Does this Super Ideal diamond look funny? Also, which is the best?

[benjw]

I've been searching for the perfect engagement ring and someone online recommended this White Flash diamond. The specs are great but the surface of the entire diamond does not look smooth compared to other diamonds on the White Flash website. What do you guys think? Is this reason enough to not buy this diamond?

Diamond with little seemingly unsmooth surface:
2.528 I SI1 $24,912
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3959046.htm?a_aid=recommended

Other (more affordable) diamonds I am considering (that were recommended on this site!)
2.288 I SI1 $21,316
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3970295.htm

2.111 I VVS2 $22,286
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4032899.htm

2.026 G SI1 $22,919
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3995840.htm

If I don't go for the seemingly unsmooth diamond (which is already a little higher than my budget allows), I'll go for one of the other three on this list. They all seem good and it is a matter of what attribute I want to prioritize. For example, the last one in the list is G color but has the lowest carat weight. Is the difference between I and G even that noticeable? The 2.288c one is big (second only to the 2.52 but is SI1 (is the difference even noticeable? If not, I can go for the 2.288 one).

Of the four, which ones do you guys think is the best one? The max I'll spend on the diamond alone is $23,800, and my key requirements are: 1) at least 2c; and 2) super ideal White Flash diamond.

Thanks in advance!

 

[crbl999]

Difference between I and G depends on your color sensitivity. Face up there may not be any difference unless your color sensitive. From the side the I may show a slight tint to it. There is a visual difference in size between the 2.52, 2.28, and 2.02. G or H is my preferred color but I would consider the 2.28 I SI1 in this case. $1,600 for G color and a smaller stone doesn't make sense unless your color sensitive. I crossed the 2.52 out as it is more than your budget. Not a fan of the 57 table on that stone either.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I would pick the 2.28 ct.

 

[OoohShiny]

I've been searching for the perfect engagement ring and someone online recommended this White Flash diamond. The specs are great but the surface of the entire diamond does not look smooth compared to other diamonds on the White Flash website. What do you guys think? Is this reason enough to not buy this diamond?

Diamond with little seemingly unsmooth surface:
2.528 I SI1 $24,912
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3959046.htm?a_aid=recommended

I think what you might be seeing is some surface graining (mentioned on the grading report: https://www.whiteflash.com/pdf/104098356001.pdf) and also the internal inclusions bouncing around the internal facets.

Surface graining should not present any issues 'in real life' and it wouldn't be an ACA stone if it did, I believe.

 

[benjw]

Difference between I and G depends on your color sensitivity. Face up there may not be any difference unless your color sensitive. From the side the I may show a slight tint to it. There is a visual difference in size between the 2.52, 2.28, and 2.02. G or H is my preferred color but I would consider the 2.28 I SI1 in this case. $1,600 for G color and a smaller stone doesn't make sense unless your color sensitive. I crossed the 2.52 out as it is more than your budget. Not a fan of the 57 table on that stone either.

It is interesting you're not a fan of the 57 table. Maybe this is a novice question, but if you can verify the light performance using the Ideal Scope and ASET images, then the table measurement no longer means anything, right? Things like table, crown, pavilion, etc. are used to make an educated guess about the light performance, but we can more directly measure it with the ASET scope, I thought. Any insights would be appreciated.

 

[OoohShiny]

Larger tables generally mean reduced opportunity for coloured 'fire' (dispersion of white light) via the crown facets surrounding the table, because those facets must be smaller due to more real estate being taken up by the table.

57 is not large, though, and is within PS-recommended specs - IIRC my good lady's CBI has a 57 table, and it is no slouch in terms of light performance!

 

[WinkHPD]

Larger tables generally mean reduced opportunity for coloured 'fire' (dispersion of white light) via the crown facets surrounding the table, because those facets must be smaller due to more real estate being taken up by the table.

57 is not large, though, and is within PS-recommended specs - IIRC my good lady's CBI has a 57 table, and it is no slouch in terms of light performance!

John Pollard posted an excellent comment about this in another thread. It is an important read as for some particularly well cut diamonds, the results are in contrast with the oft repeated "fact" that larger tables mean reduced dispersion. There is so much more to it than that, provided of course, that the diamond is cut with sufficient precision and planning. Here is what John Posted.

Wink

 

[crbl999]

It is interesting you're not a fan of the 57 table. Maybe this is a novice question, but if you can verify the light performance using the Ideal Scope and ASET images, then the table measurement no longer means anything, right? Things like table, crown, pavilion, etc. are used to make an educated guess about the light performance, but we can more directly measure it with the ASET scope, I thought. Any insights would be appreciated.

My wife had a 1.007 G SI2 BGD Signature diamond with a 57.3 table. Neither of us liked how flat the diamond appeared. It was the first diamond we ever purchased so we have used that stone to help develop our personal preferences. I should have made that more clear in my original post, so I apologize for the confusion. Her new stone is a 1.07 H VS2 with a 55.4 table.