shape
carat
color
clarity

Help picking a Canera H&A

c0delift

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
17
Hello! I am currently in the process of buying an engagement ring for my girlfriend (hopefully, soon to be fiance) and have decided to get it from Victor Canera. I have been in contact with him already about the setting, a slightly modified Anne Marie where the modification is a slightly deeper split in the shank. My girlfriend's dream ring is Split Shank Cushion Halo ring with a round center diamond. After much research it was clear to me that VC's craftsmanship is second to none and he makes some truly beautiful halo rings.

Since I have the setting mostly sorted out, I now need to decide on a center stone. After getting a quote from Victor on the setting, my budget for the center stone is ~$15,000, though I could go a bit over for the perfect stone.

With that said, I am targeting a stone in the 1.5 carat range considering my current budget. My main concerns are having a stone that faces up white and is eye clean, so I have been focused primarily in the G-VS2 space. I have looked at some H color stones and can't really see any color but I want to make sure I get a stone that doesn't show any color when set in the ring. Also, my girlfriend's ring size is 4.5.

The ones I have been looking at currently are:
https://victorcanera.com/diamonds/2hprtj-1.558-g-vs2-hearts-arrows-round
https://victorcanera.com/diamonds/ags104096334005-1.517-g-vs2-hearts-arrows-round
https://victorcanera.com/diamonds/ags104104706005-1.456-g-vs2-hearts-arrows-round
https://victorcanera.com/diamonds/ags104097665004-1.483-h-vs1-hearts-arrows-round

2 of them are under my budget and 2 are a bit over. Basically, I would love some insight on what some of the more knowledgeable folks here think is the best stone out of those and if it is one of the more expensive ones, if the price jump of ~$2500 is worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV_

kmoro

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
1,081
I like the second one the best. Very clean looking for VS2 nothing under the table (that I can see on my computer), and a nice white G color ... all with an ideal cut.

The first one has a large crystal under the table .... but a VC diamond is probably eye-clean.

All are AGS ideal, so you don’t need to worry about the light performance of any of them.

The third one is SI1 with additional clouds not shown .... so kind of the same comment as for the first diamond.

I like the fourth one a lot too. If this one fits your budget better, then I would suggest this one. The thing is, color is easier to see than clarity in an eye-clean diamond .... So H VS1 to me is not as good as G VS2 ... but that’s only my preference ... in the end, it’s all up to your preferences :wink2:

The size of all of them is comparable ... you would not notice a difference unless they were side-by-side. Normally I think PSers suggest getting the largest that you can afford. ETA: there is usually a price jump at the 1.5 mark ...not everyone thinks it’s worth it over a 1.48 for example ... the 1.48 can be what we call a unicorn ... basically a 1.5 but at a better price
 

c0delift

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
17
Also, VC just sent me a comparison photo of the 4 diamonds above. I asked about what looks like clouds on the 1.558 and it seems that it was actually dust on the diamond.

Four-Diamonds.jpg
 

kmoro

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
1,081
Also, VC just sent me a comparison photo of the 4 diamonds above. I asked about what looks like clouds on the 1.558 and it seems that it was actually dust on the diamond.

Four-Diamonds.jpg

You see how they are all beautiful and comparable .. all AGS ideal ... all similar size color and clarity ... I’m afraid that it’s up to you at this point. Which one speaks to you?

ps: I’m pretty sure I can see the tint in the H ... the thing with tint is that, once you see it, you can’t unsee it ... then it depends on whether you care or not ... some people like the warmth and others don’t ... and I think most people consider H quite white looking ... it becomes a real “mind-clean” issue with diamonds too ... that’s why, you can get all the advice in the world, but in the end, it is your preferences and how you want to balance the c’s, and that’s all.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,033
All are gorgeous. I would buy whichever one is comfortable in your budget.
 

headlight

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Messages
3,293
I would vote for #2 because a) I think it is nice for her to have that definitive "carat and a half", and b) I say go with the G color. I think if you go with the H you will regret it given you are concerned about color and you have narrowed it to 3 G's out of 4 stones. The extra $ it will cost you to get exactly what you want is something you won't remember/care about down the road but I think you will always kick yourself for not getting her a G color. Same goes for the concept of "carat and a half" versus "ALMOST".
 

chamois

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
586
If the 1.58ct is eye clean to your standards (I would double check to make sure). Also, if you can afford the extra $$ then that would be my choice (for the G, larger size and smaller table).

Good luck.
 

c0delift

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
17
If the 1.58ct is eye clean to your standards (I would double check to make sure). Also, if you can afford the extra $$ then that would be my choice (for the G, larger size and smaller table).

Good luck.

I am not seeing the clouds in the comparison pic that I thought were there in the video so I definitely feel better about the the eye-cleanliness and VC assured me it was just dust...

At this point I am leaning towards the 1.558 but the 1.517 is still in the running!

Any other opinions are appreciated!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV_

kmoro

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
1,081
I am not seeing the clouds in the comparison pic that I thought were there in the video so I definitely feel better about the the eye-cleanliness and VC assured me it was just dust...

At this point I am leaning towards the 1.558 but the 1.517 is still in the running!

Any other opinions are appreciated!

