Help needed to choose from these 3 contenders

[IssyBelle]

Hi everyone,
I’ve been looking for a diamond approx 0.80-0.90 ish & have narrowed the search to these 3
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=4027064,4027999,4027067
I need some advice/help/wise words on which one to choose
I originally favoured the 0.86 however this has the highest table out of the 3 & as I’m hoping for a stone with lots of fire I’m wondering if I should discount this one?
I’m drawn to the fatter arrows of the 0.80 & 0.90 although I’m not sure why. Is there a benefit to fatter arrows?
WF have confirmed all 3 are beautiful stones, of which I have no doubt, but I’m at somewhat of a loss on which one to choose.
I’d really appreciate your views as this will help me move forward & (finally) make a decision .

 

[Andelain]

If you're not color sensitive, door #3 unless that price difference is a factor. I'm ridiculously color sensitive, that E would be calling my name.

 

[sledge]

First off, all beautiful choices. Regardless what you choose, you will have lots of fire. Literally any choice you make is good.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fat arrows. Looking at each stone, all 3 have 76 LGF's which is what determines the arrow thickness. IMO, all look fat and are the same, so I see no difference.

You normally want 75-80 as an acceptable range. Those individuals like you and me that prefer fat arrows would rather be closer to 75. IMO, I see nothing wrong with 76. The advantage of 75 LGF is they will perform better in dark environments. 80 LGF's will do better in more brightly lit environments and have more dispersed/faster flashes of light.

https://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/facets-the-lower-halves.htm

A larger table will produce slightly more white light, and a smaller table slightly more fire. Why? Because the space at the crown is limited, so with a larger table there will be less surface area for the bezel and upper girdle facets to work their magic so fire slightly decreases.

There isn't really a right or wrong answer here. Some prefer more white light, while others prefer more rainbow flashes (fire). In terms of ACA super ideals, they are already balanced out fairly good so it's not like you will get a bad performer; however, if fire is your utmost goal then a smaller table will likely do better.

My personal favorite is the E VS1. Great color and clarity, but also the smallest. And it's near my preferred range of proportions as it has a 55.6 table, 34.4 crown & 40.7 pavilion. So obviously it "speaks" to me more than the others. However, your preferences may vary and you should allow the personality of the diamonds to speak to you.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, there's a big difference in the price of the three! If the budget is $7300, then obviously the .90 G stone would be the choice. I'd for sure eliminate #2 which is the smallest. You could also ask them if one of the .90 F VS2s is close to VS1. All three will have excellent performance. Don't worry about tiny differences in the numbers.

 

[lovedogs]

Agreed that there is no "bad" choice here. Personally, I'd go for the .86, because the difference in diameter between the .86 and the .90 is less than 2mm, so I suspect it wouldn't be noticeable to the average viewer, and there's a big cost jump to get a very small increase in size. But definitely go with what "speaks" to you!

 

[IssyBelle]

If you're not color sensitive, door #3 unless that price difference is a factor. I'm ridiculously color sensitive, that E would be calling my name.

When I visited local B&M jewellers to try to gauge how colour sensitive I am it didn’t quite go according to plan. They tend to have a very limited selection of certified stones (even the ones who think they are super posh) and those they did have weren’t well cut at all. Plus when I tried to have a more in depth conversation, I didn’t believe some of what the SA was saying. I’m far from knowledgeable but I do know that cut top trumps clarity & this was the opposite of what they were trying to tell me.
As the ring setting will be a simple solitaire I’m going to play it safe with G colour upwards.

 

[IssyBelle]

First off, all beautiful choices. Regardless what you choose, you will have lots of fire. Literally any choice you make is good.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fat arrows. Looking at each stone, all 3 have 76 LGF's which is what determines the arrow thickness. IMO, all look fat and are the same, so I see no difference.

You normally want 75-80 as an acceptable range. Those individuals like you and me that prefer fat arrows would rather be closer to 75. IMO, I see nothing wrong with 76. The advantage of 75 LGF is they will perform better in dark environments. 80 LGF's will do better in more brightly lit environments and have more dispersed/faster flashes of light.

https://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/facets-the-lower-halves.htm

A larger table will produce slightly more white light, and a smaller table slightly more fire. Why? Because the space at the crown is limited, so with a larger table there will be less surface area for the bezel and upper girdle facets to work their magic so fire slightly decreases.

There isn't really a right or wrong answer here. Some prefer more white light, while others prefer more rainbow flashes (fire). In terms of ACA super ideals, they are already balanced out fairly good so it's not like you will get a bad performer; however, if fire is your utmost goal then a smaller table will likely do better.

