Help! Debating between two 4 carat stones

[Chicagobears77]

Hello, I've removed the GIA #s and jeweler name just in case it's better etiquette to keep confidential. These two diamonds were found by a jeweler highly recommended on PS.

Both are triple excellent, 4 carat, eye clean SI1s. Difference is exact measurements and color (one I, one J). Which diamond would you recommend and why? Items I'm considering are the color difference, slightly larger spread in diamond 1, and the H&A patterns. Specific input on the images is appreciated.

Thanks!

DIAMOND 1

4.02, I, SI1, Excellent
Note: While the jeweler thinks 97% of jewelers would sell this as a hearts and arrows, he felt a couple of hearts did not have enough separation between heart tips and the V’s to sell it as a true H&A, however, he thought it was an excellently cut stone. http://www.heartsandarrows.com/hearts-arrows-diamond-ideal-cut-dna.aspx (note 34.5 crown angle, 40.8 pavillion is in the bold green section of H&A)




Diamond two to follow in next post given picture limit.

 

[Chicagobears77]

DIAMOND 2
4.02, J, SI1, Excellent

 

[JDDN]

Diamond #1 is going to be the better performer given the ASET. I agree it's not a true hearts and arrows stone but not bad! The angles are more complimentary to each other as well.

Diamond #2 is a 'tad' steep (35 CA with 40.8 PA) noticeable by the slightly smaller spread. It's probably very pretty but in choosing between the 2 options, I would definitely pick Diamond 1. The inclusions on the 1st stone look cleaner as well. Plus Diamond 1 is a color grade higher so that's nice.

Have you gotten to see these in person?

 

[tkyasx78]

I’d get the first one.

 

[Chicagobears77]

Diamond #1 is going to be the better performer given the ASET. I agree it's not a true hearts and arrows stone but not bad! The angles are more complimentary to each other as well.

Diamond #2 is a 'tad' steep (35 CA with 40.8 PA) noticeable by the slightly smaller spread. It's probably very pretty but in choosing between the 2 options, I would definitely pick Diamond 1. The inclusions on the 1st stone look cleaner as well. Plus Diamond 1 is a color grade higher so that's nice.

Have you gotten to see these in person?

Thanks for both of your responses and this detail.

I’ve seen diamond #1 in person and liked it, will compare it with diamond #2 today. Given all the diamonds that I’m looking at are very similar stats (other than precise measurements/ASETs), they start to look a bit similar hence me looking for all of your expert opinions.

 

[OoohShiny]

+1 for No.1

 

[ac117]

#1 for me, too....better images, better color, better spread, looks cleaner than the other.

 

[tyty333]

The "I" would be my choice! Looks better cut to me. How exciting...a 4 carat!

 

[JDDN]

Thanks for both of your responses and this detail.

I’ve seen diamond #1 in person and liked it, will compare it with diamond #2 today. Given all the diamonds that I’m looking at are very similar stats (other than precise measurements/ASETs), they start to look a bit similar hence me looking for all of your expert opinions.

Great that you will get to compare the two diamonds! And I want to say that the all diamonds you are looking at may be similar in 'stats' but it is the precise measurements/ASET as you call them that will tell us what is the best performing stone. Most of us here on PS are pretty fanatical about performance (sparkle, fire, brilliance, etc.) so those angles and measurements are key .

Come back and show us what you choose!

 

[HappyNewLife]

definitely #1 over here too. I'm sure #2 is substantially cheaper, but since you're comparing these two, #1 is the better performer

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

#1

cheers--Sharon

 

[EvaEvans]

None of them.

 

[Chicagobears77]

None of them.

Could you please explain why? And ideally provide an example of a better diamond on the market >4 ct, I color or better? Both me and the jeweler have looked globally for a while, and eliminated many other HCA 1-2 triple excellent stones along the way. Inventory at the 4 ct mark is definitely smaller than at lower sizes, making it tougher.

 

[valeria101]

.

Everything seems better about the first.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

As a tradesperson I can neither recommend or criticize an offering of another merchant. However, I can say that in general twinning wisps as grade setter in an Si, combined with additional features mentioned in comments, can sometimes slightly diminish the crispness of the light return. Verify that transparency is not compromised by comparing to a similar stone in a higher clarity grade. It can be a subtle effect. A consultation with a qualified independent expert is also a healthy practice.

