Help w/ diamond choices please...

[kpfury]

So I've been scouring the web, as well as NY's diamond district for the perfect diamond, and I keep coming back to BlueNile. I know they're the big, bad gorilla in the room, but I can't help it - the selection and prices that come up in their searches beat almost anything else out there.

Anyway, from an objective perspective, is there any reason why I would pick the 2.3ct WF diamond over the less expensive but larger 2.5ct BN one?

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2329036.htm
http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-search?filter_id=0&track=bbt#diamonds_pid=LD01548032

Granted the BN one is H-color w/ Med. Blue Flourescence, but I've seen several H and G-color diamonds in person in this size range and can barely tell the difference, even when side by side. Also, I'm not at all worried about the MBF either, as it may actually enhance "whiteness" of the H-color (or so I've read).

The BN rock is cheaper, and has a better HCA score (1.7), is a VS1, is notably larger and they have a great return policy as well. We're also never going to upgrade the ring at this size. I'm just as willing to help the smaller vendor as the next guy, but not if it's going to cost me $2k more for a smaller rock of comparable quality...

Is there anything I'm missing here? I greatly appreciate everyone's help, and thanks in advance!

P.S. - Sorry, I don't mean ANY disrespect to WF in anyway, I'm just another chump bamboozled by a chick

 

[Lula]

So I've been scouring the web, as well as NY's diamond district for the perfect diamond, and I keep coming back to BlueNile. I know they're the big, bad gorilla in the room, but I can't help it - the selection and prices that come up in their searches beat almost anything else out there.

Anyway, from an objective perspective, is there any reason why I would pick the 2.3ct WF diamond over the less expensive but larger 2.5ct BN one?

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2329036.htm
http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-search?filter_id=0&track=bbt#diamonds_pid=LD01548032

Granted the BN one is H-color w/ Med. Blue Flourescence, but I've seen several H and G-color diamonds in person in this size range and can barely tell the difference, even when side by side. Also, I'm not at all worried about the MBF either, as it may actually enhance "whiteness" of the H-color (or so I've read).

The BN rock is cheaper, and has a better HCA score (1.7), is a VS1, is notably larger and they have a great return policy as well. We're also never going to upgrade the ring at this size. I'm just as willing to help the smaller vendor as the next guy, but not if it's going to cost me $2k more for a smaller rock of comparable quality...

Is there anything I'm missing here? I greatly appreciate everyone's help, and thanks in advance!

P.S. - Sorry, I don't mean ANY disrespect to WF in anyway, I'm just another chump bamboozled by a chick

Here are my comments -- just some feedback for you to consider to help you in your decision making process:

An HCA score 2 and under is all you need. So both the Blue Nile and WF stones are okay in that regard.

The Blue Nile stone is a little deep for my liking, 62.6%. A deeper stone may mean that the stone looks a little smaller than other stones of the same carat weight. The WF stone is better cut, by my standards, but in real life will you see the difference -- I don't know.

The medium blue fluorescence will probably not be strong enough to "whiten" the H, and even if it was, fluoro is only activated in certain lighting conditions (sunlight). But if you've seen both a G and H in real life and were happy with the color of the H, you should be okay with an H color.

WF has an excellent upgrade policy. Blue Nile does not. An upgrade policy is particularly nice to have if someday you and your future wife want to trade the diamond in for a larger diamond (I know, hard to imagine now, but it happens!).

ETA: Just saw that you're not planning to upgrade, and also the WF stone is an Expert Selection stone (versus an ACA) and I'm not clear what their policy on upgrading those stones is.

ETA: But if you think your gf is really more interested in saying that her diamond is 2.5 carats (instead of close to 2.5 carats!) then by all means, order the one from Blue Nile. They have a good return period, as you know, you can check it out in person, and if you don't like it, send it back.

 

[kpfury]

Thanks for the quick reply

How can you tell the WF diamond is a better cut?

 

[Lula]

I have to guess a little bit on the cut quality because Blue Nile uses GIA and does not give you any additional information on the stone like Idealscope images.

GIA (Blue Nile stone) accepts a broader range of angles in their "Excellent" cut range than does AGS (WF stone). Also, GIA rounds the proportions; AGS uses actual proportions. So, for example, a 35 degree crown angle can mean that the crown angle, under GIA's system is a little more or a little less than that. When you're looking at the quality of diamond cut, all the angles and proportions need to work together for the diamond to be beautiful (i.e., sparkle, fire, not look dull or dead in certain lighting conditions). So I've never been a fan of the GIA cut grading system because of the rounding. GIA also allows for a wider range of proportions in their excellent cut grade than does AGS. So that's why a stone that is a little deep, 62.6 is okay under GIA's excellent grade, but would probably not make AGS's top cut grade. .

