shape
carat
color
clarity

Disappointed!! 1.94ct Whiteflash G turned out to be H~I

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by Julyisjuly, Dec 26, 2018.

  1. WillyDiamond
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,169
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    by WillyDiamond » Jan 1, 2019
    post from Jpie:
    Exactly. You’re gonna apologize for being a dick to White Flash now, right?


    Reported your post to Admin, you should be banned. You can disagree with me, but using profanity does not belong on this forum.
     
    JPie likes this.
  2. LightBright
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    445
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    by LightBright » Jan 1, 2019
    I’m glad you found CFlutist’s photographs. Having recently worked with HPD, I would guess that if you want to modify the Symphonie to eliminate pave, eg create a smooth shiny shank, their bench could do it. HPD is friendly and more than accommodating so shoot them an email if you are curious. If you go that custom route, I’d recommend looking at a CBI cut diamond to go into the HPD setting.
     
    rockysalamander likes this.
  3. Dmndsr4evr11
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    238
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2018
    by Dmndsr4evr11 » Jan 1, 2019

    WOW! What a gorgeous ring!!!
     
    Matthews1127 and rockysalamander like this.
  4. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,158
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Jan 1, 2019
    I personally think the Vatche 1513 and Symphonie has such a smooth flow. Simple yet eloquent. That flow is continued in the Royal Crown Vatche that @Siamese Kitty suggested with the wider shank that tapers into the diamond. I really like that look and think it makes the diamond shine.

    To me it appears the Royal is about 2.80mm wide whereas the 1513 is about 2mm.

    I mention this because as you pointed out, in person settings can look very different. Items I thought looked perfect online looked very different with my eyes. It's because of the magnified views.

    Also as pointed out WF is a Vatche dealer so they can access any of their settings. There are usually lots more available on the designer sites. Just get a model number and tell them. Also I think if you want a 1513 with minor tweaks then maybe WF can have Vatche do a modified custom with them. Not to mention I think Vatche sort of does that already as they proportionally size up/down the ring to properly match the center stone.

    IMO, you definitely need to talk with WF to know your exact options.
     
    


    


  5. Yang Kin
    Rough_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    52
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2017
    by Yang Kin » Jan 1, 2019
    There is one small trick to use when in dilemma:

    I have read it on Niceice dot come before.

    Just use the dimensions of the stone and multiply by 0.0061 to get the calculated weight of the diamond and see if the cutter cheated. Preferably, the actual carat weight is exact or even lower. For both of the ACA stones here, they are indeed cut to maximize beauty and not retaining extra weight for profit.

    Please note that for stones at this size, it is common for the stones to have some sort of extra weight difference, even for a super ideal, but again, for both the stones here, we can assume that the cutter doing some pretty good work.

    WF ACA I VS2, 2.14ct
    8.33 x 8.35 x 5.07 x 0.0061 = 2.151ct

    WF ACA I VS2, 2.28ct
    8.45 x 8.46 x 5.23 x 0.0061 = 2.281ct

    So, since we are comparing super ideals like this, I think I will just use my preferred proportions to get what I want ultimately. I like what @sledge has commented, regarding the smaller table and the taller crown, as well as the steeper crown angle. Those are some good proportions for better fire, which I believe is what you prefer personally based on your comments.

    The 2.14ct could work well too, because the wider table is compensated with a shorter total depth, giving it a good spread. I believe if the crown angle goes slightly steeper and the crown height goes beyond 15%, it will be a wonderful choice for fire as well, unfortunately, it is not the case here. I also don't really prefer star length that is below 50%. I like star length like 50% - 55% for that extra contrast. This contrast can sometimes be picked up from the ASET in the AGSL grading report where by the center part looks busy. Anyway, this is just my personal preference.

    And yes, the actual diamond video uploaded on WhiteFlash could work well too, again, as what @sledge has mentioned. In case of dilemma, that could work well. Just use your finger (or mouse, depending on device) to move the diamond from one side to another and see how the light show played out.

