shape
carat
color
clarity

Help with diamond/setting choice

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
I am currently trying to decide among WF/BGD combos of diamonds and settings and would love some additional input.

First, the diamond candidates:

1. https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/0.576-f-vs2-signature-round-bkags-104113599044
2. https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/0.577-f-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104104981064
3. https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4383154.htm

Settings:

Ideally I am aiming for a setting similar to this - https://www.tiffany.com/engagement/...illiant-engagement-ring-in-platinum-69064906/

I do not care about the Tiffany name and I am not considering a Tiffany ring, but I happen to know my partner likes the lower set, simple soft halo look with pave stones down the side. After looking around, I was leaning towards the Anita Halo from BGD (but with a V instead of the heart and a round halo) - https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/Engagement-Rings/pave-and-side-stones/the-anita-halo-5950

To me the anita halo seems set a bit high, but BGD has assured me it is a rather low set ring. Any input on this would be appreciated.

Because the WF diamond seemed on par with the BGD diamonds (from an inexperienced perspective), I was leaning towards that option because it was slightly bigger. When I told this to WF, they basically offered to make a setting like the Tiffany/Anita Halo for the same price as the Anita Halo, with ACA melee diamonds at same total carat weight as the Anita Halo.

So my main questions are:

1. Are any of those 3 diamonds clearly better than the others? For a beginner like me, I basically see 3 top notch cuts with good color and eye clean.

2. The WF diamond is a little bigger than the BGD options. Would this difference be noticeable? The jump is 5.32mm to 5.48mm. If the size wouldn't be noticeable, seems it would be simpler keeping everything in house at BGD with an already-existing setting instead of using both companies and going with customization. Mentally I obviously love the idea of getting the bigger one, especially since none of the options are particularly big, but I wouldn't want to if it was pointless.

3. Does anyone have any views on WF custom settings? I have no artistic bone in my body and thus my input would likely just be "As I mentioned, I like that Tiffany setting and the Anita Halo seemed similar." Aside from that I would mostly be trusting WF to run with it. This option makes me a bit nervous just because I have absolutely no experience in customizing a ring, let alone such an important ring.

4. Based on the above answers, what combo seems like the best bet? WF diamond and WF custom setting? WF diamond and Anita Halo? One of the BGD diamonds and the Anita Halo?

Any and all comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,110
I bought my wife’s stone from BGD but did a custom setting elsewhere. When I started I knew nothing but with the grace of many good people here I have learned a boatload.

That said, let’s talk stones first. Are you going to ever upgrade? I know, it seems like a crazy question but you will learn reading here that most women tend to upgrade as life progresses and incomes increase. I mention this because there is one glaring difference between BGD and WF: the upgrade policy.

BGD requires you spend at least $1 more and upgrade 2 of the 3 C’s: carat, color or clarity. I have heard it rumored they will sometimes make exceptions, but that is not their written policy. So maybe with discretion you get leniency, but maybe not.

WF is much easier. Simply spend $1 more and trade as you wish. No size, color or clarity restrictions.

Why does that matter? In your case, all your selections are high color & high clarity. BGD could be a pain to upgrade with later on. It might very difficult if you did it twice. Whereas with WF, you don’t have those restraints.

Aside from the upgrade policies, both vendors are extremely well respected in this community and both produce beautiful super ideal H&A stones as evidenced by their full array of advanced imaging & videos. If you aren’t aware, Brian Gavin helped co-found WF before eventually moving out on his own.

So I think any of the 3 stones you listed are good choices. However, when selecting from the best of the best we can get more picky and look at small nuances that may tip preferences one way or the other.

Looking at the proportions of each stone, I prefer the BGD 0.577 F-VS1. A small 54.9 table coupled with a 34.6 crown & 40.8 pavilion resulting in 15.6 crown height is quite perfect! All the stones will be awesome performers but this one might have a smidge more fire in its magic dance.

A slightly larger, yet more comparable, stone when analyzing the proportions would be this WF ACA.


55.9 table, 34.6 crown, 40.8 pavilion and 15.2 crown height. Here we see the table diameter is still great but slightly larger causing a slight reduction in crown height from the BGD stone.