My personal favorite is the E VS1. Great color and clarity, but also the smallest. And it's near my preferred range of proportions as it has a 55.6 table, 34.4 crown & 40.7 pavilion. So obviously it "speaks" to me more than the others. However, your preferences may vary and you should allow the personality of the diamonds to speak to you.

Thanks @sledge, I enjoy your posts as I feel I learn a little more each time.

With regard to the arrows, I didn’t do such a great job explaining in my initial post. The arrows on the 0.86 look different to me but I think that’s because they aren’t sitting as close to the centre of the stone (apologies but I don’t know the proper terminology for this). The arrows closer to the centre of the stone “speak” to me more but as those images are highly magnified, it’s unlikely that I’d notice IRL?

The E diamond has additional clouds not shown on its certificate, is this something I should be cautious of?

 

[Andelain]

When I visited local B&M jewellers to try to gauge how colour sensitive I am it didn’t quite go according to plan. They tend to have a very limited selection of certified stones (even the ones who think they are super posh) and those they did have weren’t well cut at all. Plus when I tried to have a more in depth conversation, I didn’t believe some of what the SA was saying. I’m far from knowledgeable but I do know that cut top trumps clarity & this was the opposite of what they were trying to tell me.
As the ring setting will be a simple solitaire I’m going to play it safe with G colour upwards.

Well they're all G or better. I was saying which of those I'd choose.

 

[IssyBelle]

Well, there's a big difference in the price of the three! If the budget is $7300, then obviously the .90 G stone would be the choice. I'd for sure eliminate #2 which is the smallest. You could also ask them if one of the .90 F VS2s is close to VS1. All three will have excellent performance. Don't worry about tiny differences in the numbers.

Ha yes there is. If I didn’t go to top budget on the diamond for the ring then I’d have some left over for more sparkly goodies! Since discovering PS I’ve fallen out of love with my current jewellery & have an ever increasing wish list.
That’s a good idea about enquiring about the F/VS2s. I’ll take another look & see what they have VS2 wise.
Do you think it would be worthwhile utilising the full budget if there isn’t much extra size difference between the 0.86 & 0.90?

 

[IssyBelle]

Well they're all G or better. I was saying which of those I'd choose.

Thanks @Andelain, I’ve never seen an E stone IRL so I am quite excited by the thought of it.

 

[IssyBelle]

Agreed that there is no "bad" choice here. Personally, I'd go for the .86, because the difference in diameter between the .86 and the .90 is less than 2mm, so I suspect it wouldn't be noticeable to the average viewer, and there's a big cost jump to get a very small increase in size. But definitely go with what "speaks" to you!

Yes definitely a big cost jump. I’m certainly tempted by the 0.86 as it’s very close to the 0.90 but without the associated price tag.
Stones in the mid .80’s seem to be few & far between.
It’s good to know there isn’t a bad choice, helps me relax a bit. I’m definitely guilty of analysis paralysis.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ha yes there is. If I didn’t go to top budget on the diamond for the ring then I’d have some left over for more sparkly goodies! Since discovering PS I’ve fallen out of love with my current jewellery & have an ever increasing wish list.
That’s a good idea about enquiring about the F/VS2s. I’ll take another look & see what they have VS2 wise.
Do you think it would be worthwhile utilising the full budget if there isn’t much extra size difference between the 0.86 & 0.90?

I probably would prefer not to pay for that VVS clarity which is part of the price difference. You are right that a .1mm difference isn’t really worth paying that much more. However, I really would try to find the largest you can within budget, because that’s a piece of jewelry that you’ll wear daily for a very long time!

Good for you for redoing your wishlist with high quality pieces!

 

[sledge]

Thanks @sledge, I enjoy your posts as I feel I learn a little more each time.

With regard to the arrows, I didn’t do such a great job explaining in my initial post. The arrows on the 0.86 look different to me but I think that’s because they aren’t sitting as close to the centre of the stone (apologies but I don’t know the proper terminology for this). The arrows closer to the centre of the stone “speak” to me more but as those images are highly magnified, it’s unlikely that I’d notice IRL?

Thank you for the kind words, much appreciated. Hopefully I won't disappoint and can provide a little further clarification on this matter.

I think you are seeing an effect of several factors. On some pictures, the shading is slightly different which I think causes the arrows to look a little different. But more so I think you are seeing where the table is bigger so the arrows look a little more elongated -- giving a visual effect of being slightly more skinny. On the smaller table, the arrows aren't as long so they look more fat.

