Help me choose between this RB and WF ACA.

[needbling]

Hi there. I''m trying to decide between these two stones. Both are from Whiteflash. They brought the 1.20 in from an outside vendor. Any input would help. Both are eyeclean from the top view but have at least one inclusion that can be seen from the side. What do you think about being able to see an inclusion from the side? Does anyone have a diamond like that. I''m trying to stretch my dollars and that is why I''m looking at the SI2''s. I am more concerned with size than having a branded stone. Is the size difference between these two stones noticeable. Is the WF ACA worth a bit more money and slightly smaller stone? Thanks for any and all help. I really appreciate it.

FYI--If you caught my earlier thread I ended up returning the diamond I bought because it was NOT eyeclean. Whiteflash has assured me that both of these are eyeclean from the topview. Thank you for your opinions!!!!

1.20 H SI2 EX EX EX
Depth 61.5
Table 56%
CA 35
PA 40.6
6.81x6.85x4.20
$5080.

OR...

WF ACA
1.12 H SI2 AGS Ideal 0
Depth 61.5
Table 55
CA 34.8
PA 40.7
6.68x6.71x4.12
$5326.

 

[needbling]

The IS image for the 1.20

 

[needbling]

and the IS image for the WF ACA 1.12

 

[D&T]

well I'm a sucker for ACA, and you actually get more of a discount with the ACA line than their regular line so the price will be very neglible as well, just a thought. Although I like the first size, however it maybe very minimal in size difference, but I like the angles of the ACA more

ETA: but either looks to be a beautiful stone with different personalities though you got two great choices imo

 

[FancyDiamond]

After the PS and wire transfer discounts, the cost difference will be small. The difference is basically size vs. cut. For the 0.08 carat weight difference, I''ll take the ACA any time. No worries about light performance. Note that the 1.2-ct diamond has light leakage in the table around 4 and 7 o''clock area.

 

[Stephan]

Both should be great diamonds, but yes, I also would choose the ACA.

 

[needbling]

Any more thoughts on this? I''m curious to see if anyone has an opinion on the inclusions being visible from the side view. Also, any other opinions on the size difference. Cut is the most important thing to me and size is a close second. I could also go up to maybe a 1.24 (not ACA). Would the size difference between a 1.12 and a 1.24 (maybe a .21mm difference) be enough to go for the larger stone with a slight step down in cut quality? I''m agonizing over this one because I want the biggest stone possible but the price on the ACA seems really good. Thanks for your opinions

 

[glitterata]

I think I would get the 1.20 if I were you. It''s also very well cut, if not super-ideally perfect. I don''t think you''ll notice the cut difference without tools, and you''ve said you care more about size than that level of cut perfection.

The sizes are very close, though. You could probably see a difference side by side if you look carefully, but once mounted they''ll probably look the same size if you''re not comparing them next to each other.

I can''t answer your question about seeing the flaw from the side. It wouldn''t bother me one little bit--in fact, I would enjoy it--but you''re the one who matters here.

Maybe you could put it in a setting that doesn''t show the sides so much?

 

[stone-cold11]

Not eye-clean is a great possibility for SI2, and just a side visible inclusion sounds like a bargain.

Size wise, most likely not noticeable unless side by side or you are very familiar with stone size.

 

[Lorelei]

I would probably go with the larger stone, both look great but also it depends on whether these are eyeclean enough for you.

 

[caesarsalad]

Can you help me see this that I have just confirmed...;

 

[caesarsalad]

i know the arrow at 6 pm looks short but this is because it was tilted when it is photographed.. look at another picture..

 

[stone-cold11]

Looks good to me.

 

[Lorelei]

The images look super!

 

[tyty333]

I would have no problem with an inclusion that you could see from the side. I would probably even have it set so
I could see the inclusion so that I could identify my diamond.

 

[needbling]

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied. I''ve been so incredibly indecisive about these two diamonds that Whiteflash is sending them both to me to look at. Now that''s customer service. Very impressive. I should get them tomarrow and I can''t wait to see them. Thanks again for all your help.

 

[stone-cold11]

That is the best way to decide. Good luck coming to a decision.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/25/2009 8:03:47 PM
Author: needbling
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied. I''ve been so incredibly indecisive about these two diamonds that Whiteflash is sending them both to me to look at. Now that''s customer service. Very impressive. I should get them tomarrow and I can''t wait to see them. Thanks again for all your help.

Keep us posted and you are most welcome!

 

[needbling]

Well, I have both diamonds now and I can''t say it is an easy decision. I''ve had them for over 24 hours and still undecided. UGH! The 1.12 ACA is gorgeous, very impressive. The 1.20 isn''t so bad either. I can''t see any inclusions in either of them from the top or side so I''m very happy about that. The 1.20 seems to be a stronger H and appears a little whiter. The odd thing is that the 1.12 ACA seems a little darker over all (and I don''t mean colorwise). Weird to me considering it is easy to tell it is the better cut diamond. I''ll have to sleep on it a little more and then decide. I REALLY wish I had my setting to sit these two babies in to help me decide. It was supposed to be ready almost 2 weeks ago so there is a slim chance it could be ready before my return policy is up (10 days on the 1.20). I really like the size of the 1.20 but the ACA is the better performer. I would say they both have the same amount of fire but with the ACA it seems crisper and larger. My budget is $5000 and I wanted the largest ideal cut diamond for that price so I''m not thrilled with the 1.12 size BUT it is a very beautiful diamond. Darn budgets!!!!

