Enlisting your expert help in finding a H&A 3-4 carat center stone

[diamondseeker2006]

I totally get wanting a ring that you'll be comfortable wearing where you live. I mostly see a carat around here among people I am around and sometimes two carats. It's because most people married young and have never heard the word "upgrading"! Three carats with a halo would be huge and probably considered ostentatious here. I would not pressure someone to go larger than their comfort zone. Your ring will be gorgeous and huge if it is 3 carats with a VC halo. My finger size is almost the same as yours.

I'd like to see the 3.2 ct stone Victor has in mind, and I'd consider that maybe the first choice assuming I love the cut since you want at least that size. F VS1 would be fabulous.

The WF 3.05 is 9.35mm, so with a halo it would be somewhere around 13mm, and I'll show you that on a 5.75 finger. Looks substantial to me! (ignore stone depth)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Even more helpful is this thread with Frankiextah's 3.07 ct diamond in Victor's Emilya. Her setting is perfect, although I personally prefer the cathedral version that m-2-b has. (She wears a size 5 ring.)

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ond-in-victor-canera-emilya-halo-ring.181019/

 

[ice empress]

Omg sledge, too funny!!!

Mrs-b and sledge, I think I agree... much to my chagrin...

 

[farrahlyn]

I know I will be in the minority here but I actually think that is too big for your finger size.

totally agree. (can't believe i just said that) But it looks like a little girl trying on moms jewelry. 3ct-4ct is probably your sweet spot

 

[lovedogs]

I think 3-4ct will look best given your finger size, especially if you are doing a halo.

 

[sledge]

You ladies are killing me here. That still looks massive. LOL, that's what she said.

I've watched too many movies and frequently video clips play through my head when I interact with people. Your picture triggered this one.

 

[lovedogs]

"I like them better when they are really big"

"And I like them better when they're enormous"

I LOL'd at my computer

 

[sledge]

You're welcome @ice empress. I did not have the loose stone shipped to me ahead of time. Although had I wanted to do that I am certain BGD would have accommodated. I may have had to pay for an extra shipping charge is all, which isn't a big deal as I am domestic.

For you, this may be more problematic as I believe you will have to pay duties and taxes when the stone crosses the border. My concern would you paying a second time when the completed ring arrives.

This appears to be in the $4-5k USD range for your purchase size. Doing it twice would not be fun.

Here's a calculator to help you anticipate costs:

https://www.jamesallen.com/tax-calculator

I would speak with whichever vendor you choose and ask this specific question. I have zero doubts all will accommodate your request without hassle, but you do need to understand the duties and tax portion of the equation.

I am helping another user in a different thread and some information was posted by Canadian user @cmd2014 that I think may be useful to you.

Apparently if you return an item, you can apply to have the taxes refunded. The catch seems to be you have to fill out government forms, which many find to be frustrating and/or complex. Also, I am curious the technicalities of said return. All parties would need to be on the same page that the loose stone would be shipping to you for viewing, and that you are returning rather you like or not. I have not filled out said paperwork, but I feel this detail may be important to getting the refund.

Either way, it appears you would not have to pay double taxes if you return an item.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...g-plain-wg-setting.243054/page-4#post-4399725

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I bought my fiancee a super ideal from Brian Gavin Diamonds (BGD) located in Houston, TX. I then had David Klass (DK) in Los Angeles design & custom build her setting. While DK and myself worked through the design process, BGD kept the stone in their safe in Houston. Within the last week or so, DK told me they needed the stone and I had BGD ship it directly to DK.

The entire process was silky smooth and very easy. I suspect that WF and HPD would be just as easy to work with as BGD. Only thing I would suggest is to make sure the stone is insured before it gets shipped out from the vendor (BGD in my case) that way you are covered in case of any mishaps.

Yes, this is no problem. We ship to trusted third parties all the time, provided we have their approval to do so. The diamond would be insured under our policy until signed for by the jeweler, at which point it would be under his custody and insurance. And we pay for the shipping and insurance to the jeweler.

 

[sledge]

Yes, this is no problem. We ship to trusted third parties all the time, provided we have their approval to do so. The diamond would be insured under our policy until signed for by the jeweler, at which point it would be under his custody and insurance. And we pay for the shipping and insurance to the jeweler.