And it still yields a 5.44 spread. While minor and unlikely noticeable except in a side by side comparison, the extra 0.10mm is a nice perk. Most people start to notice size variation around the 0.20mm mark.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
13,229
As sledge said, all of these are solid choices. I would personally go with WF for the comfort of knowing the upgrade policy is available, especially since you literally cant go wrong w any of these stones.

Edit. I would also suggest you stick w 1 vendor for stone and setting. Otherwise it's a needless headache, since I think either vendor can make a setting equivalent to the tiffany style one
 

Decision_Decisions

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
282
I bought my wife’s stone from BGD but did a custom setting elsewhere. When I started I knew nothing but with the grace of many good people here I have learned a boatload.

That said, let’s talk stones first. Are you going to ever upgrade? I know, it seems like a crazy question but you will learn reading here that most women tend to upgrade as life progresses and incomes increase. I mention this because there is one glaring difference between BGD and WF: the upgrade policy.

BGD requires you spend at least $1 more and upgrade 2 of the 3 C’s: carat, color or clarity. I have heard it rumored they will sometimes make exceptions, but that is not their written policy. So maybe with discretion you get leniency, but maybe not.

WF is much easier. Simply spend $1 more and trade as you wish. No size, color or clarity restrictions.

Why does that matter? In your case, all your selections are high color & high clarity. BGD could be a pain to upgrade with later on. It might very difficult if you did it twice. Whereas with WF, you don’t have those restraints.

Aside from the upgrade policies, both vendors are extremely well respected in this community and both produce beautiful super ideal H&A stones as evidenced by their full array of advanced imaging & videos. If you aren’t aware, Brian Gavin helped co-found WF before eventually moving out on his own.

So I think any of the 3 stones you listed are good choices. However, when selecting from the best of the best we can get more picky and look at small nuances that may tip preferences one way or the other.

Looking at the proportions of each stone, I prefer the BGD 0.577 F-VS1. A small 54.9 table coupled with a 34.6 crown & 40.8 pavilion resulting in 15.6 crown height is quite perfect! All the stones will be awesome performers but this one might have a smidge more fire in its magic dance.

A slightly larger, yet more comparable, stone when analyzing the proportions would be this WF ACA.


55.9 table, 34.6 crown, 40.8 pavilion and 15.2 crown height. Here we see the table diameter is still great but slightly larger causing a slight reduction in crown height from the BGD stone.

And it still yields a 5.44 spread. While minor and unlikely noticeable except in a side by side comparison, the extra 0.10mm is a nice perk. Most people start to notice size variation around the 0.20mm mark.

So I know we're splitting hairs here with the super ideals, but can you explain the crown height percentages and what you look for personally? I'm looking at a stone with a 15.1 crown % and I know that the table is just a touch larger than I would prefer. Will this theoretically result in slightly less fire? I honestly probably won't be able to see the difference anyway based on my prior experiences, but I'm curious what the relationship is or what numbers you like to see or stay within. Thanks!
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
13,229
So I know we're splitting hairs here with the super ideals, but can you explain the crown height percentages and what you look for personally? I'm looking at a stone with a 15.1 crown % and I know that the table is just a touch larger than I would prefer. Will this theoretically result in slightly less fire? I honestly probably won't be able to see the difference anyway based on my prior experiences, but I'm curious what the relationship is or what numbers you like to see or stay within. Thanks!

If you have a question that doesnt concern the OP, it's better to start your own thread.
 

Decision_Decisions

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
282
If you have a question that doesnt concern the OP, it's better to start your own thread.

My apologies, not trying to thread jack. I thought it a fair question since @sledge was comparing crown % in the OP's stones. I was just providing another example by referencing 15.1% to help us all learn what the correlations are.
 

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
Thank you very much for the help, both with the diamond opinions as well as the words of comfort considering the ease of replicaitng what I am looking for in a setting.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,110
As sledge said, all of these are solid choices. I would personally go with WF for the comfort of knowing the upgrade policy is available, especially since you literally cant go wrong w any of these stones.

Edit. I would also suggest you stick w 1 vendor for stone and setting. Otherwise it's a needless headache, since I think either vendor can make a setting equivalent to the tiffany style one

Much love to BGD, but if upgrade was a big deal to me I for sure would consider WF more heavily (the 0.606 F-VS2, very clean BTW). Not only is the policy more flexible, but their inventory is also deeper making it easier to upgrade when you want and also gives you plenty of choices when the time comes.