 

[valeria101]

twinning wisps as grade setter in an Si ...

... look like turbulence to me - an impossible impression from still STONE

 

[msop04]

Add me to the #1 camp!

 

[EvaEvans]

Could you please explain why?

This SI clarity is one of the worst, plenty of twinning wisps, that in fact are tiny cracks inside the diamond crystal! Such clarity has visual effect of crushed ice.
The cut is also not the best possible. I could accept the cut if we are talking about small, inexpensive diamond, but investing $$$ in something, that does not have super ideal cut - I cannot recommend!
However, the main negative for me is this specific SI clarity full with twinning wisps, that even hit the surface, because there is surface graining too.

 

[metall]

+1 for # 1

 

[Chicagobears77]

This SI clarity is one of the worst, plenty of twinning wisps, that in fact are tiny cracks inside the diamond crystal! Such clarity has visual effect of crushed ice.
The cut is also not the best possible. I could accept the cut if we are talking about small, inexpensive diamond, but investing $$$ in something, that does not have super ideal cut - I cannot recommend!
However, the main negative for me is this specific SI clarity full with twinning wisps, that even hit the surface, because there is surface graining too.

Thanks for your feedback. Perhaps this is tough, but any thoughts on a stone on the market which you would consider better? Inventory on 4 carats appears low and given the size of the stone, most SI1s have many inclusions. While maybe not cut perfectly, diamond 1 does appear to have good stats regarding cut.

 

[JoJa12345]

Not sure what the price of the diamond you are looking at but this 4ct Whiteflash ACA looks AMAZING....
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3928596.htm

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Twinning wisps as an inclusion type are NOT inherently problematic. In fact many people prefer them because they typically cannot be resolved by the naked eye. This can be of particular significance (and benefit) in a larger stone where crystals and other types of inclusions might be very visible.

But their diffuse nature can scatter light. The extent this results in deficits depends on number, size, location and density. For a shopper putting a priority of cut quality, clarity based light performance impacts would logically be of interest as well.

A thorough and objective evaluation by the merchant will help you determine if a particular stone has an issue. It is always good to verify with an independent opinion.

 

[Chicagobears77]

Not sure what the price of the diamond you are looking at but this 4ct Whiteflash ACA looks AMAZING....
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3928596.htm

I wish I had that budget! We are talking in the 50k range.

 

[JoJa12345]

I wish I had that budget! We are talking in the 50k range.

You should check out their (whiteflash) virtual selection diamonds ~ they have quite a few in the 4ct range and in your 50k budget. 50k is ALOT of money to not get an awesome stone ~ one that you can be 100% happy with!

ETA ~ I wanted to note that I have not checked out the diamonds in their virtual selection but when I put in the search I notice they have a few.

 

[EvaEvans]

While maybe not cut perfectly, diamond 1 does appear to have good stats regarding cut.

Yes, #1 is better than #2.

 

[AprilBaby]

#1

 

[valeria101]

Twinning wisps as an inclusion type are NOT inherently problematic. In fact many people prefer them because they typically cannot be resolved by the naked eye.

+1

& if you can call #1 in to take a look at it, I suspect you would find its clarity characteristics enjoyable (if very, very subtle !)

_________
Ps.
in a particularly boring day, I might argue that the whispy plot makes such diamonds harder than the perfect ones (attempted theoretical humour here)

 

[bmfang]

#1 for me. Big area of leakage on the ASET for #2 along with the stone looking markedly “dirtier” than #1 in the standard diamond crown up view rules it out for me.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I see nothing whatsoever that would cause me to choose #2 over #1.

My main concern would be SI1 clarity in a stone that size. Twining wisps might be harder to see with the eye, but whether your vendor can really evaluate the affect on light return is another question.

 

[Rhino]

Good info being shared here already but just to chime in ...

Twinning wisps happen to be one of my fave type of inclusions as long as there aren't other features mixed with it. The mixture of that plus surface graining causes pause but may not be a deal breaker. I would strongly suggest a physical inspection alongside of another diamond, as comparable as possible without those features and then decide if it's impacting it enough (or even at all) to disqualify it.