Help in picking out the perfect solitaire

[diamondtrouble]

Hey!

I am just in the middle of my long search for the perfect ring for my (future) wife! I've heard many good things about the folks on this forum and decided to stop lurking and make a post to help speed along the process. I've been over a few of the threads here and know about the ratios recommended by PS but still feel a little overwhelmed at the different possibilities. Hopefully someone here can help focus my search a bit! Here is what I was thinking:

Price: ~$4500 max
Color: H+
Cut: 3x or AGS Ideal
Ct: 0.82+
Clarity: SI1+ (eye clean)

Looked around on WF, BN and JA and tried to keep the search within the following params:

Table: 55-57
Depth: 60-62.2
Crown: 34-35
Pavilion: 40.6-40.8

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-di...95785,3982403,4027058,4032918,4045347,4045329
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD10523724
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD11437665
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD11178418

Didn't see any winners at JamesAllen but would appreciate some thoughts on the above. Really looking to maximize size and cut for the price point. I've asked my gf if she would think about upgrading in the future, and she flatly refused (would like to keep the same forever... sentimental thing) so all vendors are pretty much alike for me.

Thanks in advance!

 

[sledge]

Price: ~$4500 max
Color: H+
Cut: 3x or AGS Ideal
Ct: 0.82+
Clarity: SI1+ (eye clean)

The 0.82ct+ caught my attention. Most people would say 0.80ct+. I've heard some people target weird numbers because they have significance of some sort. For instance, maybe if you were born in 1982. Someone else posted the last few digits of their diamond certificate was their anniversary date or something like that.

No big deal really. Just curious is all.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-di...95785,3982403,4027058,4032918,4045347,4045329
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD10523724
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD11437665
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD11178418

The 0.83ct H from WF is showing as sold. The 0.856 E SI1 from WF has some twinning whisps that are are barely visible with the naked eye upon close examination (per WF gemologist from another member that inquired about the stone). I know it says eye clean, but not a fan of the clarity plot or video of the 0.815ct H SI1 myself.

My preference would be the 0.827ct G VS2 or the 0.828ct E SI1. Looking at the videos, the G talks to me a little more and appears to have a little more fire. But in general I really like icy white stones too and there isn't much difference with the E.

BN 0.84ct E SI1 - Proportions are ideal but will have a personality that favors white light over rainbow (fire) light. Also, for less money you can have a WF ACA AGS000 super ideal stone vs a GIA XXX stone that may or may not be a true H&A. You get more bang for the buck with one of the WF options so I'd pass on this one.

BN 0.90ct F SI1 - Proportions are lovely! And size is cresting into the next size bump so you are getting a little more bang for the buck. However, visually, you won't be able to hardly tell a size difference. Also, love the high color. I'd like to see a clarity plot and ASET and/or Idealscope images. However, it shows sold -- so unless you reserved it, this stone is likely not available.

BN 0.86ct G SI1 - Without knowing how proportions work I see why you selected this stone; however, that steep 35 crown paired with a steep 41 pavilion is not complimentary. Also, the depth is borderline at 62.4%. I'd pass on this one personally.

 

[diamondtrouble]

@sledge You are truly amazing! Helped me narrow down the options in like 5 min flat. So here is where I stand now:

[Option 1]
BN 0.90ct F SI1 - https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD11437665
I did reserve this one just in case so no worries about it being sold! Can you speak more to what you can see of the inclusions on this one. Out of all the final options, this is the only SI1 and that makes me a tad nervous about being eye clean (not really concerned about how it looks magnified). I understand that the lack of images makes the analysis a bit difficult, but any other insight you may have would help tremendously! It scored a 1.2 on HCA and has an AGS ideal cut according to the diamondscreener tool.

[Option 2]
WF 0.827 G VS2 - https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4045347.htm
Size is obviously smaller than the BN option but scope images look good to my untrained eye, plus your expert opinion seems to favor it as well!

[Option 3]
WF 0.833 G VS2 - https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4045322.htm
Another pick I just found that seems good to my eye as well

If you had to choose (cut/size being equally weighted), in the $4500 range, what would you go with personally? Are there any other choices in my budget that you could recommend.

Would love to know other opinions as well from all the wonderful PS folks! This has been a seriously productive experience

 

[lovedogs]

The 0.82ct+ caught my attention. Most people would say 0.80ct+. I've heard some people target weird numbers because they have significance of some sort. For instance, maybe if you were born in 1982. Someone else posted the last few digits of their diamond certificate was their anniversary date or something like that.

No big deal really. Just curious is all.




The 0.83ct H from WF is showing as sold. The 0.856 E SI1 from WF has some twinning whisps that are are barely visible with the naked eye upon close examination (per WF gemologist from another member that inquired about the stone). I know it says eye clean, but not a fan of the clarity plot or video of the 0.815ct H SI1 myself.

