The story of my ring's grading issue

[TreeScientist]

I agree with the others, the 2.28 is beautiful. The crystal definitely looks brighter and more lively (in those videos) than the other two options, although the 2.14 is a close second (honestly, if you asked me to differentiate them based on performance alone in person, I don't think I could do it). Plus it's a great size!

I'm also in the camp that thinks the 1.94 G is definitely the darkest and has the most tint out of the three. That is just one ugly diamond.

Of the HPD stones, the 2.01 has the best ASET. Would need to see videoes of them to see which you like best though. I guess the unfortuinate thing is that you're not within driving distance of HPD, so WF has the advantage of seeing them IRL before ordering.

 

[Stephan]

I agree with the others, the 2.28 is beautiful. The crystal definitely looks brighter and more lively (in those videos) than the other two options, although the 2.14 is a close second (honestly, if you asked me to differentiate them based on performance alone in person, I don't think I could do it). Plus it's a great size!

I'm also in the camp that thinks the 1.94 G is definitely the darkest and has the most tint out of the three. That is just one ugly diamond.

Of the HPD stones, the 2.01 has the best ASET. Would need to see videoes of them to see which you like best though. I guess the unfortuinate thing is that you're not within driving distance of HPD, so WF has the advantage of seeing them IRL before ordering.

Agree 100%.

 

[Lykame]

I have been following this thread with interest. I personally think you should go for the one whose light performance you like the most. Can you remember in person which one was better?

I haven't seen ACAs in person but I've seen CBIs in person and they do have different characters - my eye was drawn to one over the other in person.

I would implore you to investigate setting choices with Whiteflash before you jump ship to HPD. Both are great companies with great diamonds, but Whiteflash have been amazing with you so far, and that's loyalty earning. I know how important settings are, and ultimately everyone here wants you to be happy with your finished ring! But please chat with Whiteflash about the settings and let us know what all your options are. I wonder if @cflutist would be happy with you using Symphonie as a reference point with Whiteflash? I'm sure she would be honest with her comfort levels for that one way or another.

Best of luck!

 

[Jelly88]

The HPD setting is so beautiful! If you love that setting, I would look into getting a stone from HPD since they also have superideals. If you call them, I believe they can send their stones to a jeweler close to where you live for you to go view in person. I’ve had some not so great experiences for custom settings (not WF, but other reputable vendors), where the execution just doesn’t turn out as expected. So if a particular vendor has a design that you already love, I would go with that vendor instead of trying to get it recreated by someone else.

 

[tyty333]

2.28!

 

[Matilda]

I would still go for 2.28 I because I doubt its performance would be worse than the hpd diamonds. It is cheaper and bigger and probably similar performance, plus you saw it in person.

 

[Matilda]

Just an idea, I know this is NOT the same as the setting you posted but it is similar:

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...en-cathedral-diamond-engagement-ring-1539.htm

 

[sledge]

I went back and put the original 1.941 G and proposed 2.14 I into a comparative screen on WF so you can see the values side by side.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=4068031,4049800

You mentioned the I didn't have as much fire and here are my thoughts on why:

• G has a smaller 55.8 table vs the larger 56.6 table of the I. As you may already be aware, a smaller table means larger upper facets which is where rainbow light (fire/sparkle) is reflected and made visible to our eyes. So a smaller table will exhibit a little more fire, whereas a larger table will exhibit a little more white light balance.
• G has a steeper 34.5 crown with 15.2% crown height vs the I that has a more shallow 34.1 crown with 14.7% crown height. Keeping it simple, a shallower crown will produce a little more white return whereas a larger crown will produce a little more fire.
• While both crowns vary on each stone, the pavilions of both stones remain static at 40.8 degrees. Many times the pavilion will be steeper to offset a shallower crown. Here this works, as evidenced by the clean ASET and idealscope images as NO light is leaking on either stone.
• G has an overall depth of 61.5 and I has a depth of 60.8. Effectively all the proportions play a role in the way light enters, bounces around and then leaves the diamond. Below are some generic diagrams that show how a deeper stone with more steep crown (called a FIC) varies from a shallower stone with shallow crown (called a BIC) vary but take similar paths to exit the diamond. This illustrates how the crown, pavilion and depths play together.
• Ultimately neither is better or worse. As we can see by looking at all the images, both stones fall within ideal categories but because of slight variances in several proportions you are getting a slightly different personality with each stone. Effectively the G has a little more fire and less white return, whereas the I has a little more white light return and less fire.

