Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Help choosing between 2 diamonds

G

GPD

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 29, 2017
Messages
5
I have my choice narrowed down to 2 diamonds. Both graded by GIA. Ideal Scope images attached.

DIAMOND 1:
2.40ct / I / VVS2
Triple Excellent
Med. Blue Fluorescence
HCA: 2.4
Diamond 1.jpg



DIAMOND 2:
2.58ct / I / VS2
Triple Excellent
No Fluorescence
HCA: 1.9

DIAMOND 2.jpg

Magnified images/video seem to show Diamond 1 with more brilliance/sparkle. Looking for some advice before I make a decision today. Diamond will be set in platinum ring with tapered side baguettes.

Concerned that flaws (crystal/needle) would be eye visible on Diamond 2.

Any advice would be GREATLY appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Can you give more detail on the numbers of each stone? The first diamond scores over 2 on the HCA which would normally mean it would be rejected. To my inexpert eye it also looks like it has a fair bit of leakage.
 
I would not buy #1. The light return image on #2 is much better, but I'd like to see the numbers. The table looks like it might be larger. Yep, I just looked at it is 59. Honestly, I don't love either of these enough to buy them. I don't see any others in the I VS 2.35-2.5 range at JA that I like. I greatly prefer the two stones rockysalmander linked for you from Whiteflash.
 
Thanks for the advice. I'm much more familiar with GIA reports than those by AGSL.

Would the AGSL reports note internal or surface graining? I have gone through a bunch of reports and cannot find one that notes it. I notice several of the GIA reports on JA note that. Even on their A Cut Above Diamonds.
 
The diamonds from Whiteflash are super ideal cut stones and are much better cut than the two you had posted. A Cut Above diamonds are branded stones by Whiteflash - not James Allen. Graining would be noted on the AGS reports if it was seen or considered noteworthy. Whiteflash ACA stones are vetted for light performance and are considered some of the best cut stones on the market. Go to the Whiteflash website and read about these stones and the strict parameters required to meet ACA standards.
 
GPD said:
Thanks for the advice. I'm much more familiar with GIA reports than those by AGSL.

Would the AGSL reports note internal or surface graining? I have gone through a bunch of reports and cannot find one that notes it. I notice several of the GIA reports on JA note that. Even on their A Cut Above Diamonds.
Click to expand...

If surface graining were present, AGSL would list it as such (see example #15 here, https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamond-grading/appendix-v}}. The same would be said of any super-ideal stone.

As @MissGotRocks said, when you are looking at ACA stones, if the graining were to affect the visual of the stone, WF will have already screened that stone out for ACA. You will hear this said here over and over, cut (the actual faceting of the stone and proportions of that relative to each other drives the performance of a diamond, so that is why we are saying "no" to your selections."

Another option:
http://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD8969
http://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD8968 {SI1, states eyeclean and is a trusted vendor}
http://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD7308 {SI1, states eyeclean and is a trusted vendor}

For above...they have been updating their website and some actual diamond photos are not yet posted, but they will send you one if you ask {if you are lucky, Wink or his staff will narrate the video and walk you through the stone(s). They will give you nice side shots and point to the clarity points, if his new videos are like his older ones!}


For information, @Rhino gave a really nice description on post #6 here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/internal-graining-and-surface-graining.35128/
 
Thanks for all the info. Trying to digest it all and weigh it out.

The difference between Whiteflash ACA and James Allen is hard to quantify for me. I like the SuperZoom on JA but don't like that ASET imaging on round/brilliant diamonds is not available. I like the one setting on JA, also. Don't like that the upgrade is only 100% of the price if 2X the original diamond price is spent on upgrade. Plus, on the size diamond I want, setting will be non-refundable - no matter what, as it requires custom work.

On WF I like that you have 100% credit to upgrade to something more expensive, I like the ASET images, like the refund policy. Don't like the comparable setting to JA as much as the one at JA. And I like the diamonds recommended by Rocklsalamander.

Still trying to wrap my head around AGS being very comparable to GIA as I have always felt GIA was the international standard.
 
Its a lot to learn! Don't get hung up on AGS vs. GIA. Both are excellent labs and highly reputable. The major difference is that a GIAXXX includes a wider range of diamonds than an AGS0. Or, said differently, AGS0 is a more strict cut grading standards.

