G-H in all modern round brilliants (I love F but you sacrifice size to go that high in color). All of the stones you posted were nice, and I can assure you that you aren't seeing leakage in them. I have had superideal cuts from GOG and WF, and I think very highly of CBI, as well. But I'd personally stick with no lower than H VS2 and like the 1.03 G VS2 from WF best of your original picks. WF has an equal trade-in policy to CBI, but at this moment, CBI has a greater selection in the G-H VS2 range. GOG has a good 1.07 H VS2, but the CBI's are just a few dollars more @ 1.09 cts.

That said, here are the stones I'd recommend (and I like your group two selections in your second list):

G VS2
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3893609.htm
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD7973
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD8386

H VS2
https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond...S-H-VS2-diamond-stock-15877-cert-104089831009
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD8389
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD7828 (CBI has several more H VS2's 1.03-1.09)

@rockysalamander Very nice examples of the setting styles he wants. His first images had the diamond set way too high.

gm89uk · Oct 10, 2017

Part of the premium you pay for a superideal is the customer service where someone can properly and reliably vet your diamond. You can help alleviate some of that premium with getting an SI stone rather than VS.

If you have reassurance a cheaper SI stone is eye clean under scrutiny, I see no point whatsoever going VS, unless that's something you really want.

WF, GOG, HPD to my knowledge all have similar upgrade policies with HPD having the best lifetime buy back policy if you ever wanted to sell it.

Wallyhenry · Oct 10, 2017

gm89uk said:
Part of the premium you pay for a superideal is the customer service where someone can properly and reliably vet your diamond. You can help alleviate some of that premium with getting an SI stone rather than VS.

If you have reassurance a cheaper SI stone is eye clean under scrutiny, I see no point whatsoever going VS, unless that's something you really want.

WF, GOG, HPD to my knowledge all have similar upgrade policies with HPD having the best lifetime buy back policy if you ever wanted to sell it.

Sounds like if I had to choose between an eye clean G-SI1 and an H-VS2 that the G-SI1 would be of more value, if I'm interpreting correctly?

I hear from the GOG rep that twinning wisps are some of the best inclusions to have on an SI, since they're faint and shouldn't affect performance.Would you agree? The faint lines are visible on the images if you look closely. I'll have to ask the GOG rep for confirmation of eye cleanliness while I'm waiting for the videos from CBI.

Wallyhenry · Oct 10, 2017

diamondseeker2006 said:
Of the original stones posted, I would choose the Whiteflash diamond because it is G VS2, and if I am paying for superideal cut, I'd like a balance in the specs including good clarity. My diamond earrings are Whiteflash ACAs H VS2. I do have antique cuts in lower colors than H, but I prefer G-H in all modern round brilliants (I love F but you sacrifice size to go that high in color). All of the stones you posted were nice, and I can assure you that you aren't seeing leakage in them. I have had superideal cuts from GOG and WF, and I think very highly of CBI, as well. But I'd personally stick with no lower than H VS2 and like the 1.03 G VS2 from WF best of your original picks. WF has an equal trade-in policy to CBI, but at this moment, CBI has a greater selection in the G-H VS2 range. GOG has a good 1.07 H VS2, but the CBI's are just a few dollars more @ 1.09 cts.

That said, here are the stones I'd recommend (and I like your group two selections in your second list):

G VS2
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3893609.htm
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD7973
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD8386

H VS2
https://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond...S-H-VS2-diamond-stock-15877-cert-104089831009
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD8389
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD7828 (CBI has several more H VS2's 1.03-1.09)

@rockysalamander Very nice examples of the setting styles he wants. His first images had the diamond set way too high.

Thanks for your insight. What has been your experience with GOG and how did their stone compare with WF? I'm generally not a big fan of the black scuff marks I've seen on the hearts images on WF which appear to relate to their surface polishing.

Wallyhenry · Oct 10, 2017

Here is a 360 of the GOG 1.04 G-SI1. Experts - please provide your thoughts....

https://v360.in/movie/87_15929

diamondseeker2006 · Oct 10, 2017

Wallyhenry said:
Thanks for your insight. What has been your experience with GOG and how did their stone compare with WF? I'm generally not a big fan of the black scuff marks I've seen on the hearts images on WF which appear to relate to their surface polishing.

A super ideal cut diamond that gets ideal on polish does not have scuff marks on their surface polishing. I am not sure what you are seeing. The only think you might potentially see in a hearts image is a reflection of inclusions, but that doesn't mean a stone is not eyeclean. You cannot see polish issues on a hearts image. So I think you are eliminating WF stones due to a misunderstanding of the images.

My stone from GOG was outstanding, however, Whiteflash almost always has the best selection. That may not be of any consequence if you plan to never upgrade the stone, but it has been great since I have upgraded my diamond stud earrings three times! I currently have 8 whiteflash ACAs not counting the small ones in a necklace and bracelet.

Wallyhenry · Oct 10, 2017

diamondseeker2006 said:
A super ideal cut diamond that gets ideal on polish does not have scuff marks on their surface polishing. I am not sure what you are seeing. The only think you might potentially see in a hearts image is a reflection of inclusions, but that doesn't mean a stone is not eyeclean. You cannot see polish issues on a hearts image. So I think you are eliminating WF stones due to a misunderstanding of the images.