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-crown-and-pavilion

Since you don't appear to be color sensitive, I am wondering if your eyes actually prefer a little more white light return at the expense of a little fire. Did you happen to look at any other stones that had near identical proportions to the 1.941 G? It'd be interesting to compare the new I stone you picked lined up to a few varying stones with near identical proportions to the G to see if these thoughts are correct.

It would be easy enough to find near identical proportions of the G stone that is the same or better color than the I stone you picked in the store. My concern is if you do prefer a little more white light return (and just don't know it) then you risk being unhappy a second time if WF takes this approach & swaps the stone without you being able to compare the stones side by side & confirm the decision first. IMO, you either need to visually see and confirm any changes in-person or you need to have a potential replacement along with the I stone shipped to your house or an appraiser/jeweler in your area that is WF approved so you can compare using your eyes. Otherwise I'm concerned the emotional side of this purchase may get the best of you and we all want you to be thrilled as WF stones are seriously some of the best available and WF takes a personal dedication to ensuring customer happiness and satisfaction.

Hi everyone! Happy new year.
️The day I went to WF store, I also saw another diamond in color I. I took pictures and videos for the 2.14 I, the 1.94G, and the other 2.28I. I was not thinking too much about that 2.28 I when I was in store since it's was on hold for someone else. But when i went home and showed the videos to the family. They think the 2.28I has more sparkle.
️In person, the 2.14I looked slightly slightly whiter than the 2.28I. That's the reason I picked out 2.14I. Or maybe it's brighter, I can't distinguish the difference of "white" or "bright" you guys mentioned.

Today the 2.28I was released from previous hold and so I have it hold for me to think about it seriously now: Between the 2.28I vs 2.14I. Advise needed!!!
In terms of price, only 1k difference between the two I, both are cheaper than the 1.94G.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068031.htm
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068032.htm

Here is an updated link with all 3 WF stones in a comparison view format.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=4068031,4049800,4068032

Back in post #202 I tried to point out minor differences I thought you were seeing between the 1.94 and 2.14 stones which was making them have slightly different personalities. Towards the end of that post I mentioned that it would be interesting to see a third stone with different color but similar properties to the 1.94 -- well the 2.28 is basically what I was talking about!



Have you and your family have been using your in-store videos or the WF videos on their website to determine "most sparkle"? I've been using the WF videos as they are more controlled (same light source, same angles, etc) and to me the 2.28 also tends to produce larger & bolder flashes of light to my eyes. I don't think the difference is vast between the 2.14 and 2.28 and both are quite lovely but if I were making the choice based on most fire I'd choose the 2.28 myself.

As far as the setting goes, WF does custom work and could make the setting how you like it. You just need to talk with them. For most people, it's easier to buy the stone & setting together at the same location.

I am the oddball. I bought my fiancee a stone from BGD. Then after lots of searching found an inspiration piece at a mall jeweler that my fiancee liked. Took that design and used a highly recommended jeweler, DK, in Los Angeles to custom create her setting. Once done, had the stone shipped from Houston to LA for final assembly and then shipped back to me where I finally proposed.

If you want more details:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/dk-bgd-custom-setting-the-home-stretch.240843/

 

[Julyisjuly]

Here is an updated link with all 3 WF stones in a comparison view format.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=4068031,4049800,4068032

Back in post #202 I tried to point out minor differences I thought you were seeing between the 1.94 and 2.14 stones which was making them have slightly different personalities. Towards the end of that post I mentioned that it would be interesting to see a third stone with different color but similar properties to the 1.94 -- well the 2.28 is basically what I was talking about!



Have you and your family have been using your in-store videos or the WF videos on their website to determine "most sparkle"? I've been using the WF videos as they are more controlled (same light source, same angles, etc) and to me the 2.28 also tends to produce larger & bolder flashes of light to my eyes. I don't think the difference is vast between the 2.14 and 2.28 and both are quite lovely but if I were making the choice based on most fire I'd choose the 2.28 myself.

