Engagement Ring Diamond Help

[KLau]

This is my first time posting on the forum, but I have been reading up as much as I can here to educate myself on choosing a diamond for an engagement ring. I'd appreciate your help in analyzing a diamond that I'm strongly considering, but have a concern about.

Here are some of my criteria/preferences:
* Budget ~20k for the diamond
* H color or better (gf's preference)
* Super Ideal Cut
* As close to 2.0ct as possible
* Eye clean!
* Setting will be a platinum classic 4 prong solitaire (from WF)

I've narrowed my search down to a WF Round cut ACA 1.808ct H color VS2 clarity diamond. I think the images look good and my WF diamond consultant said that it is strictly eye clean from face up and from the sides; however, my biggest concern is the location of 2 clouds under the table.

WF ACA 1.808ct H VS2:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3685692.htm

There are a total of (3) ACA 1.80x ct H VS2 diamonds in inventory to compare:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3739938,3685692,3508615

My questions are this:
1) Would the location and size of the cloud inclusions under the table affect the appearance or performance of the 1.808ct diamond (Given the AGS grading, cut, size, etc.)?

2) Are there any other concerns about the 1.808ct diamond that I should consider (lower girdle = 78%, girdle thickness, or potential issues from the images)?

3) If there are major concerns with the 1.808ct diamond, are there any alternative diamonds that I should consider that fit my criteria (above)?

Thanks in advanced for your help!
Kevin

 

[erislynn]

Hi Klau, your choices are all great!

1) Do you prefer the 1.808 because it's a lucky number? The inclusions under the table are probably something you want to call WF about, so they can tell you if it's eyeclean and if any inclusions are black. They're very honest about it.

2) The LGF% at 78 won't affect performance. The arrows will just be skinnier. The other two are only 1% away at 77, so not a big difference. From the idealscope images, seems like the 1.803 is the most contrast-y looking, while the 1.808 is the least contrast-y. It's a matter of personal taste if you want the arrows to stand out more or less.

3) I've bought an ACA before, and it's really hard to go wrong with one. The performance could not be more precise and evenly brilliant.

You say you want to get as close to 2.0 ct as possible, and the 1.806 actually has a bigger spread than the other two by a whole 0.1mm, which is a lot in diamond terms. Just my two cents.

 

[KLau]

erislynn- thanks for the quick reply:
While there's a lot of lucky 8's in the 1.808ct- that was the recommendation of the WF consultant vs the other 1.80x ct diamonds when talking about clarity.

1) From WF re: clouds on the 1.808ct
"With regard to the clouds, they do not have any impact on the diamond’s performance or appearance. Even if you look very closely, you cannot see them, and they don’t make the diamond appear murky (or cloudy, etc). This is actually something that our diamond team checks for before the diamonds ever get added on to our site, as A Cut above diamonds cannot have any inclusions that impact durability or transparency. (On a side note – it’s not very likely for an ideal cut VS2 clarity diamond to have clouds that impact the light return. Either that would be shown in the light performance grade/diagnostic, or it would be a lower clarity grade.)"
"From the side, the only diamond that was strictly eye clean was the 1.808ct. The 1.806ct and 1.803ct would be next, in terms of clarity."

2) No preference but interesting to know.

All else being equal, bigger spread would be nice. Might have to ask the WF consultant to compare the 1.808ct and 1.806ct again and ask for a side by side picture.

Hopefully more people can chime in before I make the final decision

 

[Tophat1]

Wow, you've done your homework! Great choices!

I would ask WF to recommend the one that has the most fire (big flashes) as that is my personal preference. In fact, that is what my F did when we narrowed down to 3 ACAs

 

[bmfang]

Am assuming that you are Chinese (like me) by your username so the choice of carat sizes seems to make sense (and lucky!)

The 1.808 is the cleanest stone to my eyes. Would not be too concerned about the clouds as they do not look too large on the plot and if the WF guys have vetted the stones for lack of transparency, that's an additional level of security for you.

The 77 LGF will help out with slightly larger flashes of light reflecting off from the main pavilions but it's a minuscule difference between 77 to 78 LGF in the 1.808

 

[erislynn]

Sorry about the assumption! I missed the part in your first post where you talked to WF already. I think the side by side photos will be helpful, especially if they also take one of the profile views.

 

[KLau]

You guys are spot on- I am Chinese. I must have subconsciously picked the 1.808ct for the numbers or maybe that's a sign I'm supposed to go ahead and buy it

It seems like I'm down to 2 choices (the 1.808ct and 1.806ct) that are (nearly) equally great. I'll ask the WF consultant for some pictures and try to post them here.

 

[KLau]

 

[ringo865]

They're both absolutely beautiful. So … I would have to pick the bigger (not the heavier) one ~ 1.806

I'm on my phone, but it also looks marginally whiter, not like you'd see that in real life; though you may notice size.

 

[KLau]

Went with the 1.808ct but it was a close call.

On the face up photo, I think I'm seeing a darker cloud inclusion on the 1.806ct at 3pm on the base of the inner arrow.

The difference in size (diameter) might be a little bit exaggerated- the diamond on the right looks taller (top) but the diamond on the left looks "lower." My eye seems to be drawn towards the top where it's brighter.

 

[bmfang]

Unless the photo is playing tricks on me the 1.806 looks to have a marginally bigger spread, but I don't think it's as lucky as the 1.808!

Are you getting the setting from WF as well?

 

[KLau]

Yes, 4 prong classic solitaire in platinum

 

[LLJsmom]

It will look great. Congratulations!! Please post pics and hand shots when all is said and done.

 

[KLau]

Any advice regarding jewelry insurance?

I'm leaning towards Jewelers Mutual right now.

 

[KLau]

I requested the stone be set so the arrows point directly at the prongs; however, they said it would have covered the inscription. :/

 

[ac117]

Wow, it's gorgeous!! That happens sometimes but at least they were still able to set the diamond symmetrically.

 

[bmfang]

Beautiful! I do recall one thread where the OP was annoyed that the jeweller didn't set his round brilliants like how WF did for you. They did a great job but a little bit annoying that the inscription was done that way on the girdle.

 

[erislynn]

It looks fantastic! Not every vendor pays attention to these finer details like bmfang said. You must have your reasons for the arrow orientation, but if you take a look at BGD, the arrows are all like the way yours is set. Maybe so prongs don't obscure arrowheads? I think it turned out really nicely. Can't wait for your proposal story and pics!