Engagement ring advice

[MPD]

Hello all, new member here.

I'm looking for a diamond engagement ring and would appreciate everyone's help. My preference would be closer to 2 carats, color I, clarity VS2, with a budget of around $18K. It seems super ideal diamonds are highly recommended here.

However, when I visited a local jeweler who had a Crafted by Infinity diamond and compared it to a triple-excellent stone of comparable size, it didn't blow me away. It did have more fire I guess, but both were plenty sparkly to my untrained eyes. Can you all tell a difference in the real world?

Here are my picks so far, which one do you think is the best choice?

1. James Allen: 2.02 ct

2. Brian Gavin: 1.817 ct, 1.825 ct

3. Crafted by Infinity: 1.88 ct

4. WhiteFlash: 1.94 ct, 1.82 ct

I'm leaning towards the James Allen or Whiteflash for size, but open to other suggestions.

Thanks for your help!

 

[jp201845]

Hello all, new member here.

I'm looking for a diamond engagement ring and would appreciate everyone's help. My preference would be closer to 2 carats, color I, clarity VS2, with a budget of around $18K. It seems super ideal diamonds are highly recommended here.

However, when I visited a local jeweler who had a Crafted by Infinity diamond and compared it to a triple-excellent stone of comparable size, it didn't blow me away. It did have more fire I guess, but both were plenty sparkly to my untrained eyes. Can you all tell a difference in the real world?

Here are my picks so far, which one do you think is the best choice?

1. James Allen: 2.02 ct

2. Brian Gavin: 1.817 ct, 1.825 ct

3. Crafted by Infinity: 1.88 ct

4. WhiteFlash: 1.94 ct, 1.82 ct

I'm leaning towards the James Allen or Whiteflash for size, but open to other suggestions.

Thanks for your help!

The 1.88 ct CBI stone has the best proportions in my opinion with that 55 table will throw lots of fire.

 

[rockysalamander]

1. James Allen: 2.02 ct {not bad, but there is a lot of feathering under the table. I'd like to see an ASET}

2. Brian Gavin: 1.817 ct, 1.825 ct {I like the 1.817 better than the 1.825 relative to cutting}

3. Crafted by Infinity: 1.88 ct {I love CBI stones and this looks nice. I'd ask HPD what is their favorite option in your budget. There are other options that might also work}

4. WhiteFlash: 1.94 ct, {I like this one} 1.82 ct {don't like the inclusion}

I'm leaning towards the James Allen or Whiteflash for size, but open to other suggestions.

 

[tyty333]

I would like to see an aset on the JA stone also. JA says its a True Hearts but I dont see the image for it so you'll need to ask for that too.
I'm liking the 1.94 WF
1 - hits the 8mm mark
2 - looks clean
3 - easy trade up in case you ever want to move up in color or size
4 - price/size is just to close to the JA stone to not own a Super Ideal (not gaining enough with the JA stone...plus, I still have questions with the JA
stone).

 

[crbl999]

I like the 1.94 ACA. Maximizing size and excellent cut that you would expect from a super ideal. Great ASET!

 

[sledge]

Personally I'd eliminate the JA stone altogether. No advanced images. Trade up program isn't even in the same ballpark (2x initial price to get full value of original stone) and generally speaking most TH's aren't on the same quality level as the other branded super ideals you listed, so I don't see it as a good value overall.

If future upgrades are important to you, WF and HPD have the best programs. Spend $1 more and get full value of the original stone. BGD is a little more restrictive in the fact you have to spend $1 more and upgrade 2 of the following 3 C's: carat weight, color or clarity.

Of these choices, I'd be narrowed to the CBI 1.88 or ACA 1.944.

You get slightly better bang for the buck with the ACA and that unicorn 1.944 size without incurring the 2 carat magic weight premium. Also, from a mind clean perspective I like the fact the ACA inclusions are not on the table, as opposed to the CBI cert where they are all on the table. Although in fairness, both vendors vet their stones and being VS2 clarity shouldn't have a performance issue either way.

People rave about their CBI's and ACA's. Some threads exist here about which is better and it tends to be a mixed result. The fact you didn't appreciate a CBI over a GIA XXX stone is an indicator you may not be able to discern any differences between these stones, which then just becomes a matter of saving $1,000 and getting the ACA.

 

[MPD]

Really appreciate everyone's help thus far. The CBI diamond doesn't have actual images yet and as sledge pointed out, a bit more expensive, slightly smaller, and the table inclusions. I do like their concept and upgrade/buyback policy though.

