Engagement Ring Help

[SimoneDi]

Thank you for this additional info! And thank you for telling me why a cavity would bother you. That does cause some concern for sure.

I have email BN early this morning to request the hold and images but have not heard back quite yet. I am unable to call during my work hours unfortunately but hopefully will hear back from them shortly.

Thanks again!

Ok, please note that BN might not be able to provide images. That is not their model, nonetheless, the diamond looks to be crisp and symmetrical even from the video. Try contacting ID Jewelry in NYC, if they can source the stone, they can take all images and maybe even beat the price.

 

[Matty23]

Ok, please note that BN might not be able to provide images. That is not their model, nonetheless, the diamond looks to be crisp and symmetrical even from the video. Try contacting ID Jewelry in NYC, if they can source the stone, they can take all images and maybe even beat the price.

Sweet. I will give that a try as well then!

 

[SimoneDi]

Sweet. I will give that a try as well then!

Ask for Yekutiel (owner) or Joey is my favorite rep.

 

[HappyNewLife]

Hey all! I will take time to read through these posts more thoroughly but just wanted to provide an update that I was able to get some family financial help and will be able to swing the 1.957.

With this update, do you think this would be the one I should go with? I like the peace of mind knowing it’s eye clean and thanks for linking it earlier @sledge !

YES YES YES YES YES. An I/VS2 hitting JUST under the magical carat weight # will be an AMAZING diamond. I have an I/VS2 and couldn't be happier. The only time I've ever seen any yellow tint is when I stupidly took photos with a gold phone case

My wife literally gets pissed at me because I'm always blinding her when I sit across the table from her. You won't be disappointed.

Edited to add: ask WF to explain the cavity to you

 

[HappyNewLife]

@Matty23, I'm glad you have the option of a small loan if you choose to do the 1.957, as it is a gorgeous stone. That said, I really love the 2+ ct BN G color stone @SimoneDi posted. You just have to weigh the pros and cons of each stone...

ACA 1.957 I/VS2 (8.02 x 8.00 mm)
Pros: it's an ACA, WF upgrade policy if you think that's in the future (disclaimer: it will be) , totally eye clean, nice size
Cons: more expensive than the BN, less than the 2 ct mark she wants, smaller than the BN 2+ G, 2 shades lower in color

BN 2.02 G/SI1 (8.21 x 8.17 mm)
Pros: amazingly white color (so no worries there), less expensive than the ACA, surpasses the 2 ct mark she wants, larger in size than the ACA
Cons: BN's upgrade policy is not as nice as WF's, will need to be assessed to assure it's eye clean

Here is a size comparison on a size 6.5 finger. ACA on left, BN on right. As you can tell, they are very close in visual size, but I know I can tell a difference.


Both stones are really nice. If you are SURE this will be her forever stone, I would choose the BN for obvious reasons listed above and mentioned by SimoneDi... HOWEVER, If you think your lady will want to upgrade at all in the future, I'd go with WF. I know she says that she'll never want to upgrade, but I said that too when I found my 2.01 ct... then I found my 2.43 ct... then my current 3.33 ct held a gun to my head, and, well... you know how that can happen, right?? I thought so. LOL DSS is real, son. Very few are immune to it's grasp, and once it takes hold, it's upgrade time.

I agree with the upgrade sentiments. I went from a .79 to a 1.0 to a 1.7 to a 2.937 and I wouldn't turn a bigger diamond down (though my wife would divorce me...). Being in NYC, DSS might even set in faster than the average person, haha. There's some HUGE bling there!

 

[Matty23]

I agree with the upgrade sentiments. I went from a .79 to a 1.0 to a 1.7 to a 2.937 and I wouldn't turn a bigger diamond down (though my wife would divorce me...). Being in NYC, DSS might even set in faster than the average person, haha. There's some HUGE bling there!

Haha- I know! The possibility if DSS being a future factor is certainly something I am weighing heavily. Thanks for your input! Your ring looks amazing!

 

[natasha-cupcake]

No, I definitely feel the same way. This would be paid back in a matter of 3 weeks so that is why I am not too concerned about it. If it was going to be several months or even years then that would be a different story. The main reason for this is I am just ready to propose right now and want to snatch one up. We want to book a wedding venue and all of that for next summer so that has sped up the process just a bit.

Exciting times--enjoy every minute!

 

[sledge]

I know size is a big thing with this decision. Also I know a few stones have been discussed. I'm not advocating for any stone, but I used ACTUAL dimensions of each stone in question and put them together so you could see them side by side.

The 1.826, 1.890 and 1.957 are all from WF. The 2.02 is from BN.

All finger sizes are US 6.5 using platinum 2.0mm wide bands.

Hope it helps.

