Help Narrowing Down Engagement Ring Stone

[Thurman]

So I've been reading here for a while, and searching locally and online for a stone that fits our criteria. I've finally narrowed it down to the below, and am hoping for some input on which way to go. The difference in price matters a little, it is certainly not a HUGE factor:

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.738-f-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104054189061#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/2/

I spoke with Lisa and she said this diamond was guaranteed eye clean and the inclusions include a crystal and a cloud - both of which she said would be hard to see under magnification.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2930354.htm

Per Liza at Whiteflash, the inclusions include a small cloud in the table and two small crystals in the periphery.

The local option is Shane Co., where I got the setting she was set on. I don't have a link to the actual diamond, I had them track a couple down that fit my criteria. They are the Shane Co. classic cut which I was told will meet or exceed the table %, depth %, cut and symmetry that I requested. Weights are .7-.71, F in color, VS2 and these would run approximately $4,500. The advantage to this would be the warranty that I receive by making the entire purchase through them - but if the others are definitely superb stones then not a problem, I have very good personal property insurance and have discussed this with them.

Are there any follow up questions I should be asking to narrow it down more? Easy choice between the three? Is the H&A worth the cost?

 

[JulieN]

I would go with WF because it is cheaper and they have a more lenient upgrade policy.

 

[AprilBaby]

Agreed, for the price difference go with WF.

 

[Thurman]

Okay seems the general consensus is the the H&A is not worth that price premium. Is there a price difference that would be more palatable for that difference? Just curious to know what the general opinion is on that H&A designation....

 

[ecf8503]

You're talking about 2 superb stones. And usually WF's ES stones are ones that "missed the mark" for ACA designation because of 1 small flaw (a % slightly off, a heart cleft slightly askew, etc). You can always ask WF why this particular one didn't make the cut. BUT - it is still an excellent stone. If it matters to you that it is a perfect H&A from a mind-clean standpoint then go with the BG stone. If you want cheaper price and a more lenient upgrade policy go with WF. I'd only even consider a S&Co stone if they could provide the same amount of light performance evidence (ASET, H&A views, IS, etc...) as WF and BG do. That light performance evidence IS worth something (to me).

 

[msop04]

You're talking about 2 superb stones. And usually WF's ES stones are ones that "missed the mark" for ACA designation because of 1 small flaw (a % slightly off, a heart cleft slightly askew, etc). You can always ask WF why this particular one didn't make the cut. BUT - it is still an excellent stone.

If it matters to you that it is a perfect H&A from a mind-clean standpoint then go with the BG stone. If you want cheaper price and a more lenient upgrade policy go with WF.

I'd only even consider a S&Co stone if they could provide the same amount of light performance evidence (ASET, H&A views, IS, etc...) as WF and BG do. That light performance evidence IS worth something (to me).

+1

I would go with WF, just for the simple fact that they are less expensive -- it's gonna be beautiful, no matter which one you choose, so might as well save some cash!

FWIW, I can't tell the difference in the H&A branded and non-H&A that are close to those parameters... it's just not worth the premium for the label -- to me. Also, I would not consider the Shane Co. stone when you've got two gorgeous stones that you KNOW will perform... why do all the work when WF and BG will do it for you??