Deciding Between 2 WhiteFlash Diamonds, Please Help Me Pick!

[iamurpapi]

So I've narrowed down my search to two WhiteFlash diamonds and wanted to make a decision pretty quickly.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3738881.htm (2.20 Carat / F Color / VS1 / $41,400)
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3667378.htm (2.37 Carat / F Color / VS1 / $45,300)

I was originally leaning towards the larger one but the IdealScope and ASET images looked slightly more clean on the 2.20 Carat one (which would be a fine size as well). Am I being too crazy in thinking that and looking in too much detail? Would be great if someone else more experienced could opine and compare the two (the 2.37 Carat one does look like it has stronger red).

Separately, the 2.20 Carat one has a green circle in the middle of the ASET image while the 2.37 one has a red circle. What does this mean? Should I think anything about it?

Thank you in advance for all the help!

 

[flyingpig]

Regarding the inner green/red circle, it is called table reflection and it does not matter which color it is.
That area draws and reflects light from 45 degree angle, which in ASET, can be either green or red.
Both show alot of red (some green in the 2.2carat), because of the steeper pav angle of 40.9

If you see this diamond with shallower pav angle 40.6, it is all green.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3782387.htm

https://www.whiteflash.com/about-di...n/aset---table-reflection-whiteflash-1420.htm

 

[iamurpapi]

Thanks Flyingpig. Any sense for which ASET image is more clean? Also, would the slight difference matter in this case as both seem pretty good already.

The 2.37 carat one also seems to have a deeper red, does that mean it will be brighter?

 

[flyingpig]

Regarding the difference in red color tone between light performance images, this is most likely due to the lighting and photograph environment. I see what you are talking about. The IS image of the 2.2 has more yellowish/orange tone than that of 2.36c. Maybe camera color temperature setting?? Just look at the actual photo. One is most clear glassy looking and the other is more frosted glassy looking. These have nothing to do with the diamonds themselves.

I prefer the ASET image and overall appearance of 2.20c.
Unfortunately, I do not buy diamonds in this carat/price range. I cannot really say which is a better buy. Are +0.16c and +0.2mm in diameter worth paying extra 4k? That's the question you need to answer for yourself.

 

[tyty333]

Call WF and have them pull the two stones...you can ask them questions and have them talk you
through them.

Relative size difference between the two (2.2 on left)

 

[iamurpapi]

Thanks FlyingPig. I assume that the small difference in quality of the ASET image for the 2.368 one won't actually have any discernible impact on its light performance vs. the 2.20 Carat one. Would it be safe to assume that I should view the quality of cut as virtually identical in this case and not select one over the other for this reason?

 

[marcy]

I also think either diamond would be beautiful. I would ask your sales associate to pull both of them and evaluate them for you.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks FlyingPig. I assume that the small difference in quality of the ASET image for the 2.368 one won't actually have any discernible impact on its light performance vs. the 2.20 Carat one. Would it be safe to assume that I should view th
e quality of cut as virtually identical in this case and not select one over the other for this reason?

These two stones are basically in the top 3% of round brilliant diamonds. Both are outstanding. If you think your future fiancee would value a larger stone, then go with the 2.36. If you think she is expecting 2 cts or lower, then she'll be happily surprised with the 2.20. As tyty showed above, there is definitely a visual difference between the two stones in size.

 

[iamurpapi]

Thank you Diamondseeker and Marcy. As long as size is the only consideration, I will probably go with the bigger one, but just wanted to make sure there wasn't a difference in cut quality between the 2 stones that I should consider as well.

 

[flyingpig]

Thank you Diamondseeker and Marcy. As long as size is the only consideration, I will probably go with the bigger one, but just wanted to make sure there wasn't a difference in cut quality between the 2 stones that I should consider as well.

Take tyty's advice. Ask WF to pull out both stones and do comparison. In addition, ask for a side-by-side comparison video under various lighting conditions. WF offers great customer service. Take advantage of it, especially when you make such big purchase.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I will just add that if the stones were the same size and price, I would choose the 2.37 due to the slightly higher crown angle and the 77 lower girdle facets. In reality, you may not even be able to see the minute numerical differences, but if you want another reason to go with the larger one, those would be some reasons that I'd choose it. In reality, I might have to choose the smaller one solely because of price! But I'd rather have the 2.37!

Have you decided on a setting?

 

[iamurpapi]

Just going to keep it simple and go with a classic 6-prong platinum ring. I noticed on the Hearts image of the 2.37 diamond, there are some dark spots on some of the hearts. Should I be worried about this or is it an issue?

@diamondseeker2006 , why do you prefer the slightly higher crown angle and 77 lower girdle facets?

I'm leaning towards the 2.37 one at this point as I have the budget for it, but just want to make sure it is on-par with the 2.2 one...

 

[flyingpig]

why do you prefer the slightly higher crown angle and 77 lower girdle facets?

In general, a shallow crown angle favors light return and a steeper crown angle favors dispersion (fire/sparkle). 77 lower girdle height produce thicker arrows than 78 lower girdle height, producing chunkier fire. It is not a matter of which is better. It is about personal pref.
An argument for the 2.20 is that it has a slightly smaller table than the 2.37 and has bigger crown facets where dispersion occurs.

At the end, we are talking about crown angle of 34.5 +-0.3, 77~78 LGH, and 55~55.6 table, which is an interesting conversation, but really nitpicking. Both stones are AGS 0, WF ACA, and their proportions hit the bull's eye of the orthodox ideal ranges. Both stones should excel in dispersion and light return. Thus, DS2006 added ""in reality, you may not even be able to see the minute numerical differences"

 

[dumbo]

Regarding the inner green/red circle, it is called table reflection and it does not matter which color it is.
That area draws and reflects light from 45 degree angle, which in ASET, can be either green or red.
Both show alot of red (some green in the 2.2carat), because of the steeper pav angle of 40.9

If you see this diamond with shallower pav angle 40.6, it is all green.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3782387.htm

https://www.whiteflash.com/about-di...n/aset---table-reflection-whiteflash-1420.htm

That is a great diamond you linked! Not sure if you want to go bigger, but losing a color grade and stepping up over .4mm in diameter may be a great trade-up! Most people aren't going to notice 1 color grade either way, but an 11% increase in face-up size is significant. Have you considered this route? G is still crazy icy...