The only thing that I can think of to add is that: Do you understand what they mean by “eye-clean”, and is it the same as what you consider “eye-clean.” There is usually a definition, like no visible inclusions from 6” away .... but what if you want no inclusions visible at 3” away? This is the thing that you need to check if you haven’t already ... what is their definition, and is it the same as yours.

You’re getting closer!
 

MK Malone

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
235
Just an update here... I ended up going with the 1.558 G VS2 diamond! I can't wait to see the finished product that Victor comes up with!

Please post pics!! Happy and excited for you and your lucky lady!! Congrats on your upcoming engagement!
 

c0delift

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
17
Another thing to mention here, my girlfriend (hopefully soon to be fiance) has said that she does not want to upgrade her ring down the road, her belief is that the ring she gets when we get engaged is the one she wants for the rest of her life.
 

KKJohnson

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
1,834
Another thing to mention here, my girlfriend (hopefully soon to be fiance) has said that she does not want to upgrade her ring down the road, her belief is that the ring she gets when we get engaged is the one she wants for the rest of her life.

I really like the larger one, not because of size but it is just more visually appealing for some reason not you could go wrong with either but this is just my opinion. If she does want to keep the same stone then for that reason alone I would go larger now since after awhile of wearing shrinkage starts to set in (most PSers have this problem :lol:).

Either way you are going with a vendor that has an upgrade policy so if she or you ever want upgrade you have that option to do so!:dance:
 

carbonfan

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Messages
1,079
That 1.702ct stone is gorgeous, so I would go with that one! It is a nice size, and the finger coverage will be incredible once Victor adds the halo! Please keep us posted and come back with photos once you receive the ring!
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
27,198
I'd go for the larger size if you GF never wants to upgrade. Both stones are really nice though.
 

c0delift

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
17
I really like the larger one, not because of size but it is just more visually appealing for some reason not you could go wrong with either but this is just my opinion. If she does want to keep the same stone then for that reason alone I would go larger now since after awhile of wearing shrinkage starts to set in (most PSers have this problem :lol:).

Either way you are going with a vendor that has an upgrade policy so if she or you ever want upgrade you have that option to do so!:dance:

Larger one 100%!

That 1.702ct stone is gorgeous, so I would go with that one! It is a nice size, and the finger coverage will be incredible once Victor adds the halo! Please keep us posted and come back with photos once you receive the ring!

I'd go for the larger size if you GF never wants to upgrade. Both stones are really nice though.

Okay you all talked me into the larger stone! Thank you all for the insight and I will post pics of the finished project!
 

Bonfire

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
4,232
Good choice! That 1.702ct is stunning! I love the small table and higher crown. Can’t wait to see the finished ring!
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
33,852
Okay you all talked me into the larger stone! Thank you all for the insight and I will post pics of the finished project!
Ex choice! Beautiful stone! :love::clap:
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
I also a picture of the 2 side by side...
1-558-1-702.jpg

Congratulations on your decision -- can't wait to see actual photos.

Just wanted to geek out a bit and add that although both tables are within ideal ranges, this photo does a good job capturing how the 56.7 table of the 1.558 ct on the left is noticeably larger than the smaller 54.8 table of the 1.702 ct on the right.

Also notice that according to the AGS reports, both stones have 77 LGF's. A numerically lower LGF will have fatter arrows and provide bigger bolder rainbow flashes, whereas a numerically higher LGF will have more skinny arrows and produce more of a pin fire.

More interesting -- notice the visual effect the smaller table is producing with the same size 77 LGF's? The arrows look more chunky on the 1.702 stone on the right and consequently provides a different contrast level. IMO, this makes the stone more appealing although we all have different preferences.

Performance wise, both stones will do great. But I also prefer the 1.702 because of the small table, steeper crown angle and 15.8 crown height. These elements are great for producing big fire.

Again, congrats. Please be sure to post pictures once you can. :cool2:
 

c0delift

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
17
Congratulations on your decision -- can't wait to see actual photos.

Just wanted to geek out a bit and add that although both tables are within ideal ranges, this photo does a good job capturing how the 56.7 table of the 1.558 ct on the left is noticeably larger than the smaller 54.8 table of the 1.702 ct on the right.

Also notice that according to the AGS reports, both stones have 77 LGF's. A numerically lower LGF will have fatter arrows and provide bigger bolder rainbow flashes, whereas a numerically higher LGF will have more skinny arrows and produce more of a pin fire.

More interesting -- notice the visual effect the smaller table is producing with the same size 77 LGF's? The arrows look more chunky on the 1.702 stone on the right and consequently provides a different contrast level. IMO, this makes the stone more appealing although we all have different preferences.

Performance wise, both stones will do great. But I also prefer the 1.702 because of the small table, steeper crown angle and 15.8 crown height. These elements are great for producing big fire.

Again, congrats. Please be sure to post pictures once you can. :cool2:

Thank you for the insights! I lurked on here quite a bit and have seen you comment on many of the "help me pick a diamond" threads and was hoping you'd comment on mine :lol:

Your and everyone else's posts make me feel great about my decision on the 1.702!
 

c0delift

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
17
Apologies for bumping an old thread as this is LONG overdue, but just wanted to post the link to my review of my experience with VC and some pictures of the finished product!


Thanks again to everyone here for the help with choosing the center stone!
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top