    In the case of CBI diamonds, HPD has a See it to believe it program (SITBI):
    https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonds/diamonds-home
    You just need to have the extra cash to let them hold on to it while you view the diamonds at your place. I never own any CBI before, but I find that a lot of forumers here really like the CBI diamonds. Their price should be slightly higher that WF, but it is worth to expand your alternatives.
     
    sledge and Matthews1127 like this.
  6. lovedogs
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    7,220
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    by lovedogs » Jan 1, 2019
    Seriously? That's *barely* a swear word, and you were quite rude.
     
    Ss52, Dcrafty1, cmd2014 and 17 others like this.
  7. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,158
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Jan 1, 2019
    LOL, no one else sees the irony in someone named @WillyDiamond reporting such a term?

    While name calling is bad, it's not grounds for banning especially when you consider the context of the entire conversation and the aggressive attitude displayed that provoked the comment.

    Lighten up man. Maybe I will change my username to tallywhacker...

     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
    Ss52, ABKIS, Matthews1127 and 20 others like this.
  8. SandyinAnaheim
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    631
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    by SandyinAnaheim » Jan 2, 2019
    Calling a duck, a duck, especially when they're acting like a duck and sounding like a duck, couldn't possibly be offensive. Now acting and sounding like a duck, could be offensive.... :oops2:
     
    Ss52, ABKIS, Matthews1127 and 12 others like this.
  9. Lykame
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    847
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2018
    by Lykame » Jan 2, 2019
    @Siamese Kitty, what a good find on that setting! @Julyisjuly, what do you think of that one? :geek2:
     
  10. TreeScientist
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,133
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    by TreeScientist » Jan 2, 2019
    Agreed! That's pretty much exactly what @Julyisjuly is after: The symphonie without pave. And at 2.8mm it should be a perfect width for a 2 carat.
     
    


    


  11. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,158
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Jan 2, 2019
    Agree with @TreeScientist on the width with a bigger stone.

    Also I really like the charming effect of how the width changes depending where you look on the shank. From the top view you can see how it tapers into the diamond, but look at the side profile and see how it tapers there as well?

    My fiancee's ring has various width similar to this and a small detail I really like and think adds character and interest.

    Not to mention if it works no expense, time or headache of a custom design. Given some of the emotional rollercoaster ride this far, this could be a very big positive.

    Vatche-119-Royal-Crown-Solitaire-Engagement-Ring-in-White-Gold_gi_1333_4-32087.jpg
     
  12. Ella
    Administrator
    Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,238
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    by Ella » Jan 2, 2019
    Folks, keep it clean.
     
    Matthews1127, blueMA, JPie and 4 others like this.
  13. TreeScientist
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,133
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    by TreeScientist » Jan 2, 2019
    Always good advice here on PS. I recommend one of these:

    HQ-JC50_2.jpg
     
    Evian, ABKIS, Matthews1127 and 20 others like this.
  14. doberman
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,384
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    by doberman » Jan 2, 2019
    I think AGS is softer on color grading and harder on clarity. I was told by two certified gemologists that my D SI1 looked more like an E VS2. Everybody has an opinion, but it doesn't make them right. Send it to GIA and see what they say.
     
    Matthews1127, CareBear and SimoneDi like this.
  15. Dancing Fire
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    29,245
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    by Dancing Fire » Jan 2, 2019
    [​IMG]
     
    ABKIS, Matthews1127, sarahb and 4 others like this.
    


    


  16. Julyisjuly
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2018
    by Julyisjuly » Jan 3, 2019
    Hi everyone! First working day in the new year, busy busy! Have no time to check my thread. LOL

    Here is the video of two 2.14I and 2.28I with the 1.94ct G in the middle. There was no special lighting used on this video:
    As said my vedio were took under WF's jewelry store lighting, here is my request under normal lighting.
    Any thoughts? Tahnsk! :appl:
     
  17. TreeScientist
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,133
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    by TreeScientist » Jan 3, 2019
    In these videos under normal lighting I prefer the stone on the far left. Is that the 2.14 I? It has the best edge-to-edge brightness of the three while still having good scintillation and fire.
     