My preference would be the 0.827ct G VS2 or the 0.828ct E SI1. Looking at the videos, the G talks to me a little more and appears to have a little more fire. But in general I really like icy white stones too and there isn't much difference with the E.

BN 0.84ct E SI1 - Proportions are ideal but will have a personality that favors white light over rainbow (fire) light. Also, for less money you can have a WF ACA AGS000 super ideal stone vs a GIA XXX stone that may or may not be a true H&A. You get more bang for the buck with one of the WF options so I'd pass on this one.

BN 0.90ct F SI1 - Proportions are lovely! And size is cresting into the next size bump so you are getting a little more bang for the buck. However, visually, you won't be able to hardly tell a size difference. Also, love the high color. I'd like to see a clarity plot and ASET and/or Idealscope images. However, it shows sold -- so unless you reserved it, this stone is likely not available.

BN 0.86ct G SI1 - Without knowing how proportions work I see why you selected this stone; however, that steep 35 crown paired with a steep 41 pavilion is not complimentary. Also, the depth is borderline at 62.4%. I'd pass on this one personally.

OP, if I were you I would call WF and ask them to take a pic of the .856E, the .827G, and the .833G so you can see potential differences with your own eyes.

I also like the .9 from BN and personally doubt you'd see any inclusions with the naked eye (but of course don't know how sensitive you are to that stuff).

 

[crbl999]

@sledge You are truly amazing! Helped me narrow down the options in like 5 min flat. So here is where I stand now:

[Option 1]
BN 0.90ct F SI1 - https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD11437665
I did reserve this one just in case so no worries about it being sold! Can you speak more to what you can see of the inclusions on this one. Out of all the final options, this is the only SI1 and that makes me a tad nervous about being eye clean (not really concerned about how it looks magnified). I understand that the lack of images makes the analysis a bit difficult, but any other insight you may have would help tremendously! It scored a 1.2 on HCA and has an AGS ideal cut according to the diamondscreener tool.

[Option 2]
WF 0.827 G VS2 - https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4045347.htm
Size is obviously smaller than the BN option but scope images look good to my untrained eye, plus your expert opinion seems to favor it as well!

[Option 3]
WF 0.833 G VS2 - https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4045322.htm
Another pick I just found that seems good to my eye as well

If you had to choose (cut/size being equally weighted), in the $4500 range, what would you go with personally? Are there any other choices in my budget that you could recommend.

Would love to know other opinions as well from all the wonderful PS folks! This has been a seriously productive experience

The .9 F SI1 is an excellent non super ideal H&A stone. If you don't plan on upgrading and/or having a super ideal H&A stone is not important to you this would be my choice.

Between the two ACAs, both are good choices and I would ask the opinion of a WF rep or have them make a side by side video to compare them.

 

[diamondtrouble]

The .9 F SI1 is an excellent non super ideal H&A stone. If you don't plan on upgrading and/or having a super ideal H&A stone is not important to you this would be my choice.

Between the two ACAs, both are good choices and I would ask the opinion of a WF rep or have them make a side by side video to compare them.

What makes a super ideal a super ideal? Is it that its been graded by AGS as such? Could it be possible that with the proportions of the BN, if it were graded on the AGS scale, it might also be a super ideal? I am a little ignorant but it seems like a marketing term to me. I don't plan on upgrading but also want the best cut possible in the largest size and the ACA WF stones above 0.85 are just not in the budget.

 

[foxinsox]

What makes a super ideal a super ideal? Is it that its been graded by AGS as such? Could it be possible that with the proportions of the BN, if it were graded on the AGS scale, it might also be a super ideal? I am a little ignorant but it seems like a marketing term to me. I don't plan on upgrading but also want the best cut possible in the largest size and the ACA WF stones above 0.85 are just not in the budget.

Super ideals are stones that have been cut to a greater degree of symmetry and precision - not a grading per se. https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/news/what-is-a-super-ideal-cut-diamond/
https://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/faq/what-is-a-super-ideal-diamond-1378.htm
Generally they’re cut specifically by the vendors who specialise in them and aren’t part of the general virtual inventory accessed by drop shippers like Blue Nile and James Allen. That’s not to say you can’t get a gorgeous diamond using a tighter set of search parameters than just looking for GIA XXX or AGS 0. The “cheat sheet” used round here seems to be:
54-57 table
60-62.4 depth
34-35 crown
40.6-40.9 pavilion
75-80 LGF
You want to make sure the crown and pavilion compliment each other. 35/40.6 or 34/40.9.

 

[Dancing Fire]

What makes a super ideal a super ideal? Is it that its been graded by AGS as such? Could it be possible that with the proportions of the BN, if it were graded on the AGS scale, it might also be a super ideal?

IMO, the key is 8 matching hearts... Here is a pic of my daughter's stone from BGD.


we'll never know w/o seeing pic of the hearts, but I doubt the BN stone is a true H&A stone.