So because all I have to go on is the numbers, just comparing the WF stone's numbers with the BN stone's numbers, the WF stone falls into a safer range. Deep stones can sometimes -- sometimes -- look darker in the center in certain lights than stones that are 62% and under. On the other hand, I see that the pavilion angle -- 40.8, again rounded -- and the pavilion percentage 43% -- are in safe ranges, even with the rounding. So most of the "extra" depth seems to be in the crown of the stone, which could mean that it's a nice looking diamond, in spite of being a bit deep *by the numbers.*

WF provides all the images of the stone (the ASET, the Idealscope) and Blue Nile does not. Sometimes a stone can be a little deep, but the stone's Idealscope looks good, so that's an extra level of reassurance that the stone's proportions work together. So the Idealscope images take a lot of the guesswork out of the process!

Again, I'm just using the numbers and being very conservative. In real life, you may never notice the difference between the two stones. That's why ordering the BN stone (if that's the one you'd prefer) and looking at it in real life in a variety of lighting conditions is the best way to determine if the stone is right for you. What you'd see if the stone is in fact not well cut is a noticeable lack of brightness in the center of the stone when you put the stone in a lower lighting condition, like incandescent light or under the edge of a desk.

Anyway, that's how I'd analyze the two stones! Again, if size is important and upgrading less important, go with the Blue Nile stone first, and look at in person under a variety of lighting conditions.

ETA: I'm trying to look for visual aid to help you see what I'm describing. In this article that I found under the Knowledge tab in the toolbar
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-cut/
scroll down to the middle of the page and look at the graphic of the Idealscope. Deeper diamonds may have areas of light leakage in the center of the stone (shown as white in the Idealscope). That's what I'm talking about when I say better cut. You can see how the WF stone's Idealscope is red in the center. But again, I'm just guessing because I can only go by the numbers with the Blue Nile stone. In general, I like to stay under 62% for depth to be *safe* but there are exceptions to every rule!

I see my link is not working. Go to Knowledge on the Toolbar above, choose 4 C's, and open up Cut. You'll see the page I was trying to link.

 

[stone-cold11]

Both look promising from the numbers. WF has more supporting evidence but the BN stone is relative safe proportion.

ES is in WF's upgrade policy.

 

[yssie]

Well, as with most things, it depends on what you want.

Do you want it quickly? Go for the WF, it's in-house. Are you willing to wait a little while, and do a bit more work yourself? The BN is the bigger stone - diff will be visible, but you will have to arrange for your own appraisal - or buy your own IS - if you want that additional information.

The numbers on the BN are very 'safe', but of course numbers sometimes do not tell the whole story, so you would definitely want to have the BN shipped out to you to inspect in-person before you commit to it.

The WF stone frankly may or may not be 'better cut', we just don't have enough info on the BN to make that call. If the BN is well-cut, and there is a good chance of this, it will have a lovely IS and IRL you wouldn't see any difference between the two except size.

BUT there is the chance that it won't, in which case A) you are out shipping, and B) you'll have wasted a week or two in that pursuit.

Lula makes a good point re. upgrade/trade-in - WF's ES line qualifies for their full lifetime upgrade and their buyback policies.


Some clarifications on Lula's posts:

Both GIA and AGS average - that is how they report one number instead of 8. GIA rounds crown to the nearest 0.5 and pavilion up to the nearest 0.2. Deeper stones will concentrate body tint slightly more (more layers of diamond material to look through) than shallower stones of the same weight. This will not make a visible difference in a stone of depth 61 vs. 62.6. The "leakage because of depth" that lula refers to is actually leakage through the lower girdle facets, if we have only the cert. we must make certain assumptions about this leakage based on the listed pavilion angle, which will always be shallower than lower girdle facet angle. This is where an IS comes in useful - if listed pavilion and crown angle complement each other, IS will verify that we are not dealing with some large std dev.

AGS' Ideal grade does include a tighter set of proportions than GIA's Ex, but more importantly if a stone is submitted for AGS' light performance reports AGS uses ray tracing software to simulate performance of that particular stone, so a stone that has cherry numbers won't necessarily make the cut - unlike GIA, which is purely proportions-based grading.


Proportion charts for AGS/GIA -
http://agslab.com/trade_research_and_development_proportion_based_cut_grade.php
http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/06_estimating_a_cut_grade.html#lookup