So now I'm focusing on the the 1.944 ACA.
1. Any concerns with the idealscope/ASET/H&A images? The HCA score was 1 with "very good", not excellent spread.
2. The AGS report showed cloud inclusions around the table... this shouldn't affect durability or light return correct?
3. How about the "partly polished" girdle instead of faceted?
4. Lastly, I've read there's a Pricescope discount or is it just the 3% wire discount?

Thanks again!

 

[jp201845]

I've read there's a Pricescope discount or is it just the 3% wire discount?

I think High Performance Diamonds has the best wire price discount @ 5%

 

[bmfang]

I think High Performance Diamonds has the best wire price discount @ 5%

I’ve actually had higher discounts than that at BGD. But that was over live chat with Lesley.

 

[beardog]

If you're debating the 1.9 ACA put it on hold. With it being right under the 2 CT bump you don't want it to get snaked. I don't think you have to worry about the spread... That's pretty common from what I've seen with diamonds in the'super ideal' range.
It's my understanding that the hca is more for weeding out bad gia triple ex anyways.
With the inclusions I think you'll be fine but when u put it on hold ask them to pull it & give you their impressions with YOUR idea of eyeclean.

 

[sledge]

1. The images look great. There are some very, very minor imperfections in the heart image at the 1 and 7 o'clock positions. But nothing even close to a problem. If it was an issue, it would have been downgraded from an ACA to Expert Select (ES). You can see similar things on CBI heart images of this 1.80ct stone, which again is very minor and not an issue.

FYI, the HCA tool is designed to work with GIA stones, not AGS. The reasoning is simple. With GIA they utilized older 2D technology to obtain measurements then they average & round the values. You enter that information into HCA which then tries to approximate light return. In a sense, you have two levels of approximate data. Which is fine for GIA because that's the best you have.

But in the case of AGS, they take a 3D scan of each diamond to precisely analyze the proportions and then assign a cut grade based on that analysis. Additionally there is a computer generated ASET printed on the reports that is based on that data. Of course, with both HPD and WF, they also provide a real ASET as well.

The point remains, AGS 000 certification and actual ASET are more accurate & supersedes any HCA results.


2. WF does not sell stones with potential durability issues. Additionally any stone that is part of the ACA brand has undergone additional vetting to ensure the inclusions do not negatively impact light performance.

General Info About Clouds:
https://www.whiteflash.com/about-di...inclusions-impact-on-diamond-sparkle-1372.htm

ACA Specifications:
https://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

Filtering for Clarity Issues:
It could be argued that any internal inclusions block some light rays as they pass through the diamond and would therefore diminish light performance. In theory this is true but in practice many inclusions are so minute as to have negligible effect on performance. This is especially true in the upper gemological grades. In the Slightly Included grades, diminished light performance can be an issue, even if cutting is perfect. Therefore, one of the critical assessments the Whiteflash gemological review team makes is to look for any deleterious effects that might be present as a result of clarity features. Depending on several factors such as inclusion type, location, size and density, some diamonds will appear slightly “sleepy” or not as “crisp” as they otherwise would be. This can be a very subtle effect and one that is not contained on any grading report. Diamonds with any such deficits are not allowed into the A CUT ABOVE® brand.

For perhaps even more obvious reasons, A CUT ABOVE® diamonds are carefully inspected for any clarity issues that would give rise to structural weakness. A diamond with a feather or other clarity feature that in our assessment poses an elevated durability risk for mounting or wear will not be allowed in the brand.

3. This has no effect either way and just a finishing preference.

https://beyond4cs.com/grading/girdle-thickness/does-finishing-matter/


4. There is no universal PS discount/code. Any additional discounts you receive above & beyond the wire price would be based on your ability to negotiate and their generosity and willingness to accept a counter offer.

 

[sledge]

If you're debating the 1.9 ACA put it on hold. With it being right under the 2 CT bump you don't want it to get snaked. I don't think you have to worry about the spread... That's pretty common from what I've seen with diamonds in the'super ideal' range.
It's my understanding that the hca is more for weeding out bad gia triple ex anyways.
With the inclusions I think you'll be fine but when u put it on hold ask them to pull it & give you their impressions with YOUR idea of eyeclean.

Echo this thought. I'd put both the HPD and WF stones on hold while you decide. It's very possible a lurker will snake you as @beardog pointed out, lol.