As far as the setting goes, WF does custom work and could make the setting how you like it. You just need to talk with them. For most people, it's easier to buy the stone & setting together at the same location.

I am the oddball. I bought my fiancee a stone from BGD. Then after lots of searching found an inspiration piece at a mall jeweler that my fiancee liked. Took that design and used a highly recommended jeweler, DK, in Los Angeles to custom create her setting. Once done, had the stone shipped from Houston to LA for final assembly and then shipped back to me where I finally proposed.

If you want more details:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/dk-bgd-custom-setting-the-home-stretch.240843/

Beautiful finished ring! So special!

For video, I showed family the ones I took with my phone.

 

[Julyisjuly]

I agree with the others, the 2.28 is beautiful. The crystal definitely looks brighter and more lively (in those videos) than the other two options, although the 2.14 is a close second (honestly, if you asked me to differentiate them based on performance alone in person, I don't think I could do it). Plus it's a great size!

I'm also in the camp that thinks the 1.94 G is definitely the darkest and has the most tint out of the three. That is just one ugly diamond.

Of the HPD stones, the 2.01 has the best ASET. Would need to see videoes of them to see which you like best though. I guess the unfortuinate thing is that you're not within driving distance of HPD, so WF has the advantage of seeing them IRL before ordering.

LOL, none of them are within drive distance now. I am back to Bay Area, WF doesn't sent to any partner store,the closest place HPD can send is 5 hours away. Not easy to find time to drive 5h back and forth once holiday is over.

 

[Julyisjuly]

I have been following this thread with interest. I personally think you should go for the one whose light performance you like the most. Can you remember in person which one was better?

I haven't seen ACAs in person but I've seen CBIs in person and they do have different characters - my eye was drawn to one over the other in person.

I would implore you to investigate setting choices with Whiteflash before you jump ship to HPD. Both are great companies with great diamonds, but Whiteflash have been amazing with you so far, and that's loyalty earning. I know how important settings are, and ultimately everyone here wants you to be happy with your finished ring! But please chat with Whiteflash about the settings and let us know what all your options are. I wonder if @cflutist would be happy with you using Symphonie as a reference point with Whiteflash? I'm sure she would be honest with her comfort levels for that one way or another.

Best of luck!

It's very funny, when in person, I can't tell the difference much under the strong light when I wear all 3 on my finger, guess to sparkle from all direction and lost focus. My husband went out for a phone call for a while and returned to the show room, he didn't know which is which, he picked the 2.14 under the strong light. I cant remember how long he looked? Few seconds? Later he looked at the video, he thinks the 2.28 has more fire.

While I only wear 1.94G and 2.14I, I think 1.94G has slightly more sparkle.

In terms of the Symphonie setting, I don't really need the pave, since the parts I like most are the six prongs and Beautiful-smooth flow of the head design. Also if the center stone is Color I, the pave may make the center stone appear yellow/dark. I appreciate @cflutist coming up the design for CBI, will respect her inputs.

 

[Julyisjuly]

Just an idea, I know this is NOT the same as the setting you posted but it is similar:

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...en-cathedral-diamond-engagement-ring-1539.htm

Thank you Matilda!
In terms of the Symphonie setting, I don't really need the pave, since the parts I like most are the six prongs and Beautiful-smooth flow of the head design.

 

[blueMA]

Checkout Victor Canera as well - they have some of the best settings with meticulous workmanship
https://www.victorcanera.com/rings/engagement?shape=round&type=solitaire&metal=platinum

Having said that, I've seen Whiteflash produce beautiful custom settings, and it is definitely easier and less nerve-wrecking to have your ring done by the same vendor.

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

Thank you Matilda!
In terms of the Symphonie setting, I don't really need the pave, since the parts I like most are the six prongs and Beautiful-smooth flow of the head design.

I’m partial to plain solitaire setting. Let your beautiful diamond stand out . What finger size do you have? It looks beautiful and slender.

 

[Lykame]

It's very funny, when in person, I can't tell the difference much under the strong light when I wear all 3 on my finger, guess to sparkle from all direction and lost focus. My husband went out for a phone call for a while and returned to the show room, he didn't know which is which, he picked the 2.14 under the strong light. I cant remember how long he looked? Few seconds? Later he looked at the video, he thinks the 2.28 has more fire.

