Diamond Purchase Advice.

[GR73]

Hi folks. So glad I found this forum. I've been looking around at diamonds and have learned a ton thanks to all the information posted here. I think I've narrowed down some choices based on my requirements. I'm looking for around 2.5 CT, G+, VS1+ EX+ around 40k. I've found the diamonds listed below across several sites. James Allen, Brian Gavin, Audiamor and a local dealer (last diamond). I saw the last diamond through an ASET scope and it seemed decent. I ran the diamonds through a couple sites to get their feedback as well. Before I make a final decision, I'd like to get some feedback from all the unbiased experts here. I sincerely appreciate all the advice. I tried to put the pictures together so they make sense. I do not have scopes for the last two diamonds. I was told the Ideal Scope for the 2.7 was not provided with the diamond. Thank you once again!

Thank you!

Size	GIA	Free Diamond Report	HCA	Stone Algo	Price	Cut	Color	Clarity
2.5​	6381759961​	No	1.7​	9.2​	38,200​	EX	G	VVS2
2.4​	7436443572​	Ideal	1.7​	9.2​	37,250​	EX	G	VS1
2.42​	6445356661​	Ideal	1​	9.4​	41,526​	EX	F	VS1
2.43​	3455434769​	Ideal	1.4​	9.1​	40,970​	EX	G	VVS2
2.7​	6441036054​	Super Ideal	0.8​	7.5​	42,210​	EX	G	VS1
2.5​	2437826593​	No	2.8​	5.4​	39,800​	EX	G	VS1

 

[lovedogs]

Of the ones with H&A views/ASETs the only one I like is the 2.43. The 2.7 could be good, but would need to see pics

 

[Kaycee2018]

Agree w/ @lovedogs

 

[Kim N]

Of the ones with H&A views/ASETs the only one I like is the 2.43. The 2.7 could be good, but would need to see pics

I agree as well.

For your budget, I would consider one of these super ideal cut diamonds, which have guaranteed superior light performance a more generous upgrade policy.

Diamond | 2.61 ct G VS2 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4555938

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 2.61 carat G color VS2 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4555938

www.whiteflash.com

Diamond | 2.55 ct H VS2 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond GIA Certified | 4520940

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 2.55 carat H color VS2 clarity loose diamond is graded by the Gemological Institute of America (GIA). | 4520940

www.whiteflash.com

Diamond | 2.441 ct H VS2 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4422547

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 2.441 carat H color VS2 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4422547

www.whiteflash.com

 

[entaro]

can't go wrong with ACA!

 

[momofive]

Hi and wlelcome!
I like all of Kim’s suggestions better than the ones you found. The fire flashes are awesome and I like the higher crown height %. You can’t go wrong with any of these.

 

[GR73]

Thanks everyone for all your suggestions and welcomes! I really appreciate the advice.

 

[sledge]

From your list....

1. 2.50 G/VVS2 = Reject. Riding the fringe w/ the 36/40.6 combo. Unfortunately it bites you has some leakage at the 9 and the 1 o'clock positions.

2. 2.40 G/VS1 = Reject. Those are H&A images, not idealscope. Hearts are a mess. Still riding the fringe with another 36/40.6 combo. I'd expect it to have some leakage as well.

3. 2.42 F/VS1 = Reject. Again, H&A images, not idealscope. Hearts show inconsistent cut quality. I don't love the larger 58 table. However, the 35/40.6 combo is more in preferred ranges. Also, look at the arrows image, you can see clubs forming at the arrow heads which shouldn't be happening. If I'm in your shoes, for $40k I want perfection in performance and this isn't it.

4. 2.43 G/VVS2 = Reject. Pushing the fringe at 35.5/40.6 but idealscope shows decent light return. What I dislike is that similar to the last stone this one also has club heads forming where the arrow heads are supposed to be. You see it faintly on the idealscope, but the actual diamond image shows it even clearer. Again, if it was my $40k I'd just have a hard time spending it.

5. 2.70 G/VS1 = Maybe. I'd like to see an idealscope or ASET along with a hearts image on this one. Proportions work -- 55 table, 61.7 depth, 34.5/40.6, 75 LGF and 45 stars. I noticed the pavilion depth is 42.50%. Mathematically a 40.6 pavilion works out to 42.8% which is rounded to 43% in GIA speak. This makes me think when GIA took measurements and rounded & averaged them, we had several values < 40.6. Ideally you want those actuals to be above 40.4. We won't get that precise data without a detailed SARINE report, but the advanced images may show us if there are any weak areas. I am curious...you labeled this stone as "superideal" in your spreadsheet data. Did you assign that terminology, or was it assigned by a vendor? If so, which vendor? Sometimes that term is tossed around with different meanings so I want to understand the basis for using it. To me, superideal = branded H&A stone with advanced images to prove superb light performance + AGS 000 lab report or GIA 3X w/ AGS addendum (in new lab report speak).

6. 2.51 G/VS1 - Reject. IMO, worst choice on your list. Closer to a 60/60 style stone which means both the table and depth equal 60% (or nearly 60%). You can see it's not quite there with 59 table, 60.8 depth, 32 crown, 41.4 pavilion. The flat crown and big table produces a wimpy 12.5% crown height. Wonky stuff happens when pavilions cross the 41.2 point. Despite some of the short comings of the other stones, this one is in left field.

 

[sledge]

I really like both the 2.61 G/VS2 and 2.557 H/VS2 that @Kim N suggested.

I'm not a fan of the 2.441 H/VS2. It looks hazy to my eyes. WF ACA stones are top shelf so it could have been dirty or maybe something went wonky when it was videoed. If interested, it's worth an ask to see if they can video it again. It doesn't look as bad in the brilliance video as it does in the sparkle video where the stone is flooded with light to show off the fire.

In all these screen captures of the videos, the 2.557 H/VS2 is on the left and the 2.441 H/VS2 is on the right.













Definitely for $40k I'd want the warm fuzzies of H&A and light performance perfection that a true superideal like an ACA offers. Plus WF's upgrade program is pretty amazing. Simply trade to a stone of equal or higher value...no other red tape, restrictions, hassles, etc.

In comparison to JA which looks like where some of those images came from, their upgrade policy is spend 2X the amount each time you upgrade. That's a tough pill to swallow when starting at $40k purchase. That means you'd be looking at $80k+ for the next upgrade.

 

[DejaWiz]

Here's the 2.43:


Here's the 2.70:


Both have some paddling effect going on out at the crown facets, which are dark spots of reduced light return.

This will be detrimental to the overall beauty and optical performance.

 

[DejaWiz]

Kim N already posted it, but here is the 2.557 H VS2 ACA again:

Diamond | 2.55 ct H VS2 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond GIA Certified | 4520940

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 2.55 carat H color VS2 clarity loose diamond is graded by the Gemological Institute of America (GIA). | 4520940

www.whiteflash.com

And if you want to go bigger still with a slight sacrifice of color and clarity...this one is beautifully clean under the table which makes for an extremely desirable SI1 and an outstanding value, especially since it did pass the obsessively strict muster to earn the ACA rank. Equally tight table and puffy crown as the 2.557 for some serious fire:

Diamond | 2.950 ct I SI1 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4537271

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 2.950 carat I color SI1 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4537271

www.whiteflash.com

 

[sledge]

Here's the 2.70:

Still unclear who labeled this stone as "super ideal" but that clearly is NOT the case. Based on paddling and symmetry issues presented in the above photo I would put this one in the REJECT category.