You can see the table the best on the ASET images, and also on the actual still photo diamond images as the 0.865 looks a little darker on the table.

If you look at the hearts image, the maroon colored V's formed at the bottom of the heart is about the same width on all the images. These V's would be slightly more skinny on a 75 LGF, and the V's would be more fat on an 80 LGF. Basically these do the inverse of the arrow. Fat arrows results in skinny V's and skinny arrows have fat V's.

Make any sense?




In case you are wondering why the center of these ASET's are red or green, it depends on the exact pavilion angle as it will either receive light from above or below 45 degrees. When the pavilion angle is > 40.768 it produces red light, but when < 40.768 it will receive green light from the below 45 degree spectrum.

Neither is better or worse. As you can see, depending which facet is measured, you may end up with a mixture of red & green.

The E diamond has additional clouds not shown on its certificate, is this something I should be cautious of?

The inclusion listed first, or on the top, is what we refer to as the grade setting inclusion. In this case, the crystal is what sets the VS1 grade of this particular stone. Clouds are shown as inclusion but in the #2 spot. What you are worried about is more common with SI1 stones (and some VS2 stones) where clouds are the grade setting inclusion AND has a note that states "additional clouds not shown". There is a possibility the stone could have a hazy or cloudy look to it. It's not very common with VS2 stones, and should not even be a concern with VS1 clarity. Additionally, since these are ACA stones, there is little to worry about as they likely would not have made the ACA grade if there were transparency issues like this.

 

[sledge]

FYI, here are some screen shots of the various sizes on a side by side comparison.

As @lovedogs mentioned earlier, the biggest difference is between the 0.801 and 0.903ct and that difference is right at 0.25mm. Looking side by side you can see a difference, but IMO, it's not a significant difference that will be like, "wow, that 0.903ct is sooo much bigger".

FYI, about 0.20mm is right where we can start to detect a visible difference with the naked (normal) human eye. Those with eagle vision might detect something slightly smaller.

Some numbers to bore you:

• 0.10mm = 0.00393701 inches, or approx 1/256th of an inch
• 0.20mm = 0.00787402 inches, or approx 1/128th of an inch
• 0.25mm = 0.00984252 inches, or approx 1/100th of an inch

I entered the actual dimensions of each stone, and adjusted to a size 4 finger to show you what they'd look like against each other.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The E VS1

 

[Durham Rose]

Hi Issybelle,

Firstly congratulations on the search of your engagement ring. You have come to the right place for help and advice.
You are certainly comparing diamonds in the right way by viewing ideal scope and aset images, this way you can view individual light performance.
I agree with @sledge regarding the personality of diamonds, everyone has personal preferences. You need to go for the diamond which draws you in the most. The differences between a VS and VVS are negligible, especially on top performing stones.

 

[AprilBaby]

The .86 and use the extra money on a ACA wedding band

 

[HappyNewLife]

Agreed that there is no "bad" choice here. Personally, I'd go for the .86, because the difference in diameter between the .86 and the .90 is less than 2mm, so I suspect it wouldn't be noticeable to the average viewer, and there's a big cost jump to get a very small increase in size. But definitely go with what "speaks" to you!

This. the mm difference is so minimal, plus you get higher color for a lot less money. If eye-clean, I love VS2s for their value

 

[IssyBelle]

Thank you for the kind words, much appreciated. Hopefully I won't disappoint and can provide a little further clarification on this matter.

I think you are seeing an effect of several factors. On some pictures, the shading is slightly different which I think causes the arrows to look a little different. But more so I think you are seeing where the table is bigger so the arrows look a little more elongated -- giving a visual effect of being slightly more skinny. On the smaller table, the arrows aren't as long so they look more fat.

You can see the table the best on the ASET images, and also on the actual still photo diamond images as the 0.865 looks a little darker on the table.

If you look at the hearts image, the maroon colored V's formed at the bottom of the heart is about the same width on all the images. These V's would be slightly more skinny on a 75 LGF, and the V's would be more fat on an 80 LGF. Basically these do the inverse of the arrow. Fat arrows results in skinny V's and skinny arrows have fat V's.

Make any sense?




In case you are wondering why the center of these ASET's are red or green, it depends on the exact pavilion angle as it will either receive light from above or below 45 degrees. When the pavilion angle is > 40.768 it produces red light, but when < 40.768 it will receive green light from the below 45 degree spectrum.