While I only wear 1.94G and 2.14I, I think 1.94G has slightly more sparkle.

In terms of the Symphonie setting, I don't really need the pave, since the parts I like most are the six prongs and Beautiful-smooth flow of the head design. Also if the center stone is Color I, the pave may make the center stone appear yellow/dark. I appreciate @cflutist coming up the design for CBI, will respect her inputs.

Does your gut tell you anything? Like - instinctually? I mean, the G is clearly out because of how tinted it appears to you. Between the G and the 2.14 it seems as if you marginally prefer the G for its performance - which I feel rules out the 2.14 because you'll always remember it wasn't as good as the G you can't have because of the tint. So that leaves the 2.28, really.

I think when looking at these super ideal stones - you can't really go wrong. So I'll add my vote for the 2.28 based on that.

I'm sure you would respect @cflutist's input - I just meant more in being able to potentially consider a similar setting with Whiteflash - perhaps even a custom setting. I feel sure they would be able to do the same shape without pavé and let the central stone shine, if that's what you wanted? Certainly whichever one you choose it will be beautiful!

 

[blueMA]

I cant remember how long he looked? Few seconds? Later he looked at the video, he thinks the 2.28 has more fire.

lol, my husband is the same way. He has no interest in jewelry and I now save him from having to provide any opinion. To some, they're all clear white sparkly stones that look the same - Diamond, CZ, Moissanite, Zircons, etc...

 

[Julyisjuly]

This is the one I was thinking of

https://www.dvatche.com/product-p/1514.htm

Now I realized why I like the @cflutist Symphonie style so much, since I was in love with this Vatche1513(no pave) since November I first posted here for WF setting. And that's the base model she improved on. She made it better than Vatche.
However seeing Vatche 1513 in store, it is just too thin & tiny, doesn't match 2ct.

 

[Julyisjuly]

I’m partial to plain solitaire setting. Let your beautiful diamond stand out . What finger size do you have? It looks beautiful and slender.

Size 5.25 the day I tried at WF store.
I only looked at no-pave setting firstly. I ran out of options, then looked over pave style and discovered the beautiful Symphonie setting.

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

Size 5.25 the day I tried at WF store.
I only looked at no-pave setting firstly. I ran out of options, then looked over pave style and discovered the beautiful Symphonie setting.

So many choices so it’s so hard to decide. Whatever you choose, I’m sure it will be beautiful as it’s a beautiful diamond. Love the size too!

 

[Julyisjuly]

lol, my husband is the same way. He has no interest in jewelry and I now save him from having to provide any opinion. To some, they're all clear white sparkly stones that look the same - Diamond, CZ, Moissanite, Zircons, etc...

True! When we tried the settings in store, he was amazed that all the settings were holding CZ rather than real diamonds. As the CZ rings were also very sparkle to him. LOL

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

Now I realized why I like the @cflutist Symphonie style so much, since I was in love with this Vatche1513(no pave) since November I first posted here for WF setting. And that's the base model she improved on. She made it better than Vatche.
However seeing Vatche 1513 in store, it is just too thin & tiny, doesn't match 2ct.

I love this setting too but prefer a 4 prong setting so I was looking at the Venus but I heard it’s pretty delicate and thin. Even goes to 1.3mm at its thinnest I believe so I just keep my legato sleek and had them thin it out to 2mm as per advise of another PS’er, I shouldn’t go thinner than that. I think I would have liked it to be 1.8mm though.

Good luck finding the perfect setting.

 

[Julyisjuly]

I love this setting too but prefer a 4 prong setting so I was looking at the Venus but I heard it’s pretty delicate and thin. Even goes to 1.3mm at its thinnest I believe so I just keep my legato sleek and had them thin it out to 2mm as per advise of another PS’er, I shouldn’t go thinner than that. I think I would have liked it to be 1.8mm though.

Good luck finding the perfect setting.

