Down to the final 2, please help me select

[nappyloxs]

I am trying to make my choice this weekend.





diamond #2









Both are eye clean, except diamond 2 has slight impurity that can be seen from the side, but I was hold it won't be seen in the halo setting. Diamond 2 also is a lower clarity and more expensive.

 

[Gypsy]

Can you post stats .

 

[nappyloxs]

Which stats would you like to know?

 

[Gypsy]

Color, clarity spread, depth, table, crown and pavilion angles. Price difference.

 

[nappyloxs]

Color, clarity spread, depth, table, crown and pavilion angles. Price difference.

diamond 2

2.32 F VS1
table 55
depth 61.6
crown 35
pavilion 40.6

Diamond 2

2.28 F VS2
table 55
depth 61.4
crown 34
pavilion 40.8

Diamond #2 is only $500-600 more.

However, if I go with diamond #1, I may go with a different setting. Diamond 2 I will be going with a more expensive setting. Total price difference would be about $1500.

 

[Gypsy]

I like both. I'll be honest. I'm not seeing a ton of difference betweenh. But the in house ASET of the actual stone is better for evaluation plus it has a higher crown. So that's why I am leaning toward #2. Plus the fact that it leaves you more money for setting to me, clinches it.

#2

 

[nappyloxs]

I like both. I'll be honest. I'm not seeing a ton of difference betweenh. But the in house ASET of the actual stone is better for evaluation plus it has a higher crown. So that's why I am leaning toward #2. Plus the fact that it leaves you more money for setting to me, clinches it.

#2

Diamond #2 is actually more money $500. Plus I would be getting a different setting. Diamond #2 is also h&a although diamond 1 looks like it has good H&a.

Because they are 2 different sellers, I was thinking of getting the setting from the seller. Diamond 1 would be a single shank halo. They have a split shank but not worth the price imho.

Diamond 2 would be custom split shank. Same price as #1 splint shank, but more cwt. So diamond 2 would be about 1500 more with the setting.

Gypsy I had a typo, please see the above prior post. Diamond #1 has the higher crown (35), the sarin image, and cheaper.

 

[Gypsy]

If you are getting a halo, the quality really matters. I know WF has very good quality. I don't know the other vendor. Can you tell me who it is or link me to the setting.

 

[nappyloxs]

Diamond #1 is Ritani (not reserve ideal)

setting with diamond #1

http://www.ritani.com/engagement-rings/french-set-halo-diamond-band-engagement-ring-in-platinum/5048

diamond #2 (which is ACA)
http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/diamond-settings/park-avenue-diamond-engagement-ring-1668.htm

(in cushion halo for extra $200)

 

[Gypsy]

WF carries Ritani, they won't price match the setting and get it from Ritani?

Ritani has good quality. In this case, if it saves you money... go for #1.

 

[nappyloxs]

I am sure they would, I prefer the WF setting though. The Ritani setting is actually my second/third choice.

 

[nappyloxs]

I am trying to decide whether if both diamonds are about equal, is it worth the extra $1500 to get an WF ACA with the preferred setting (with an ACA melee). I really want my soon to be fiancee to have the most beautiful ring possible. I know she likes the split shanks, but I really don't like the Ritani split shanks.

 

[Gypsy]

TO ME, it is worth it. I can't tell you if it should be worth it to you.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Most regrets involve not getting what you want at the outset. Always go for quality. So in that case, if the WF setting will be custom and have higher quality melee and the diamond is an ACA and the other is not H&A, then certainly I would go with the WF diamond and setting.

 

[nappyloxs]

TO ME, it is worth it. I can't tell you if it should be worth it to you.

Thanks for all your replies and advice. I have never bought a diamond before, so it is quite nerve wrecking. My soon to be isn't really involved, so it makes it more difficult. She would be happy with either diamond and setting.

 

[nappyloxs]

Most regrets involve not getting what you want at the outset. Always go for quality. So in that case, if the WF setting will be custom and have higher quality melee and the diamond is an ACA and the other is not H&A, then certainly I would go with the WF diamond and setting.

That is definitely what I am afraid of. I should have dealt with WF from the start, because I have been working with Ritani and feel bad. I was all set on Diamond 1, but once I really looked at the settings, I realized I didn't like Ritani's split shank as much as the WF which then made me start looking at WF diamonds.

 

[RockyRacoon]

I am trying to decide whether if both diamonds are about equal, is it worth the extra $1500 to get an WF ACA with the preferred setting (with an ACA melee). I really want my soon to be fiancee to have the most beautiful ring possible. I know she likes the split shanks, but I really don't like the Ritani split shanks.

If you're going to get a 2ct stone, don't cheap out on the setting.

It's worth the extra money to have the piece of mind that you went with the best option. I have purchased a setting with ACA melee and can tell you that it is very impressive, and side-by-side with non-Ideal melee, you do notice the difference.

Wouldn't you rather look at the setting and know it's the one you really liked/wanted her to have, instead of looking at it, wondering 'what if'?

Go for the preferred setting, even if it's a bit more!

 

[nappyloxs]

I am trying to decide whether if both diamonds are about equal, is it worth the extra $1500 to get an WF ACA with the preferred setting (with an ACA melee). I really want my soon to be fiancee to have the most beautiful ring possible. I know she likes the split shanks, but I really don't like the Ritani split shanks.

If you're going to get a 2ct stone, don't cheap out on the setting.

It's worth the extra money to have the piece of mind that you went with the best option. I have purchased a setting with ACA melee and can tell you that it is very impressive, and side-by-side with non-Ideal melee, you do notice the difference.

Wouldn't you rather look at the setting and know it's the one you really liked/wanted her to have, instead of looking at it, wondering 'what if'?

Go for the preferred setting, even if it's a bit more!

Thanks, that is what I was also looking for, some insight on the ACA melee settings.

 

[RockyRacoon]

I am trying to decide whether if both diamonds are about equal, is it worth the extra $1500 to get an WF ACA with the preferred setting (with an ACA melee). I really want my soon to be fiancee to have the most beautiful ring possible. I know she likes the split shanks, but I really don't like the Ritani split shanks.

If you're going to get a 2ct stone, don't cheap out on the setting.

It's worth the extra money to have the piece of mind that you went with the best option. I have purchased a setting with ACA melee and can tell you that it is very impressive, and side-by-side with non-Ideal melee, you do notice the difference.

Wouldn't you rather look at the setting and know it's the one you really liked/wanted her to have, instead of looking at it, wondering 'what if'?

Go for the preferred setting, even if it's a bit more!

Thanks, that is what I was also looking for, some insight on the ACA melee settings.

I've purchased pieces with BG Signature melee and ACA melee and both far outshine the melee on previous pieces my wife has owned.

I would say that the BG Signature melee and the ACA melee are too close in quality to distinguish, but the ACA melee have no fluorescence, while the some of BG Signature melee do. For what it's worth!

 

[Gypsy]

The WF setting quality that I have seen (from when Brian Gavin was at WF) was definitely top quality. I don't know if they still use the same melee. But if they do... it will be significantly nicer than the Ritani.

 

[nappyloxs]

Thanks Rocky and Gypsy, you have helped me make my decision. I figured the melee would be top notch, but since I have never seen one, so I was unsure.