 

[Matty23]

Exciting times--enjoy every minute!

Thank you Natasha! I hope to find sparkle city someday soon.

 

[Matty23]

I know size is a big thing with this decision. Also I know a few stones have been discussed. I'm not advocating for any stone, but I used ACTUAL dimensions of each stone in question and put them together so you could see them side by side.

The 1.826, 1.890 and 1.957 are all from WF. The 2.02 is from BN.

All finger sizes are US 6.5 using platinum 2.0mm wide bands.

Hope it helps.

This definitely helps! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. It is crazy seeing the side differences side by side as opposed to what you think it might be in your head or going from one webpage to the other.

 

[sledge]

This definitely helps! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. It is crazy seeing the side differences side by side as opposed to what you think it might be in your head or going from one webpage to the other.

No problem, glad it helped.

When looking at sizes, some additional food for thought that I find interesting. I know we all get worked up over size (including myself) but many times it's such a small difference for so many extra dollars it helps to take a step back and look at the big picture.

• 0.20mm = 0.0078 inches
• 1/128th inch = 0.0078 inches

 

[appl3]

Just be mindful that you may be able to see blue in the diamond under direct sunlight if there is strong fluorescence. Otherwise faint fluorescence should be okay.

That is a good point about 2X in 20 years or so not being as big of a deal. I am curious to ask about something though... if the diamond is determined to be eye clean from 10 in, would the cavity really be much of a factor? Or is it something where you might be able to see it from the side? I am clueless as to the different inclusions as I have not had enough experience of seeing them in person to know which ones would or wouldn't bother me. In addition, I don't know if fluorescence will bother us either. It seems like people are split on it in general as to who likes it and who doesn't. I can't imagine it would be a big deal as our eyes are not any where near as trained as most of the fine people on this site.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Haha- I know! The possibility if DSS being a future factor is certainly something I am weighing heavily. Thanks for your input! Your ring looks amazing!

On the avg a diamond will shrink about .15mm per yr.

 

[Matty23]

No problem, glad it helped.

When looking at sizes, some additional food for thought that I find interesting. I know we all get worked up over size (including myself) but many times it's such a small difference for so many extra dollars it helps to take a step back and look at the big picture.

• 0.20mm = 0.0078 inches
• 1/128th inch = 0.0078 inches

That is crazy- it does help to take a step back for sure.

 

[Matty23]

@Matty23, I'm glad you have the option of a small loan if you choose to do the 1.957, as it is a gorgeous stone. That said, I really love the 2+ ct BN G color stone @SimoneDi

[U][B]ACA 1.957 I/VS2 (8.02 x 8.00 mm)[/B]
Pros[/U]: it's an ACA, WF upgrade policy if you think that's in the future (disclaimer: [I]it will be[/I]) ;-) , totally eye clean, nice size
[U]Cons[/U]: more expensive than the BN, less than the 2 ct mark she wants, smaller than the BN 2+ G, 2 shades lower in color

[B]BN 2.02 G/SI1 (8.21 x 8.17 mm)[/B]
[U]Pros[/U]: amazingly white color (so no worries there), less expensive than the ACA, surpasses the 2 ct mark she wants, larger in size than the ACA
[U]Cons[/U]: BN's upgrade policy is not as nice as WF's, will need to be assessed to assure it's eye clean

Here is a size comparison on a size 6.5 finger. ACA on left, BN on right. As you can tell, they are very close in visual size, but I know I can tell a difference.
[ATTACH]639552[/ATTACH]

Both stones are really nice. If you are SURE this will be her forever stone, I would choose the BN for obvious reasons listed above and mentioned by SimoneDi... HOWEVER, If you think your lady will want to upgrade at all in the future, I'd go with WF. I know she says that she'll never want to upgrade, but I said that too when I found my 2.01 ct... then I found my 2.43 ct... then my current 3.33 ct held a gun to my head, and, well... you know how that can happen, right?? I thought so. ;-) LOL [I]DSS is real, son.[/I] Very few are immune to it's grasp, and once it takes hold, it's upgrade time. :)

@sledge @SimoneDi

I heard back from BN today and they said they unfortunately do not have the equipment for idealscope photos. However, they are eye clean per the vault manager that inspected it and said there is no color tinge and the diamond is not milky or hazy. They also went on to say that eye clean means that an average layperson viewing the diamond face up from a distance of 6 to 8 in would not be able to see any inclusions but it is not a guarantee that no inclusions would ever be visible. They then said they recommend choosing a diamond with at least VS2 if you want assurance.

Thoughts on this additional info? I still have this and the WF 1.98 on hold.

Thanks as always!

 

[sledge]

This is where you have to make a gut call.

