Diamond...Should I Bite???

[fa21212]

Hey Guys,

I just wanted to start off by saying that all of you guys are incredibly awesome for helping people through their diamond adventures. I wanted to get your thoughts on the following diamond. My question to you is, with the naked eye is it a very visually stunning diamond (perhaps just as stunning as a Whiteflash ACA diamond)? Second question is, what would you consider to be a good price for this diamond?

Lastly, do you guys think this would look good with two 0.31 side stones on a whiteflash 3 stone champagne setting

http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/petite-3-stone-champagne-diamond-engagement-ring_1397.htm

Cut: GIA Excellent
Carat: 1.23
Color: H
Clarity: SI1 Eye Clean
Depth: 61.5%
Table: 58%
Crown: 35.0
Pavilion: 40.8
Cutlet: None
Round Brilliant
6.86 - 6.90 x 4.23
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent

I''ve attached some pictures below, appreciate all the help!

 

[fa21212]

Another pic.

 

[fa21212]

Another.

 

[fa21212]

And another.

 

[yssie]

Actually a good example of why you should never just buy by the numbers b/c they don''t tell the whole story.


I wouldn''t be happy with those leaky areas, I think they''ll be visible with stereo vision.

 

[fa21212]

thanks so much for the reply. do you think this will be a significant visible difference vs. an ACA diamond in terms of cut performance?

 

[LGK]

Yeah I am no expert on round brilliants but that diamond sure does look like it would have a visible leakage problem under the table. I''d keep looking.

 

[yssie]

Date: 6/3/2010 11:05:31 PM
Author: fa21212
thanks so much for the reply. do you think this will be a significant visible difference vs. an ACA diamond in terms of cut performance?

Yes, I would look for one without this leakage

 

[fa21212]

Can you please let me know what you think about this stone. The sales rep told me that with Whiteflash ACA they are all eye clean, so it should not be a concern that this is an SI2. Is this right? What do you guys think of this diamond?

WF Link

 

[yssie]

Date: 6/4/2010 12:31:04 AM
Author: fa21212
Can you please let me know what you think about this stone. The sales rep (Victor) told me that with Whiteflash ACA they are all eye clean, so it should not be a concern that this is an SI2. Is this right? What do you guys think of this diamond?

WF Link

Looks like a very nice stone. I believe WF''s definition of eyeclean is no visible bogeys face up from 8-10" in natural lighting w/ 20/20 vision. Is this your definition of eyeclean? If not have your rep check if the stone matches your specifications.

All ACAs are pre-examined so there will be no durability issues, though you can of course have your rep confirm.

 

[fa21212]

The sales rep told me that it''s eye clean from 6 inches. I assume that this is the standard and this is a good bet?

 

[yssie]

If they say it''ll be clean face up from 6" then it''ll be clean face up from 6", that''s not the issue. My question is what you are looking for - you may want to clarify visibility from normal viewing tilt angles (through the crown), if you''re looking for clean from the side you''ll most likely have to go up in clarity..

 

[fa21212]

Thanks so much for all your help yssie!

Just one last question, out of the following diamonds, which one do you think is best? Is the SI1 worth the $1000 premium over the SI2 if all I care about is if it's eye clean or not?

SI2: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2329048.htm

SI1's: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2329050.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2329046.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2231249.htm

 

[cutes814]

yssie is right. what are you looking for? what is important to you?

how good is your vision? would it bother you if you saw an inclusion from the profile (side angle), closer than 6 inches?

but to answer your question. yes, i think the extra $1000 is worth to go up in clarity. some people think an eye clean stone is very important in their engagement diamond. i was one of those people, so i chose to go VS1 (i have an eagle eye, unfortunately). everyone''s definition of eye clean is different. make sure your definition of eye clean is the same as WF. if they say 6 inches from the top, they mean 6 inches from the top.

i just don''t want you to get the stone and see the inclusion from 2 inches from the top, or 3 inches from the side and be disappointed KWIM?

i didn''t look thoroughly through all 4 stones, so I cannot tell you which one of the 4 is better.

 

[stone-cold11]

Ask WF to do a blind test with these stones with their sales rep and get the opinion of their gemologist.

 

[fa21212]

So I'm thinking about getting this one: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2329050.htm

However, dimonbob over at WF seems to disagree with you guys. I asked him if there would be a different in visual performance on this diamond vs. the diamond with the attached pictures at the top and he said no. Is he right?

And one more question, do you think the attached diamond would look good with this setting with 0.25ct side stones?

http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/petite-3-stone-champagne-diamond-engagement-ring_1397.htm

 

[stone-cold11]

Do a blind test.