Watch these:
{why cut matters}
{larger stones, see how you can see more of the body than the 1 carats in the previous video; GOG Ascendancy is also super-ideal)

Performance. Comparing super-ideal to high-performing ideal is really like comparing a corvette to a ferrari. Both are sports cars and lovely. But, I'll take the Ferrari for the shear beauty and performance. There is a precision and perfection in the feel of a Ferrari that the corvette lacks. . Nothing wrong with either car, just a different level of sophistication and perfection. So, JA is the corvette; WF ACA & HPD are the Ferraris. But, with WF ACA or HPD, you don't have to worry about the ASET or IS. Not only are they visible for you, but they vary between stones and brands by slivers of degrees. That is the whole thing...they cut for performance not weight retention.

Trade-Up policy. I would weigh this heavily in favor of WF and HPD. Do you really envision being required to spend 32k on a diamond if your gal just want to bump the size or color a bit? This is really a personal choice based on knowing you and your gal's likelihood to want to upgrade.

Setting. If you are thinking of a custom setting, then don't worry about which seller has the closest match. WF and HPD both have excellent benches who will craft an incredible ring. I would get a quote from both and use that to help you make a choice.

Diamonds. Some will favor WF ACA and some HPD for the cut and performance. JA is a good budget option if you have the patience to wade through and find the good ones (and lots of us do), but then have to check the ASET and IS. JA will only give you 3 to evaluate.
 
Last edited:
rockysalamander said:
Its a lot to learn! Don't get hung up on AGS vs. GIA. Both are excellent labs and highly reputable. The major difference is that a GIAXXX includes a wider range of diamonds than an AGS0. Or, said differently, AGS0 is a more strict cut grading standards.

Watch these:
{why cut matters}
{larger stones, see how you can see more of the body than the 1 carats in the previous video; GOG Ascendancy is also super-ideal)

Performance. Comparing super-ideal to high-performing ideal is really like comparing a corvette to a ferrari. Both are sports cars and lovely. But, I'll take the Ferrari for the shear beauty and performance. There is a precision and perfection in the feel of a Ferrari that the corvette lacks. . Nothing wrong with either car, just a different level of sophistication and perfection. So, JA is the corvette; WF ACA & HPD are the Ferraris. But, with WF ACA or HPD, you don't have to worry about the ASET or IS. Not only are they visible for you, but they vary between stones and brands by slivers of degrees. That is the whole thing...they cut for performance not weight retention.

Trade-Up policy. I would weigh this heavily in favor of WF and HPD. Do you really envision being required to spend 32k on a diamond if your gal just want to bump the size or color a bit? This is really a personal choice based on knowing you and your gal's likelihood to want to upgrade.

Setting. If you are thinking of a custom setting, then don't worry about which seller has the closest match. WF and HPD both have excellent benches who will craft an incredible ring. I would get a quote from both and use that to help you make a choice.

Diamonds. Some will favor WF ACA and some HPD for the cut and performance. JA is a good budget option if you have the patience to wade through and find the good ones (and lots of us do), but then have to check the ASET and IS. JA will only give you 3 to evaluate.
Click to expand...

Rocky,

Can you send me an email/PM with your email address or contact info? Hope you can.

Does anyone (other members of the forum) know why other "advice" sites would "talk-down" Whiteflash?

Hearing 2 different sets of fact/opinions and looking to distill opinion from reality.

Thanks.
 
There's no personal mail facility here.

Other advice sites- could it be they have something financial to gain from getting you to purchase elsewhere?
 
GPD said:
Rocky,
Can you send me an email/PM with your email address or contact info? Hope you can.
Does anyone (other members of the forum) know why other "advice" sites would "talk-down" Whiteflash? Hearing 2 different sets of fact/opinions and looking to distill opinion from reality.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Like @Snowdrop13 said, there is no personal convo option on PS. But I'm happy to keep helping in this thread and provide more bad car metaphors if that is helpful!

In case you don't know, PS members get no personal benefits from any vendor...no kickbacks or discounts. They don't give us any special services or prices for recommending them. PS member recommend the best vendor fit for a particular poster (and will disagree with each other when warranted). Vendors with good images/videos certainly get a lot of traffic, but that is mostly because they are easier to search without a million vendor inquires. Gotta love the internet. :cool2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top