Any of the WF stones are guaranteed performers and have complete images, etc to back that up. Additionally the stones are in house and can be reviewed by their gemologist to confirm or alleviate any of your concerns. Simply stated, buying from WF has complete transparency and essentially no risk. The downside is the dollars and (marginal) size difference. Also color but you said that's a non-issue for you.

With BN you get more restrictive trade in policies and take considerable risk as you have no images to verify (although you could order the diamond loose and have it shipped to you for inspection through your own idealscope and ASET scopes to confirm performance).

I've already noted my concerns about the shallow crown angle. I've loaded the AGS proportions chart to show where cut MIGHT fall within those angles and table size. I think you are pushing the fringe personally and I don't like that you have to buy blind. Again you can return but that is a hassle and then your dollars are stuck at BN for a repurchase.

It's all about risk tolerance now. Personally I'd go with one of the WF stones. Get the smaller 1.826 or 1.890 and stay in budget or ask WF about that cavity on the 1.957 is size is almighty and consider the $1,000 loan.

To me the $1,000 difference on a proven performer is better than the $16,000 gamble on buying blind.

But I make many decisions based on risk assessment and just don't see enough reward (to me) to justify the risk.

Your opinion and tolerance may vary.

 

[SimoneDi]

@sledge @SimoneDi

I heard back from BN today and they said they unfortunately do not have the equipment for idealscope photos. However, they are eye clean per the vault manager that inspected it and said there is no color tinge and the diamond is not milky or hazy. They also went on to say that eye clean means that an average layperson viewing the diamond face up from a distance of 6 to 8 in would not be able to see any inclusions but it is not a guarantee that no inclusions would ever be visible. They then said they recommend choosing a diamond with at least VS2 if you want assurance.

Thoughts on this additional info? I still have this and the WF 1.98 on hold.

Thanks as always!

BN have always been conservative in their recommendations, so I am happy to hear that there is no haziness/milkiness. I am about 99.9999999% certain that that stone is eye-clean. The primary inclusions are twinning wisps, which are usually transparent, a few small crystals and a small feathers that are also “white” in nature. There is a small cluster of inclusions to the side which is completely prongable, so I really don’t see a reason for concern. The stone is a very clear winner to me, but the decision is yours.

 

[sledge]

I almost forgot, that BN stone has strong fluor. Even not being milky/hazy you need to make sure you are okay with that.

The stone will go a blue shade in certain lighting. If that bothers you it's a no.

I'm neutral here as I bought a BGD Blue stone that has medium fluor. But I did so to boost the whiteness of the H color, I knew what I was getting into and I was okay with it and BGD has a rep for doing fluor so it's an advantage.

Again, a preference thing but you need to be okay with it if go BN.

 

[msop04]

@sledge @SimoneDi

I heard back from BN today and they said they unfortunately do not have the equipment for idealscope photos. However, they are eye clean per the vault manager that inspected it and said there is no color tinge and the diamond is not milky or hazy. They also went on to say that eye clean means that an average layperson viewing the diamond face up from a distance of 6 to 8 in would not be able to see any inclusions but it is not a guarantee that no inclusions would ever be visible. They then said they recommend choosing a diamond with at least VS2 if you want assurance.

Thoughts on this additional info? I still have this and the WF 1.98 on hold.

Thanks as always!

I still feel the same... If you feel you'll ever upgrade, go with WF. If not, go with the BN stone. Also, there are MANY SI1 stones that are eye clean, and sometimes even VS2 stones are not eye clean... so forget that argument. It all has to do with what type of inclusion and the placement.

 

[Matty23]

BN have always been conservative in their recommendations, so I am happy to hear that there is no haziness/milkiness. I am about 99.9999999% certain that that stone is eye-clean. The primary inclusions are twinning wisps, which are usually transparent, a few small crystals and a small feathers that are also “white” in nature. There is a small cluster of inclusions to the side which is completely prongable, so I really don’t see a reason for concern. The stone is a very clear winner to me, but the decision is yours.

Thank you. I stayed up last night thinking and looking at these two and I am currently leaning towards the WF. The reason for this is although SO says she won't want to upgrade, I now keeping thinking this would change and for me personally, I like the idea of being able to gradually go up in color or even size for future anniversaries. Again, that sounds nice to me but I don't know if SO would feel the same way in ten years or not so there is some uncertainty. I think the comfort of knowing it is an option just makes me feel better.

But I still want to ask you as you said the BN is clearly the winner here. With that being said, is the WF quite a bit a ways off and you think we will be disappointed? Or is it still a solid choice but you just would prefer the BN head to head with all things being equal? I value your opinion on this as I plan on making a final decision tomorrow.

Thanks!

 

[Matty23]

This is where you have to make a gut call.