This is one of the reasons I recommend WF to so many people. I love it that their VP gets involved in this community and takes the time & effort to clarify processes, resolve issues, etc. Most importantly he helps & treats people with respect, honesty and dignity regardless if they are his customers or not.

And this is the exact type of people I like to spend my dollars supporting. It's impossible to put a true monetary value on this aspect, and I am glad that guys like @Texas Leaguer exist as they make this world a better place.

FYI, I would be doing injustice if I didn't also mention @Wink, the owner of HPD. He is equally awesome. And while BGD does not participate in this forum, they do treat people right as well.

Truly part of what makes buying a super ideal so unique & special is the excellent customer service and personalities that you get with the diamond purchase.

 

[WinkHPD]

If you cant squeeze Wink @ HPD into your schedule, then there is another CBI dealer in El Segundo called The Jewelery Source (TJS), which is just outside LA. I know Wink is solid. I am not sure about TJS but they do carry CBI stones, or they are supposed to. I would call and make sure prior to visiting them.

Brenda at the Jewelry Source is an awesome lady and very qualified to meet with anyone who has questions about diamonds and jewelry. She carries a nice inventory of Crafted by Infinity Diamonds and has a great workshop also. I have sent many people to see her and all have reported that they enjoyed the experience.

However, since our OP is on the East Coast of Canada, she would probably rather visit someone on the East Coast of the United States if she wants to travel. As my friend Bryan from WF states, things can be easily arranged.

Wink

 

[ice empress]

Thanks for including the visual of the stone-to-finger ratio! My finger is between a 5.75 and 6.

I agree with getting a flush cathedral setting. Truth be told, I had that exact same setting in a previous life... I’m now onto a new man and a new ring... I wish I could bring myself to like another cut and setting, but this will always be my ultimate ideal...

Even more helpful is this thread with Frankiextah's 3.07 ct diamond in Victor's Emilya. Her setting is perfect, although I personally prefer the cathedral version that m-2-b has. (She wears a size 5 ring.)

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ond-in-victor-canera-emilya-halo-ring.181019/

 

[ice empress]

I am helping another user in a different thread and some information was posted by Canadian user @cmd2014 that I think may be useful to you.

Apparently if you return an item, you can apply to have the taxes refunded. The catch seems to be you have to fill out government forms, which many find to be frustrating and/or complex. Also, I am curious the technicalities of said return. All parties would need to be on the same page that the loose stone would be shipping to you for viewing, and that you are returning rather you like or not. I have not filled out said paperwork, but I feel this detail may be important to getting the refund.

Either way, it appears you would not have to pay double taxes if you return an item.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...g-plain-wg-setting.243054/page-4#post-4399725

Thanks sledge, I’ll keep an eye out on that thread.

I am helping another user in a different thread and some information was posted by Canadian user @cmd2014 that I think may be useful to you.

Apparently if you return an item, you can apply to have the taxes refunded. The catch seems to be you have to fill out government forms, which many find to be frustrating and/or complex. Also, I am curious the technicalities of said return. All parties would need to be on the same page that the loose stone would be shipping to you for viewing, and that you are returning rather you like or not. I have not filled out said paperwork, but I feel this detail may be important to getting the refund.

Either way, it appears you would not have to pay double taxes if you return an item.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...g-plain-wg-setting.243054/page-4#post-4399725

 

[ice empress]

Yes, this is no problem. We ship to trusted third parties all the time, provided we have their approval to do so. The diamond would be insured under our policy until signed for by the jeweler, at which point it would be under his custody and insurance. And we pay for the shipping and insurance to the jeweler.

Fantastic!! That would make it seamless and convenient, and much more enticing of an option.

Thanks for chiming in!!

 

[ice empress]

Anyone have any experience with VC ideal hearts diamonds in comparison to whiteflash ACA’s?

Also, if I decided to go closer to 3 rather than 4, how would you compare these two stones?

Stone 1:
VC ideal, 3.21, F, VS1, $87,500

Stone 2:
WF ACA, 3.05, F, VS2, $68,000
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3872126.htm

 

[Phoenix]

@Phoenix is selling her 5.318 ct AGS000 for $115K USD? Maybe go even bigger?
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/5-318ct-h-vs2-ags-ideal-cut-triple-0.234055/

Thank you for recommending that stone. Not wishing to hijack this thread, but I may withdraw the sale, as I've been looking round for a replacement and find that diamond prices have gone up a lot.