 

[needbling]

Well, I''ve decided to keep the 1.20. The 1.12 ACA has a certain "look" to it that is just gorgeous BUT it is darker then the 1.20. I really like the brightness of the 1.20. I''ve showed these diamonds to 3 different people and all 3 said if it was them they would keep the 1.20. I thought that was interesting. The ACA is very beautiful and like I said I love the "look" of it but I like the brightness of the 1.20 better. I also decided that if it was this hard of a choice then I should let size and price determine my choice.

On clarity--It took me 3 days to see the side-view inclusions in each of these diamonds. After 5 days I could spot the inclusion in the 1.20 face up. I have to really look for it from about 5 inches away and I can only see it in certain lighting. It is VERY small and I''m shocked that it isn''t bothering me (I thought it really would). I''m viewing it lilke others on this site have said and it is a little birthmark to help me identify my diamond. I still can''t find the inclusion (face up) in the 1.12 ACA. I must have eagle eyes because Whiteflash said they could see the inclusion face up in the 1.12 ACA after louping it but not in the 1.20. I haven''t louped either of these diamonds.

My setting will be in on Thursday and I''m going to view both diamonds in my setting before returning the ACA. But unless the ACA is a standout in my setting my decision is made!!

Thanks again for all of the advice. It is fun to post here because my friends are tired of hearing me discuss diamonds!! This site is addicting!!!!!!!!!

 

[stone-cold11]

Congrats.

Can you post the GIA report number for the 1.2c? I am curious why it turns out that way.

 

[needbling]

Here is the GIA # 1102706637

Whiteflash said they did not feel that one diamond was brighter then the other and I was wondering if it was my own eyes but my friends also thought that the 1.12 had an overall darkness to it compared to the 1.20. Nothing drastic of course, but I prefer the brightness of the 1.20. And I''m certainly no expert so maybe it is just my eyes, who knows. If you figure out a reason for this I''d love to know your thoughts. THANKS!

 

[stone-cold11]

Nope, can see anything extraordinary in the report to account for the difference.

 

[FancyDiamond]

Very interesting outcome. Glad that the larger size wins! Better price is also icing on the cake.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/31/2009 7:56:53 PM
Author: needbling
Here is the GIA # 1102706637

Whiteflash said they did not feel that one diamond was brighter then the other and I was wondering if it was my own eyes but my friends also thought that the 1.12 had an overall darkness to it compared to the 1.20. Nothing drastic of course, but I prefer the brightness of the 1.20. And I''m certainly no expert so maybe it is just my eyes, who knows. If you figure out a reason for this I''d love to know your thoughts. THANKS!

Sometimes you just can''t pin these things down with numbers and proportions, diamonds don''t always work that way!

Congrats on your choice, you had the best scenario in really being able to test drive each in person!

 

[caesarsalad]

yeah needbling
when i share with friends or colleagues on diamonds and asking them their opinions, they think i am either boasting or has nothing better to do.. Also, they are more newbies than me! so i could not get any good advice from them..

this ps is different.. there are so many friends out here that willingly answer and help us right?

 

[haagen_dazs]

to Needbling

congrates on your diamond purchase!

I didnt know low 5000usd could get a 1.1 to 1.20 ct diamond.
I might have some hope then! yeah!!

1) I was wondering if the photos were labelled wronglly. The 2nd post was the IS image for the 1.20 but the photo logo was "white flash".
The 3rd post was for 1.12 but the photo logo was "a cut above"

2) i cannot seem to "see" the light leakage at around 4 and 7 o''clock area. =(

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 9/16/2009 12:58:11 AM
Author: haagen_dazs
to Needbling

congrates on your diamond purchase!

I didnt know low 5000usd could get a 1.1 to 1.20 ct diamond.

I might have some hope then! yeah!!

1) I was wondering if the photos were labelled wronglly. The 2nd post was the IS image for the 1.20 but the photo logo was 'white flash'.

The 3rd post was for 1.12 but the photo logo was 'a cut above'

2) i cannot seem to 'see' the light leakage at around 4 and 7 o'clock area. =(

1)Nothing wrong with the image. ACA = A Cut Above, Whiteflash's H&A brand.

2) See the sliver of white in the area between the arrow shaft, that is the slight leakage FD was talking about.

 

[haagen_dazs]

Date: 9/16/2009 5:35:29 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 9/16/2009 12:58:11 AM

Author: haagen_dazs


1)Nothing wrong with the image. ACA = A Cut Above, Whiteflash''s H&A brand.


2) See the sliver of white in the area between the arrow shaft, that is the slight leakage FD was talking about.

thanks thanks
lol i dint know aca = a cut above
i guess i didnt read all of WF website yet.
i am still going through technical papers at this point in time