Any of the WF stones are guaranteed performers and have complete images, etc to back that up. Additionally the stones are in house and can be reviewed by their gemologist to confirm or alleviate any of your concerns. Simply stated, buying from WF has complete transparency and essentially no risk. The downside is the dollars and (marginal) size difference. Also color but you said that's a non-issue for you.

With BN you get more restrictive trade in policies and take considerable risk as you have no images to verify (although you could order the diamond loose and have it shipped to you for inspection through your own idealscope and ASET scopes to confirm performance).

I've already noted my concerns about the shallow crown angle. I've loaded the AGS proportions chart to show where cut MIGHT fall within those angles and table size. I think you are pushing the fringe personally and I don't like that you have to buy blind. Again you can return but that is a hassle and then your dollars are stuck at BN for a repurchase.

It's all about risk tolerance now. Personally I'd go with one of the WF stones. Get the smaller 1.826 or 1.890 and stay in budget or ask WF about that cavity on the 1.957 is size is almighty and consider the $1,000 loan.

To me the $1,000 difference on a proven performer is better than the $16,000 gamble on buying blind.

But I make many decisions based on risk assessment and just don't see enough reward (to me) to justify the risk.

Your opinion and tolerance may vary.

These are valid points. I am leaning towards WF for the reason listed above. I did ask about the cavity and the response was something along the lines of it went through their vigorous ACA test and it would not have gotten that classification if it was an issue. I also didn't know what to ask- I just asked if the cavity was anything to be worried about basically!

 

[Matty23]

I still feel the same... If you feel you'll ever upgrade, go with WF. If not, go with the BN stone. Also, there are MANY SI1 stones that are eye clean, and sometimes even VS2 stones are not eye clean... so forget that argument. It all has to do with what type of inclusion and the placement.

Good point. Argument forgotten!

 

[Gussie]

Thank you. I stayed up last night thinking and looking at these two and I am currently leaning towards the WF. The reason for this is although SO says she won't want to upgrade, I now keeping thinking this would change and for me personally, I like the idea of being able to gradually go up in color or even size for future anniversaries. Again, that sounds nice to me but I don't know if SO would feel the same way in ten years or not so there is some uncertainty. I think the comfort of knowing it is an option just makes me feel better.

But I still want to ask you as you said the BN is clearly the winner here. With that being said, is the WF quite a bit a ways off and you think we will be disappointed? Or is it still a solid choice but you just would prefer the BN head to head with all things being equal? I value your opinion on this as I plan on making a final decision tomorrow.

Thanks!

I would wager my first born that you won't be disappointed in the wf stone!

 

[HappyNewLife]

On the avg a diamond will shrink about .15mm per yr.

I feel like it's per day, lol. My diamond shrunk overnight, grrrr

 

[HappyNewLife]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the BN diamond has strong fluor, which makes it less desirable should you want to sell it second-hand one day. Not saying there's anything wrong with fluor. My WF ACA probably has medium fluor (the cert says negligible), it glows like a Tiffany blue box under a UV light.

 

[sledge]

Yeah you won't be disappointed with any of the WF ACA stones. Those are the Ferrari of diamond land.

The BN stone has questionable angles and no images to prove it's good or bad. I know it's not a Ferrari. I just don't know if it's a nice Corvette or a lowly Ford Pinto. Those images, if available, would confirm that very point.

 

[sledge]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the BN diamond has strong fluor, which makes it less desirable should you want to sell it second-hand one day. Not saying there's anything wrong with fluor. My WF ACA probably has medium fluor (the cert says negligible), it glows like a Tiffany blue box under a UV light.

Yeah, it's hard to gauge price. He is getting a 2.02 G but some of the price break is the fact it's not a H&A precise super ideal cut. But there should be another discount for strong fluor as well.

I didn't analyze a XXX similar stone with no fluor to determine if any, or how much, of a discount is being allotted for the fluor

 

[Matty23]

I would wager my first born that you won't be disappointed in the wf stone!

Haha well that is reassuring!

 

[Matty23]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the BN diamond has strong fluor, which makes it less desirable should you want to sell it second-hand one day. Not saying there's anything wrong with fluor. My WF ACA probably has medium fluor (the cert says negligible), it glows like a Tiffany blue box under a UV light.

Yes, it does have strong fluor- thanks for the feedback!

 

[Matty23]

Yeah you won't be disappointed with any of the WF ACA stones. Those are the Ferrari of diamond land.

The BN stone has questionable angles and no images to prove it's good or bad. I know it's not a Ferrari. I just don't know if it's a nice Corvette or a lowly Ford Pinto. Those images, if available, would confirm that very point.

Well when it is put into these terms it makes the decision quite a bit easier. Thank you!