Help Requested: r, .6 - .8 ct, E-G, VVS2 - VS2 advice

[Cior]

I'm relatively late to the game, I won't bore you with many details as anyone offering advice is being very generous with their time. I've been researching/looking a engagement rings for approximately 2 weeks now [a very short time], but I would like to propose sometime in December so I don't have the leisure of an extended research period. Should have prepared earlier...

I've selected an antique style engagement ring [see below] that I think my girlfriend will love, it has a .52 ct diamond in the stock photo below for size reference. The vendor has agreed to custom make/order the ring without a stone in the ring size/prong size I need.

Seeking Advice:
[1] http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-VVS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1194961.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131
[2] https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2378009.htm
[3] http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2428271.htm
[4] http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2428250.htm

I believe the James Allen stone to the best cut in terms of brilliance. Is a cut this fine unnoticeable in a .66 ct stone, in comparison to slightly less well cut .788 ct stone? I've checked out as many graphs, charts, guides, papers, exposes I could in the short time.

• H&A seems to be best defined on [1]
  The IS on [1] seems to have the best coverage, or least leakage. Around the edge of the other stones and between the arrow tips there's a lot of white, which I understand to be bad. Am I correct in this thinking?
  The cut on the [2] [3] and [4] seems to be a little shallow, which attributes the leakage I mentioned above.
  Color, clarity I believe to be pretty comparable across all the choices in that an unaided eye will not notice the difference.

Please give me your unfiltered thoughts on this. I am aiming for a really beautiful ring that amazes my girlfriend at the start, but is classic, simple and manageable enough to be worn for the next 50 years in some capacity. I'd like to pay for the ring which cash which is approximately the range of prices you're seeing above. If you know a better stone, similar price/size please show me.

Thank you sincerely in advance, you're making a very happy couple...hopefully!

Cior

 

[stone-cold11]

No idea what leakage you are talking about. Leakage is usually due to steeper stone pavilion, obstruction due to shallower stone pavilion, unless the pavilion is so shallow it becomes becomes a window.

 

[Andelain]

I like #4 the best for the money. Colorless, eye-clean, ACA with lifetime trade-up, etc. And a beautiful cut.

WF is known for their customer service, too.

 

[tyty333]

I like #4 the best for the money. Colorless, eye-clean, ACA with lifetime trade-up, etc. And a beautiful cut.

WF is known for their customer service, too.

I'm going with Andelain due to the fact that #4 is upgradable. All the cuts seem to be very nice (even though they are not all H&A).
I would not be willing to pay for the "VVS2" clarity...I would want a bigger stone with lower clarity. Are you at all interested in larger
stones? You may be able to drop down to an H and get something blarger. Depends if you/FF are color sensitive though. If it were
me, I would drop the color and go larger but I have size 7.25 fingers .

 

[stone-cold11]

Pretty confident that PS stone will be able to be included in WF's upgrade policy. Ask and have it noted down in the receipt if you choose that in the end.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I would choose any of the three WF stones. Even the premium select stone has ideal light performance and symmetry. The excellent polish is absolutely fine and all it does is lower the price a little..a great bargain in my mind! And I have heard that many premium select stones can be upgraded as long as the new stone costs a certain percentage more than the original stone. But especially since you plan for this to be her forever ring, I absolutely would go with either of the largest two (look at diameter, not weight). The E VVS stone is just too much smaller than the others.