OP, I'd go as close to 4ct as possible. DSS sets in faaaaast!!

 

[AC7289]

how about this 3.22 G IF priced at $103,403

https://www.adiamor.com/Diamonds/G-...gn=201808&utm_source=rarecarat&utm_medium=cpc

 

[sledge]

how about this 3.22 G IF priced at $103,403

https://www.adiamor.com/Diamonds/G-...gn=201808&utm_source=rarecarat&utm_medium=cpc

I'd pass. Over paying for unnecessary clarity not to mention a 35 crown and 41 pavilion doesn't work for ideal cut. The OP already has super ideal options available for same or less money as well, albeit not IF clarity.

 

[cmd2014]

I am helping another user in a different thread and some information was posted by Canadian user @cmd2014 that I think may be useful to you.

Apparently if you return an item, you can apply to have the taxes refunded. The catch seems to be you have to fill out government forms, which many find to be frustrating and/or complex. Also, I am curious the technicalities of said return. All parties would need to be on the same page that the loose stone would be shipping to you for viewing, and that you are returning rather you like or not. I have not filled out said paperwork, but I feel this detail may be important to getting the refund.

Either way, it appears you would not have to pay double taxes if you return an item.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...g-plain-wg-setting.243054/page-4#post-4399725

Yes, there’s a form that you can download from the government of Canada website for petitioning for a refund of taxes/duties paid if you return a cross border purchase item. You need to provide proof of purchase, proof of taxes/duties paid (keep the form Fedex/Canada Post gives you plus your receipt), proof of return (typically the FedEx return documentation suffices), and proof of refund on your cc statement or bank statement or PayPal account. It takes a while to be processed, but you’ll then be issued a refund cheque.

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/import/courier/crp-prio-eng.html

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/forms-formulaires/b2g-16.pdf

 

[cmd2014]

Also, if you return an item for a repair, you don’t pay taxes again when that item is returned. If you add value to an item (say by adding length to a necklace or a setting for a stone), you pay the tax on the newly added value, not the whole item iirc. But I might be wrong on that...if it were me, I’d have the stone sent to a local jeweler if possible for you to inspect prior to purchasing, and to have it sent back and set as a whole before buying.

 

[AC7289]

I'd pass. Over paying for unnecessary clarity not to mention a 35 crown and 41 pavilion doesn't work for ideal cut. The OP already has super ideal options available for same or less money as well, albeit not IF clarity.

Why does a 35 crown and 41 pavilion not work? I thought H&A cuts were:

• Pavilion angle range: 40.2° - 41° (40.6° - 40.8° is optimum)
• Crown angle range: 33.4° - 36.4° (34° - 35° is optimum)
• Table size range: 53% To 58% (55%-57% is optimum)
• Lower girdle halves length range: 75% To 80% (77% is optimum)
• Star facets length range: 40% To 55% (45%-50% is optimum)

Just trying to understand because my boyfriend and I just bought a stone with 34 crown and 41 pavilion..

 

[sledge]

Anyone have any experience with VC ideal hearts diamonds in comparison to whiteflash ACA’s?

Also, if I decided to go closer to 3 rather than 4, how would you compare these two stones?

Stone 1:
VC ideal, 3.21, F, VS1, $87,500

Stone 2:
WF ACA, 3.05, F, VS2, $68,000
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3872126.htm

Here are my thoughts:

Size
We need to ignore carat weight for a second, and look at the length (L) and width (W) dimensions as VISUALLY this is what you will see. Plus carat weight is derived by taking L x W x D x 0.061 on a round diamond to find the approximate carat weight, where D = depth. This is just a mathematical method of saying part of your carat weight is tucked away in depth, which you will never see or really care about when admiring your gorgeous stone.

• WF = 9.34 x 9.36mm
• VC = 9.43 x 9.49mm

The first thing that pops out to me is the WF stone is closer to being perfectly round. It is very unusual to find a stone that measures perfectly round (but I have seen a select few). On the flip side I normally don't see such a large 0.06mm variance either While I do not think it adversely affects the VC stone in any manner, it personally bothers me it's more out of round than I normally see when comparing other diamonds. I can further argue against myself and further state that you will never see a 0.06mm difference with your eyes. So while my brain would know there is a difference I don't like, my eyes would never be able to visualize it.

This might be a good time to mention that when comparing super ideals, we will really be nitpicking fine details. The above is one such instance.

Moving on, the second important thing to notice is there is a 0.09 x 0.13mm difference between the two stones (see how that larger out of round variance thing is messing with that second dimension -- ugh). Anyhow, for the sake of these conversations it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that there is only about 1/200th of an inch, which is not detectable with the (normal) human eye.

So naturally, the next question is why would such a small difference being out of round bother me, but an even larger tiny difference (that we also can't see) would bother me? It's simple -- you are paying more for that extra carat weight (that you can't see), so you aren't maximizing your dollars. You are not paying extra for the stone to be more perfectly round.

Using the ACTUAL dimensions of both stones, I took a screen capture of what they would look like next to one another. As you will see, you probably can't see a difference and even if you have eagle eyes, the difference would not be memorable, and IMO, certainly not worth a $ premium.

Just as a general rule of thumb, it takes about 0.20mm before the (normal) human eye starts to detect a size difference. And even at that rate, we are talking 1/128th of an inch which can be argued rather or not that is significant enough to remember when the rings wouldn't be side by side.

Enough though, let the pictures speak for themselves.




Clarity
Both stones will be sufficiently eye clean, and neither will have any structural issues. However, obviously a VS1 stone is slightly better than a VS2. I think everyone would agree that we like to see as few inclusions on the table as possible.

It's hard for me to see the VC inclusion plot clearly but it appears there is one inclusion on the table that I would say is equal to the largest of the inclusions on the table of the WF stone. Additionally, there are 3 additional tiny crystals on the table of the WF stone that the VC does not appear to have. Given the fact these are all tiny and clear, I do not personally see an issue with them.

One thing the VC stone has that I personally don't like is clouds and a feather. Clouds can appear milky and hazy; however, it's a VS1, so it won't be an issue. Most stones do have clouds and in this clarity level they rarely affect performance. Also, there is a feather in the VC stone. This is just a fancy way to say there is a very tiny crack in the diamond. Again, I do not see any structural or performance issues with this inclusion. It's a mind thing. However, to be completely honest I bought my girl a VS2 that was super clean (maybe even moreso than either of these) but did have a feather. No issues.

For more information on inclusions and what they mean, read this:
https://yourdiamondteacher.com/diamond-4cs/clarity/diamond-inclusion-types-list/

Angles & Cut
It's really hard to determine a clear winner.

• VC = 55.8 table, 61.6 depth, 34.8 crown / 40.7 pavilion & 75 LGF
• WF = 57.2 table, 61 depth, 34.3 crown / 40.7 pavilion & 78 LGF

The slightly larger table on the WF stone and shallower depth help explain why you are getting near the same face up dimensions (L x W) as the VC stone with considerable weight difference. This is a result of having a shallower crown (34.3 as opposed to 34.8 ) so your crown height is 14.6% on the WF stone as opposed to 15.4% on the VC.

Many people prefer a higher crown because it can tend to throw more fire. Add a smaller table and the diamond can be very fiery as the crown facets are further apart and larger, which allows for more high-energy dispersion on those facets. This comes at the expense of brilliance (white light).

More reading here:
https://www.prosumerdiamonds.com/crown-angle/
https://beyond4cs.com/grading/depth-and-table-values/

But you have to balance the crown angles with pavilions. For that reason, we typically see a shallower crown paired with a higher pavilion, and vice versa. On the VC stone, we are seeing a higher crown coupled with the same pavilion as the the WF stone with shallower pavilion. Being super ideal, I believe VC has cut their stone great for those angles to work but I think the WF stone may be slightly more complimentary.

While there is no right answer here, I do really prefer the 75 LGF's on the VC stone as the arrows will appear more "fat" than those on the WF stone. However, since everything plays together you cannot look solely at LGF's. Generally speaking lower LGF's will perform well in darker environments, where larger LGF's will perform well in brightly lit environments. So there is a trade-off. Being 75 and 78, the difference is minor and most won't notice it, so typically 75-80 LGF's are considered acceptable.

Here is a nice read on the matter:
https://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/facets-the-lower-halves.htm

At the end of the day, I can view the video of the WF stone and confirm it is awesome. I *think* the VC stone will be awesome but would like to see with my own eyes, or at least a video. There are things I prefer in both stones but overall I like the WF slightly better.

Conclusion
Both stones are great choices, and I suspect you will be happy with either. Most of the items discussed above are very, very minor and most people will never see or appreciate all of them. There are certain qualities I prefer in each stone, but for me the WF stone provides the best combination of beauty and value, as I see no compelling reason to spend an additional $20k +/- on the VC stone personally.

 

[sledge]

Why does a 35 crown and 41 pavilion not work? I thought H&A cuts were:

• Pavilion angle range: 40.2° - 41° (40.6° - 40.8° is optimum)
• Crown angle range: 33.4° - 36.4° (34° - 35° is optimum)
• Table size range: 53% To 58% (55%-57% is optimum)
• Lower girdle halves length range: 75% To 80% (77% is optimum)
• Star facets length range: 40% To 55% (45%-50% is optimum)

Just trying to understand because my boyfriend and I just bought a stone with 34 crown and 41 pavilion..

I believe your criteria came from this site:
http://www.heartsandarrows.com/hearts-arrows-diamond-ideal-cut-dna.aspx

The issue is that you have to ensure the crown & pavilion angles are complimentary to one another. To use your examples, a shallower 34 crown is more complimentary to a higher 41 pavilion.

Unfortunately, a 35 crown needs a shallower pavilion. To be complimentary, you would want a 40.6 pavilion.

The 35/41 angle lands exactly in EX (excellent) territory (black outline box); however, when we account for funky GIA rounding and averaging the blue box represents an area where actual cut COULD land. You can see the odds are this is an EX cut diamond, not an Ideal one.

Speaking of this averaging, etc. GIA uses a more simple 2D model to analyze stones. AGS utilizes complex 3D modeling and the angles & percentages reported are more accurate, and with the 3D model a computer generated ASET can be constructed that allows AGS to objectively and accurately assign a cut grade. GIA currently lacks this technology, so while many GIA stones are awesome, you have to be cognizant of all factors and request idealscope and/or ASET images to help you confirm the tech data on the certs to be accurate.



Now look at how a more complimentary 35 crown with a 40.6 pavilion play with one another. It pulls the expected quality strongly into Ideal territory. Again, because of the way GIA does their measuring and averaging and rounding, you need to request an idealscope or ASET image but a stone with these proportions are more likely to be a strong performer than one with a 35/41 angle combo.



Additionally it should be noted that a super ideal encapsulates the following:

• AGS000 accreditation (Ideal cut, light performance, symmetry & polish)
• Near perfect symmetry, as confirmed by hearts & arrows (H&A) images
• Proprietary cut techniques provided by each super ideal vendor

Touching briefly on this, GIA XXX stones with appropriate proportions may have excellent symmetry, but may miss the mark for true H&A symmetry, which also affects light performance to a certain degree.

Lastly, for fun, I am attaching a chart on your stone with the 34/41 angle (assuming table is 56 like the others). Most would probably want to see you at 34/40.9 but you can see how this still works. And I trust you requested idealscope and/or ASET imaging to confirm all was good. It appears you did well.

 

[msop04]

OP, instead of focusing on comparing carat weights of these super ideals, maybe you should try to target your ideal diameter (since carat weights will have varying sizes, and some lower carat weight stones will be just the same or even larger than others of heavier weights). For example, it may be that you love the look of a 10 mm on your finger, so you'd like to focus on hitting the 10 mm mark (maybe with wiggle room of about 0.1-0.2 mm or so)... if that makes sense.

You'll also find that when you're dealing with stones that large, it takes a lot more surface area to make a noticeable difference than the traditional 0.2-0.3 mm of smaller stones. Smaller differences in diameter may not be worth the premium to you IRL, KWIM?

 

[ice empress]

Wow, thanks all for the input, particularly @sledge. I agree with your final conclusion too about the WF being a better choice overall than the VC especially for the price difference.

@msop04, you make a really good point about the size differences being subtle in this upper range and possibly not worth the additional cost.

As a side note, I’ve reached out to WF about possibly looking for a stone just a little different than the ones currently listed. I believe the sweet spot for me will be: 3.5-3.8 ACA, F-G, VS2.

I’ve gotten a response already from Debi Wexler (CEO) with an introduction to Brittany Gibson (diamond consultant) and so far, am quite impressed with the level of responsiveness and communication.

I also just realized that Houston is but a 3.5 hour flight from Toronto!! Perhaps I could schedule in a visit...

 

[ice empress]

As a side note, as much as I would love the latter 4-5 carat size (plus an emilya halo), I think I agree with sledge and farrahlyn... 5 carats looks too big on me, borderline silly.

Incidentally, I had a frank discussion with an acquaintance of mine yesterday who has an amazing 5 carat princess in a halo. She lives in Toronto and says she never wears her ring out and finds herself turning it around wven when she does. She envies her friends with diamonds in the 2-3 carat range, as they can wear their rings out while she doesn’t feel comfortable doing so herself. If she could do it again, she said she would have picked a 3 carat...

 

[sledge]

You're very welcome!

I do hope you will make a trip to see WF. One great thing they have going is they have a very large inventory compared to some of the other vendors. This can be advantageous from a shopping perspective, but also when it comes time for an upgrade. When buying larger diamonds, people sometimes forget they can be hard to find.

If you go, don't forget to say hi to @Texas Leaguer.

By the way, I love Toronto. Been a few years since I've been but really enjoyed Chinatown as one of my colleagues was originally from China and lit up like a kid in a candy store. Ordering food for the table in his native tongue, buying goods on the street, etc. Spent a little time up north in Al Bierre as well.

Overall, very impressed with that part of Canada. What amazed me at the time was how "clean" it felt compared to the US. I would consider living there.

Your other post came in as I was typing this. I respect whatever decision you make on size. But make the choice for YOU, not because myself, your friend or others said something -- but because YOU feel it's the right choice.

 

[ice empress]

Here are my thoughts:

Size
We need to ignore carat weight for a second, and look at the length (L) and width (W) dimensions as VISUALLY this is what you will see. Plus carat weight is derived by taking L x W x D x 0.061 on a round diamond to find the approximate carat weight, where D = depth. This is just a mathematical method of saying part of your carat weight is tucked away in depth, which you will never see or really care about when admiring your gorgeous stone.

• WF = 9.34 x 9.36mm
• VC = 9.43 x 9.49mm

The first thing that pops out to me is the WF stone is closer to being perfectly round. It is very unusual to find a stone that measures perfectly round (but I have seen a select few). On the flip side I normally don't see such a large 0.06mm variance either While I do not think it adversely affects the VC stone in any manner, it personally bothers me it's more out of round than I normally see when comparing other diamonds. I can further argue against myself and further state that you will never see a 0.06mm difference with your eyes. So while my brain would know there is a difference I don't like, my eyes would never be able to visualize it.

This might be a good time to mention that when comparing super ideals, we will really be nitpicking fine details. The above is one such instance.

Moving on, the second important thing to notice is there is a 0.09 x 0.13mm difference between the two stones (see how that larger out of round variance thing is messing with that second dimension -- ugh). Anyhow, for the sake of these conversations it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that there is only about 1/200th of an inch, which is not detectable with the (normal) human eye.

So naturally, the next question is why would such a small difference being out of round bother me, but an even larger tiny difference (that we also can't see) would bother me? It's simple -- you are paying more for that extra carat weight (that you can't see), so you aren't maximizing your dollars. You are not paying extra for the stone to be more perfectly round.

Using the ACTUAL dimensions of both stones, I took a screen capture of what they would look like next to one another. As you will see, you probably can't see a difference and even if you have eagle eyes, the difference would not be memorable, and IMO, certainly not worth a $ premium.

Just as a general rule of thumb, it takes about 0.20mm before the (normal) human eye starts to detect a size difference. And even at that rate, we are talking 1/128th of an inch which can be argued rather or not that is significant enough to remember when the rings wouldn't be side by side.

Enough though, let the pictures speak for themselves.




Clarity
Both stones will be sufficiently eye clean, and neither will have any structural issues. However, obviously a VS1 stone is slightly better than a VS2. I think everyone would agree that we like to see as few inclusions on the table as possible.

It's hard for me to see the VC inclusion plot clearly but it appears there is one inclusion on the table that I would say is equal to the largest of the inclusions on the table of the WF stone. Additionally, there are 3 additional tiny crystals on the table of the WF stone that the VC does not appear to have. Given the fact these are all tiny and clear, I do not personally see an issue with them.

One thing the VC stone has that I personally don't like is clouds and a feather. Clouds can appear milky and hazy; however, it's a VS1, so it won't be an issue. Most stones do have clouds and in this clarity level they rarely affect performance. Also, there is a feather in the VC stone. This is just a fancy way to say there is a very tiny crack in the diamond. Again, I do not see any structural or performance issues with this inclusion. It's a mind thing. However, to be completely honest I bought my girl a VS2 that was super clean (maybe even moreso than either of these) but did have a feather. No issues.

For more information on inclusions and what they mean, read this:
https://yourdiamondteacher.com/diamond-4cs/clarity/diamond-inclusion-types-list/

Angles & Cut
It's really hard to determine a clear winner.

• VC = 55.8 table, 61.6 depth, 34.8 crown / 40.7 pavilion & 75 LGF
• WF = 57.2 table, 61 depth, 34.3 crown / 40.7 pavilion & 78 LGF

The slightly larger table on the WF stone and shallower depth help explain why you are getting near the same face up dimensions (L x W) as the VC stone with considerable weight difference. This is a result of having a shallower crown (34.3 as opposed to 34.8 ) so your crown height is 14.6% on the WF stone as opposed to 15.4% on the VC.

Many people prefer a higher crown because it can tend to throw more fire. Add a smaller table and the diamond can be very fiery as the crown facets are further apart and larger, which allows for more high-energy dispersion on those facets. This comes at the expense of brilliance (white light).

More reading here:
https://www.prosumerdiamonds.com/crown-angle/
https://beyond4cs.com/grading/depth-and-table-values/

But you have to balance the crown angles with pavilions. For that reason, we typically see a shallower crown paired with a higher pavilion, and vice versa. On the VC stone, we are seeing a higher crown coupled with the same pavilion as the the WF stone with shallower pavilion. Being super ideal, I believe VC has cut their stone great for those angles to work but I think the WF stone may be slightly more complimentary.

While there is no right answer here, I do really prefer the 75 LGF's on the VC stone as the arrows will appear more "fat" than those on the WF stone. However, since everything plays together you cannot look solely at LGF's. Generally speaking lower LGF's will perform well in darker environments, where larger LGF's will perform well in brightly lit environments. So there is a trade-off. Being 75 and 78, the difference is minor and most won't notice it, so typically 75-80 LGF's are considered acceptable.

Here is a nice read on the matter:
https://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/facets-the-lower-halves.htm

At the end of the day, I can view the video of the WF stone and confirm it is awesome. I *think* the VC stone will be awesome but would like to see with my own eyes, or at least a video. There are things I prefer in both stones but overall I like the WF slightly better.

Conclusion
Both stones are great choices, and I suspect you will be happy with either. Most of the items discussed above are very, very minor and most people will never see or appreciate all of them. There are certain qualities I prefer in each stone, but for me the WF stone provides the best combination of beauty and value, as I see no compelling reason to spend an additional $20k +/- on the VC stone personally.

Thanks so much sledge for your very insightful head-to-head comparison! So helpful!

It helps me confirm that out of the two stones, WF is the clear winner in my mind.

I’ve also contacted WF to see if there are any more suggestions of stones with a slightly higher carat weight (or as you so brilliantly exemplified, length and width). I’ll let you know what comes of it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

As a side note, as much as I would love the latter 4-5 carat size (plus an emilya halo), I think I agree with sledge and farrahlyn... 5 carats looks too big on me, borderline silly.

But don't forget that a diamond will shrink about 0.20mm per year in diameter.

 

[ice empress]

But don't forget that a diamond will shrink about 0.20mm per year in diameter.

Hahaha
At least...