Neither is better or worse. As you can see, depending which facet is measured, you may end up with a mixture of red & green.





The inclusion listed first, or on the top, is what we refer to as the grade setting inclusion. In this case, the crystal is what sets the VS1 grade of this particular stone. Clouds are shown as inclusion but in the #2 spot. What you are worried about is more common with SI1 stones (and some VS2 stones) where clouds are the grade setting inclusion AND has a note that states "additional clouds not shown". There is a possibility the stone could have a hazy or cloudy look to it. It's not very common with VS2 stones, and should not even be a concern with VS1 clarity. Additionally, since these are ACA stones, there is little to worry about as they likely would not have made the ACA grade if there were transparency issues like this.

@sledge thank you so much for such a detailed response, I really appreciate you taking the time.
Yes I think you’re spot on, it’s that the arrows are elongated rather than skinnier.

Do you think the darker table on the 0.86 something that will be noticeable in real life?

Ah, yes I have been puzzled on why the centre of the ASET’s varied in colour, now it makes sense thank you.

That’s definitely good to know regarding the additional clouds. I’ve previously disregarded stones which had this on their certificate (ignorance on my part).

As I learn more I’m definitely starting to appreciate the differences between the diamonds. I’m viewing them with fresh eyes. I think I’ve been so worried about making a mistake that I’ve tied my brain up in knots but as you rightly say these are ACA stones and they are ACA for a reason

 

[IssyBelle]

FYI, here are some screen shots of the various sizes on a side by side comparison.

As @lovedogs mentioned earlier, the biggest difference is between the 0.801 and 0.903ct and that difference is right at 0.25mm. Looking side by side you can see a difference, but IMO, it's not a significant difference that will be like, "wow, that 0.903ct is sooo much bigger".

FYI, about 0.20mm is right where we can start to detect a visible difference with the naked (normal) human eye. Those with eagle vision might detect something slightly smaller.

Some numbers to bore you:

• 0.10mm = 0.00393701 inches, or approx 1/256th of an inch
• 0.20mm = 0.00787402 inches, or approx 1/128th of an inch
• 0.25mm = 0.00984252 inches, or approx 1/100th of an inch

I entered the actual dimensions of each stone, and adjusted to a size 4 finger to show you what they'd look like against each other.

This is so useful, thank you! I agree, the 0.90 isn’t visually that much obviously bigger IMO.

 

[IssyBelle]

The E VS1

It is gorgeous isn’t it!

 

[IssyBelle]

Hi Issybelle,

Firstly congratulations on the search of your engagement ring. You have come to the right place for help and advice.
You are certainly comparing diamonds in the right way by viewing ideal scope and aset images, this way you can view individual light performance.
I agree with @sledge regarding the personality of diamonds, everyone has personal preferences. You need to go for the diamond which draws you in the most. The differences between a VS and VVS are negligible, especially on top performing stones.

Thank you @Durham Rose, I’ve never thought of diamonds having a personality before but I can see now that this is totally the case!

 

[IssyBelle]

I probably would prefer not to pay for that VVS clarity which is part of the price difference. You are right that a .1mm difference isn’t really worth paying that much more. However, I really would try to find the largest you can within budget, because that’s a piece of jewelry that you’ll wear daily for a very long time!

Good for you for redoing your wishlist with high quality pieces!

Thank you @diamondseeker2006. I have been considering throwing everything into the ring budget & placing the earrings, pendant & bracelet on hold for the time being! I’ve read about the dreaded DSS so I can’t say I haven’t been warned what might (read will) happen.

 

[IssyBelle]

The .86 and use the extra money on a ACA wedding band

Definitely a good idea, I have my eye on a couple already!

 

[IssyBelle]

This. the mm difference is so minimal, plus you get higher color for a lot less money. If eye-clean, I love VS2s for their value

Thanks @HappyNewLife, that’s a good point. Sometimes being spoilt for choice is not a good thing!

 

[Jade217]

Thank you @diamondseeker2006. I have been considering throwing everything into the ring budget & placing the earrings, pendant & bracelet on hold for the time being! I’ve read about the dreaded DSS so I can’t say I haven’t been warned what might (read will) happen.

I’m not a diamond expert, but I knew a wanted sparkly and big. If you’re already considering a larger diamond I think you’re right in holding off on the “extras” and focusing on the biggest diamond you can buy. Just like color, size is subjective too. I would try on different sized diamonds so you can get a sense of what size you would prefer.

I’m way more “size sensitive” than color sensitive though. It’s all a balancing act though.