    CareBear likes this.
  18. Julyisjuly
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2018
    by Julyisjuly » Jan 3, 2019
    WF didn't specify which I here, the one in middle is 1.94G. Based on the size in the video (hope my eyes are good) I think far left is 2.14. In person, 2.14 looks slightly whiter/brighter than 2.28
     
  19. Julyisjuly
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2018
  20. Julyisjuly
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2018
  21. Julyisjuly
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2018
  22. WillyDiamond
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,169
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    by WillyDiamond » Jan 3, 2019
    July
    I am sorry I am no help on this last request, these tired eyes can not tell the difference, so sorry.
     
    Julyisjuly and sledge like this.
  23. Stephan
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    2,890
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    by Stephan » Jan 3, 2019
    As IRL you saw more fire/sparkle in the 2.28, I would stick with it, but all the 3 diamonds are very well cut. I wouldn't buy the G because of the color issues.
     
  24. bmfang
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,686
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2017
    by bmfang » Jan 3, 2019
    TBH, the 2.14 catches my eye more in those two vids than the 2.28
     
  25. Lykame
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    847
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2018
    by Lykame » Jan 3, 2019
    Hi @Julyisjuly,

    I would agree with you on the size difference, certainly looks like the one on the right is the largest.

    Basically what I'm getting from this video is that the differences are barely anything.

    The 2.14 is slightly more brilliant to me with less fire - and it has a bigger table so that fits. The 2.28 is slightly less brilliant but more firey but still very brilliant and larger. It looks most similar to me to the light performance of the G.

    Based on characteristics I like myself, I would choose the 2.28, especially as that has the added advantage of being the largest. Having said that, I'm not you and I think you need to think carefully about which characteristics you prefer in person. Having a slightly more brilliant stone in an I colour is not a bad thing, and if you liked that more in person then get that one.

    Honestly what does your gut say?

    If it's any consolation, when I had to choose between two CBIs, I couldn't bear it and couldn't do it. They both had different characteristics and the one whose light performance I preferred was the one whose clarity I was less keen on. I ended up choosing a different one and not comparing it to anything :lol: Because I know I'm my own worst enemy.

    Best of luck, let us know what you decide!
     
  26. Matilda
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    467
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2018
    by Matilda » Jan 3, 2019
    Honestly I watched the videos several times and it's such a tough call, all are good. Maybe the one on the far right?! Although it may just catch my eye more could be due to its size. I would actually go with whichever one stands out in your mind from seeing it in person than a from a short video. Honestly I think whichever of the I s you choose will be excellent, don't think you can lose!
     
  27. foxinsox
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    2,599
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2015
    by foxinsox » Jan 3, 2019
    I see no difference in edge to edge sparkle but the 2.28 looks bigger and stands out that bit more to me. Fun choice to have!
     
  28. MissGotRocks
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    11,112
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    by MissGotRocks » Jan 3, 2019
    I too don't see much difference in performance in the last video. I think from a performance point of view you would be good with any of them. In your videos from the WF visit, I thought the 2.28 looked whiter but I hate to only have that short clip to make a decision. Did the rep think that the 2.28 looked whiter than the 2.14?
     
    Matthews1127, Julyisjuly and sledge like this.
  29. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Jan 3, 2019
    The video clearly shows that the G does not perform as a G color regardless its lab grading.
    2.14 and 2.28 both perform nicely, but if I were you, I would look at more options.
     
  30. CareBear
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,244
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    by CareBear » Jan 3, 2019
    I stand by my previous choice of the 2.14. It is almost as white as the 1.94, looks very close in size to the 2.28, and performs similar to my current stone. It is also the lowest in price :))
     

Share This Page