I maybe describing/interpreting the inclusions on the hearts image wrong, but the inclusions I see on a WF SI1 appear to be more prominent than an SI1 from GOG/CBI. I know they're all graded by AGS but why do they seem more visible on the hearts image with WF? lighting perhaps? This was the reason I eliminated WF. Here are examples:

WF SI1 (some inclusions circled, but a lot more circular "scuff" appears near the centre of those images :

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 3.40.45 PM.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 3.40.32 PM.png

CBI SI1 - looks much cleaner:

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 3.46.21 PM.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 3.46.05 PM.png

GOG SI1 - also looks pretty clean:

diamondseeker2006 · Oct 10, 2017

Those are all inclusions. Maybe some of them do not have inclusions showing in the hearts images. They may show elsewhere, though. Many SI1's are eyeclean and some are not. But what you see reflected on a hearts image has no bearing on the actual appearance of the stone especially face up. I can see inclusions on the second CBI image. But in regard to all of them, different types of inclusions are going to appear different. They are all using different photgraphy and some may show inclusions more easily than others. But you certainly don't judge a stones clarity by a hearts image. Those are to see the precision of the cutting. What matters in regard to clarity is that the stone is eyeclean from viewing within a few inches.

rockysalamander · Oct 10, 2017

Totally agree with @diamondseeker2006 . Here is a comparison of a random BG Stone showing the three key images. On the 3rd image, I used the inclusion plot to help me mark the location of all the inclusions I could see in the photo. But, for anything other than the central inclusion and a few of the little ones to be visible to me, I blew the diamond up to 8" diameter on my monitor. The vast majority of the marks seen on the Hearts view are invisible by eye and the major inclusion in the table is invisible in the hearts view as it is sitting on a "black" arrow.

Dancing Fire · Oct 10, 2017

rockysalamander said:
Totally agree with @diamondseeker2006 . Here is a comparison of a random BG Stone showing the three key images. On the 3rd image, I used the inclusion plot to help me mark the location of all the inclusions I could see in the photo. But, for anything other than the central inclusion and a few of the little ones to be visible to me, I blew the diamond up to 8" diameter on my monitor. The vast majority of the marks seen on the Hearts view are invisible by eye and the major inclusion in the table is invisible in the hearts view as it is sitting on a "black" arrow.

The inclusions on the hearts are most likely from one dark inclusion under the table. Reflexions from the mirrors make the stone look really bad.

Wallyhenry · Oct 11, 2017

@diamondseeker2006 @rockysalamander @Dancing Fire thank you for clarifying the whole inclusions issue I've been seeing with WF stones. Based on your comments I'm adding WF stones back into the running, provided that they are not too dark/prominent under the table. What are your thoughts on these 2 WF stones compared to the GOG 1.04 G-SI1 with twinning wisps I posted earlier?

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3802924.htm
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3816369.htm

Wallyhenry · Oct 11, 2017

I thought I would share an objective comparison I put together during my research comparing store policies for super-ideal stones. I didn't see this information summarized on PS in a simple and concise side-by-side comparison.

Some of the items are Canada specific but I figure the other info might still help others with their choices.

CBI wins for store policy, followed by WF and GOG (both of which have very similar policies).

For cost/ct. for the same color/clarity combo, this is where it gets interesting... there is a $450-$650 spread per ct. between the 3 stores for the same color/clarity. BGD is not on the list because their prices were much higher at $600-$800 per ct. which I could never justify. Of course this is my own personal noob objective comparison based on a small data set, so take it for what its worth

....

Screen Shot 2017-10-11 at 12.54.18 PM.png

Aret03 · Oct 11, 2017

Keep in mind with that setting you are looking at your have clear lines of sight to the underside of the diamond, where the body color of the diamond is most visible. once again just food for thought if the color is something this is a big deal to you.

Also, that ACA G SI1 seems like a pretty good option to me if you're going for super ideal.

Wallyhenry · Oct 11, 2017

Aret03 said:
Keep in mind with that setting you are looking at your have clear lines of sight to the underside of the diamond, where the body color of the diamond is most visible. once again just food for thought if the color is something this is a big deal to you.

Also, that ACA G SI1 seems like a pretty good option to me if you're going for super ideal.

I've been thinking about this lately, as I'm going with a "floating stone" design for the band in platinum setting with claws (4 or 6) holding the centre stone with no bridges. Makes me want to go with a G. I will wait to see a video of an H next to a G to decide whether a difference is obvious.

diamondseeker2006 · Oct 11, 2017

If you are going to have the pavilion visible from the sides, you definitely need to have all of these stones evaluated for eyecleaness from the sides and not just the top. It's hard for me to tell you which SI1 I would choose, because I'd want to see them in person to see which appeared the cleanest. Whiteflash should be able to compare their two and tell you which is the cleanest from all viewing angles and if one is whiter than the other, though. They have done that for me every time I upgraded my stones. You really cannot tell much from photos or videos about color. You also can't tell in jewelry store lighting! You can tell in natural lighting and in the enviroments where the wearer usually wear the ring. I like G and H, but I have preferred G in my ideal cut ring stones and have stuck with H for my studs.

One thing about your chart, I have received a kit with hearts and arrows viewer and other items from both GOG and WF in the past. Whiteflash and CBI generally have a larger inventory of hearts and arrows stones than most other vendors if upgrading is ever a possiblity.

Wallyhenry · Oct 17, 2017

Thank you all for helping me choose a super ideal 1 ct stone! I chose the GOG 1.04 G SI1 and couldn’t be happier! This stone must be on ‘roids because it’s a powerhouse! The inclusions are so minor that the stone looks flawless even under magnification! I have to say GOG customer service has been top notch and they’ve been patient and very diligent with addressing all my requests and concerns! It took 3 business days for the stone to arrive to Canada from the day I sent the payment and they were updating me every step of the way. David and Darren from GOG both have been great to deal with. Here are some photos of this beauty: