Final decision: .713 WF ACA or .71 Excel AGS0

[bartb]

Thanks to all who have helped me get this far by answering my other posts. I've come down to a choice between two stones and I'm hoping that you can help me interpret their numbers and scope images and make a decision. They're both 0.71c AGS-certified ideal princess cuts, but one is a White Flash A Cut Above and the other an non-proprietary AGS0 from Excel. Here are the numbers. The images are available on the two websites, but I'll post them here as well shortly.

Option #1 (http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/Diamond_Details.aspx?idno=912087)
Carat weight: 0.713
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Table: 69.6
Depth: 74.1
Crown: 12.6
Crown Angle: 41.6
Pavillion: 59.4
Pavillion Angle: 40
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 4.83 x 4.83 x 3.58
Price: $2,685 (before Pricescope discount)

Option #2 (http://www.exceldiamonds.com/diamond/196854.html)
Carat weight: 0.71
Color: F
Clarity: VVS2
Table: 61.7
Depth: 72.6
Crown: 11.5
Crown Angle: 34
Pavillion: 60.3
Pavillion Angle: 40.3
Girdle: Thin to slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.02 x 4.96 x 3.6
Price: $2,623

Thanks for your help! I'm almost there.

Bart

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Just looking at the stats quickly, I thought, gosh, I''d have to take an F VVS2 since they are almost the same price. However, once I looked at the magnified images of the actual stones, I see that the WF stone is simply better proportioned. It looks perfect to me whereas the Excel stone has too small a table. It just doesn''t look right to me. So I can tell you that I''d honestly rather have the WF stone because I prefer the cut.

 

[Diamond Explorer]

I would agree that It is normally better to go for the higher color and clarity, assuming cut is equal. There is less research done on what a truly great cut is on a princess. AGS being the only lab that I can think of that even grades cut on princess. If I were you I would try to see both of them and judge for yourself. All I can say is, as much as they downplay the importance of color and clarity here, I say it matters significantly. But you should try to get both and see for yourself. Get a loupe and then you will notice the difference between a VVS2 and a VS2 otherwise probably not. F and G are so close that it really comes down to where each stone lays within its color grade. Its tough to play this one by the numbers, but you should try to see both of them to be sure.

 

[Diamond Explorer]

The F/VVS2 has a thin to slightly thick girdle vs thin to medium on the G/VS2. I doubt that would impact the appearance much, but I would wager that the ACA is a slightly higher quality cut. Whether that minor difference in cut makes up for a color and two clarity grades is to be determined.

 

[bartb]

Thanks for the tips. Unfortunately, I won''t be able to see the diamonds before I order them. My preference for the WF is based mainly on their reputation for stellar ACA cuts. I''ve also been told that the difference between an F and a G is negligible - do you think the difference will affect the stone''s light return? That''s what I ultimately care about most.

Any other thoughts? Has anyone here ever directly compared the WF ACA cuts with Excel AGS0s?

 

[honey22]

When it comes down to it, you are comparing two AGS 000, one has just got just the AGS000 grade (and could still be one of the better in this grade) while the other has been handpicked as the best of the best from the AGS000 grade. I would take the ACA.

 

[bartb]

In case it helps, here is what the folks from Excel told me about the brilliancescope results for their stone:

"H-3 / VH3+ / VH-1 for white light, colored light, and scintillation respectively. This diamond is "great". Tremendous dispersion and scintillation; sparkles like crazy. You will be hard-pressed to find an idealscope as superb as this diamond displays. The entire center of the diamond and towards the periphery shows intense and evenly balanced light refraction with excellent contrast which guarantees that this stone will be noticed and draw raves in all kinds of lighting conditions."

I've heard that brilliancescope results can be pretty unreliable, but this does sound good. Still, knowing that the ACA was hand-picked from among many AGS0s makes me a bit more confident about it. The only thing I'm trying to get over is the G color and slightly smaller spread (but I suppose the latter is the price of an truly spectacular cut!).

 

[Diamond Explorer]

The color and spread are convincing to me, as well as the clarity. The F/VVS2 seems to be a better deal. When looking at these two stones. The excel stone doesn''t have any brand premium, thus more value to you. I dont know which one is better cut, but my guess is that they are both superb.

 

[customandrew]

"I've also been told that the difference between an F and a G is negligible - do you think the difference will affect the stone's light return? That's what I ultimately care about most. "

this color difference will have absolutely no effect on light return.
and i think the ACA is far nicer under the IS

 

[stone-cold11]

My vote goes to the ACA. I agreed with honey, ACA''s IS looks better than the exceldiamond and exceldiamond has a relatively small table.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/23/2008 9:22:58 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Just looking at the stats quickly, I thought, gosh, I''d have to take an F VVS2 since they are almost the same price. However, once I looked at the magnified images of the actual stones, I see that the WF stone is simply better proportioned. It looks perfect to me whereas the Excel stone has too small a table. It just doesn''t look right to me. So I can tell you that I''d honestly rather have the WF stone because I prefer the cut.

Yes.