I tried Venus setting in store as well, Thicker than 1513. When I looking at 2ct, the Venus seems too thin, I actually like this four prong most when I was in store for the look of a 2ct.
https://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/fine-line-solitaire-engagement-ring-481.htm
However my heart tell me I want a 6 prong.

 

[kal2021]

I tried Venus setting in store as well, Thicker than 1513. When I looking at 2ct, the Venus seems too thin, I actually like this four prong most when I was in store for the look of a 2ct.
https://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/fine-line-solitaire-engagement-ring-481.htm
However my heart tell me I want a 6 prong.

Have you tried the Vatche U-113? They have it at WF. It's the 6 prong that looks like the Tiffany solitaire. That's what I will be getting once I decide on a diamond!

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

I tried Venus setting in store as well, Thicker than 1513. When I looking at 2ct, the Venus seems too thin, I actually like this four prong most when I was in store for the look of a 2ct.
https://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/fine-line-solitaire-engagement-ring-481.htm
However my heart tell me I want a 6 prong.

I think the basket on this is too thick for me. Go with what you love.

 

[Julyisjuly]

Have you tried the Vatche U-113? They have it at WF. It's the 6 prong that looks like the Tiffany solitaire. That's what I will be getting once I decide on a diamond!

I didn't try that U113. I heard it looks like the Tiffany solitaire a lot as well

 

[Siamese Kitty]

@Julyisjuly , if you like the "swoopiness," have you considered the Butterflies 3-stone setting? I have that one and the side view is what sold me on it.

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...e-butterflies-diamond-engagement-ring-230.htm

Fwiw, I also have a 2.261 ACA with a slightly larger table and I think it helps the I in terms of color.


I also really loved my original exquisite solitaire from Whiteflash:

 

[Julyisjuly]

@Julyisjuly , if you like the "swoopiness," have you considered the Butterflies 3-stone setting? I have that one and the side view is what sold me on it.

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...e-butterflies-diamond-engagement-ring-230.htm

Fwiw, I also have a 2.261 ACA with a slightly larger table and I think it helps the I in terms of color.

I think you read my heart. I like the swoopiness. The site view of your setting is so beautiful. Currently I don't want 3 stones, it will add two more difficult tasks for me to pick another two stones. Hahaha~

Yes, in person, the larger table 2.14 do look slightly whiter faceup than the 2.28.
It's a decision between color vs fire.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

I think you read my heart. I like the swoopiness. The site view of your setting is so beautiful. Currently I don't want 3 stones, it will add two more difficult tasks for me to pick another two stones. Hahaha~

Yes, in person, the larger table 2.14 do look slightly whiter faceup than the 2.28.
It's a decision between color vs fire.

Please forgive if this is a repeat, but has anyone brought up the Vatché royal crown yet? https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...n-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-347.htm
I think that one looks a lot like this setting from the side, although it tapers in and is a solitaire. Yes, three stones would probably add to the issue of choosing, not help, ha!

I don't think my stone has noticeably less fire than other ACAs I have or have had in the past with smaller tables. I personally think the LGFs affects the personality of fire more than the table and again, mine are longish at 78. With all of this said, I have never found my stone lacking in fire. It's actually amazing!

 

[blueMA]

I personally think the LGFs affects the personality of fire more than the table

That's a fact. Pavilion facets determines how fat/thin the arrows are, and definitely affects change more radically than the upper facets that have to work in conjunction (pavilion up, lower crown, etc) for an optimal performance.

 

[LightBright]

This is the one I was thinking of

https://www.dvatche.com/product-p/1514.htm

Hi JulyisJuly! White Flash can order Vatche, I’m pretty sure. Alternately, the HPD setting you selected looks very much like the Vatche model posted here, although I think the shank width and pave sizes are slightly larger.

The setting you selected from HPD was a custom ring executed for the larger of CFlutist’s CBI F color MRBs. Both setting and stone are stunning, I’m a huge fan. My opinion is that you should put a CBI in that HPD setting, not a WFACA because of the convenience factor.

If you go with ACA, doing a Vatche would be less complicated. My understanding is that you can customize a Vatche ring shank and pave. I’d call WF to discuss that opportunity. Just my opinion...

Here’s a link to Cfltuist’s Symphonie.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...nie-ring-with-2-793-f-vs1-cbi-diamond.234765/