 

[sledge]

Echo the thought of having WF pull the two G's for a side by side comparison. My initial feeling is I prefer the 0.827ct a little better. Both are gorgeous and I'm nit picking here, but I prefer the smaller 55.7 table as the smaller the table the larger the upper facets that make rainbow light which ultimately mean more fire. The other table is great too but this one is better IMO. Also I like the clarity plot better as well and the video seemed more pleasing to my eyes. Also while weight is different, there is basically no L & W gains between the two.

The 34.5 crown and 40.8 pavilion combo of the BN stone is one of my personal favorites. Additionally it has a 56 table which is great and 75 LGF which I also like as it means fat arrows (which I also prefer). Also this stone has an approx 0.20mm size increase o er the other two. This is right about the point (most) human eyes can start to detect a small size difference. This is about 1/128th of an inch in the US imperial system. While it won't be a "OMG it is so much bigger" experience, it is noticeable when side by side. If viewed independently and/or with time lapse it's unlikely you'd remember or see a difference if you were blind tested.

If you go to diamdb.com you can enter your GF's ring size and ACTUAL dimensions of each stone to get a side by side of how they will look.

Other things about the BN stone is I do prefer the F color. I'd still like to see a clarity plot as I can see some stuff on the table in the magnified view but I think the stone is eye clean from what is available. It likely won't be as clean as the plot on that 0.827 VS2 which made me gaga as I like mind clean and eye clean stones (although this is MY preference and not something I recommend for everyone if you aren't bothered by it).

For me the biggest drawback is its GIA, and not AGS, certified. Why? Because when AGS analyzes a stone they do a 3D computer scan of the stone and reports the measurements in a more precise manner. GIA uses older 2D methods and then does some funky averaging AND rounding to get to their reported values. While both average, only GIA rounds. One example is the lower girdle facets (LGF) which is reported as 75 on the GIA cert. The value can actually range from 73-77. Looking at the arrows in the video they appear to be closer to 76-77 range to me.

This brings us to another point. Very few GIA XXX stones will actually meet AGS Ideal0 cut proportions if sent to that lab. Based on the limited data this far, the proportions indicate this stone could meet that ideal status. What we haven't yet seen is an ASET, idealscope or H&A image to confirm true light performance and symmetry. You can and should request these from BN although it's unlikely you will get all them, and you will be lucky to get any of them. It's just the way virtual inventory works.

The major differences is the WF stones are super ideals and guaranteed performers with all the data to back it up. The BN stone is likely a performer but lacks all the detailed data to prove it. Also as others noted, one aspect of a super ideal is true hearts and arrow symmetry. The BN stone may have it but I think it's very unlikely.

I honestly dont think you can wrong with any of them, it just kind of depends what you want and does one give you the warm fuzzies.

 

[crbl999]

What makes a super ideal a super ideal? Is it that its been graded by AGS as such? Could it be possible that with the proportions of the BN, if it were graded on the AGS scale, it might also be a super ideal? I am a little ignorant but it seems like a marketing term to me. I don't plan on upgrading but also want the best cut possible in the largest size and the ACA WF stones above 0.85 are just not in the budget.

A super ideal has been well defined in this thread already... combination of proportions and precision symmetry producing crisp H&As verified by ASET, IS, H&A views, and preferably AGS cert. If you want the best cut a super ideal H&A is what your looking for. Yes, you will pay a premium for this. You may have to go lower in size, color, or clarity to meet your budget. It is very unlikely the .9 F SI1 is a H&A stone. It is not even marketed as one of BN top stones which I believe is Astor. You have to decide if the precision cut is worth the premium at the expense of lower size, color, or clarity. Only you can make that choice.

 

[sledge]

Re-reading over my post above, I might have given the impression that I don't think GIA is a good lab. That is not the case at all. I think both GIA and AGS are both very reputable labs and I wouldn't have a problem buying a stone with either certification. I just realize there are some differences in how they measure and report and I prefer the extra precision that AGS takes.

On the flip side, some people believe GIA is more stringent on color grading which is a good thing for the consumer. I personally don't believe it's that clear cut. First off, color grading is done by humans using a master set of stones to determine color so it will always be subjective to a certain extent. Also, both AGS and GIA consider +/- 1 grade deviation to be within tolerance. Also with colors, the further you go down the scale the more broad the category becomes, thereby creating these sub-grade classes such as "low H" meaning almost an I color, "medium H" meaning a normal H color or "high H" meaning almost a G color.

I don't want to deter the conversation too much on lab grading, but just wanted to be clear I wasn't bashing the GIA grading metrics. Even if you account for a little variance in the reported values of the BN stone, you can see how the proportions are deep in ideal territory. The small black box represents exactly what the measurements would align with on the AGS proportions chart. The larger blue box represents where the actual grading could land when accounting for variation in the rounding/averaging process. As you can see, 34.5/40.8 is pretty fantastic.