I'm less bothered with using different vendors for stone & setting. However, I agree it's always easier (and preferred) to deal with one entity. But more importantly, the setting in question is fairly easy to replicate with either vendor so I don't see a compelling reason for the additional grief personally. Wherever I bought the stone I would also buy the setting in this particular case (especially since WF has already quoted an equal price).

In my case, I had a unique setting that was going to require lots of coordination either way, even if I stuck with where I bought the stone. Also, there was price swings from the various vendors I consulted.

So I know we're splitting hairs here with the super ideals, but can you explain the crown height percentages and what you look for personally? I'm looking at a stone with a 15.1 crown % and I know that the table is just a touch larger than I would prefer. Will this theoretically result in slightly less fire? I honestly probably won't be able to see the difference anyway based on my prior experiences, but I'm curious what the relationship is or what numbers you like to see or stay within. Thanks!

I personally like 15%+ but that's not a hard fast rule. I'm looking at all the proportions and how they play into effect with one another. However, in this case everything aligns really well and that smaller 54/55 table gives a smidge more crown height which increases the upper girdle facets and it should be a little more firey as a result. The differences will be minimal to the naked eye. But when comparing from a group of super ideals, we can have the luxury of comparing small nuances.

Sort of like race cars, going 10 flat in the 1/4 is fast. Doing it 9.99 is essentially the same from ordinary Joe's perspective, but better IMO because your car is a 9-second car at the point vs a 10-second one.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,110
Thank you very much for the help, both with the diamond opinions as well as the words of comfort considering the ease of replicaitng what I am looking for in a setting.

You're very welcome. If you decide to buy from BGD, tell Lesley I said hi. She's Brian's wife and a total sweetheart that helped when I bought my stone there.

The great thing about this choice is you don't really have a loser. WF is also stellar and I wouldn't hesitate buying from them either.

Let us know if we can help further. :cool2:
 

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
Another question actually. Since the custom aspect of this seems easy, perhaps that would be the way I go even if I went with the BGD stone, instead of the anita halo. If I went with the BGD stone then, would it be appropriate to go to them and basically say "Hey, WF offered to make me custom setting X for $X. Will you match?"

Thanks.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,110
Another question actually. Since the custom aspect of this seems easy, perhaps that would be the way I go even if I went with the BGD stone, instead of the anita halo. If I went with the BGD stone then, would it be appropriate to go to them and basically say "Hey, WF offered to make me custom setting X for $X. Will you match?"

Thanks.

I think I would approach this matter with selecting a setting style that you honestly believe your soon-to-be will genuinely want to own. If that means custom @ WF or stock @ BGD, or vice versa, then so be it.

Looking at the original inspiration -- Tiffany Soleste, I can see some key points that differ and might make your girl not love it as much (assuming SHE is the one that picked it in the first place).

1. Tiffany is round. BGD Anita is cushion shaped.

2. Tiffany is low set. BGD Anita is much higher. If shape is okay/preferred, then would likely want to bring down the height. Blue lines identify vertical height. Red lines identify difference in "shoulder" height. Lowering would effectively fix both.

3. Basket is a squarish shape. Shown in purple. Also, you have little gaps to the left/right of the basket verticals that are smaller on the Tiffany than the Anita (not marked on drawing, but appear as small "triangles" of air space).

4. Pave set style is different.

To recap, if Tiffany is the desired look. I'd ask both to price custom in the metal of your choice, unless they had something near identical. IMO, Anita is far enough away I don't consider "near identical".

Perhaps I misunderstood your intention, but I got the jist you wanted a "custom" quote as a way to price battle. If price is a deterrent, I would level with them and say I like it all except the dollars, can you help me with that? They may offer a minimal discount for keeping it all in-house, and a few more percent if you wire money instead of using a credit card.

CaptureTiff.PNG
CaptureAnita.PNG


InkedCaptureTiff2_LI.jpg

InkedInkedCaptureAnita2_LI.jpg
 
Last edited:

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
Thanks again, Sledge. Especially since there are terms here I never knew for characteristics I certainly care about.

The round halo won’t be an issue. Both BDG and WF said making it round would be no problem, so I’m good there (because I do want round).

You then point out what has been my main concern - the difference in profile height. To me, the Anita looked quite high. BGD assured me it wasn’t and described it as a “very low set” setting, but it looked high to me in the only pics I could find.

I did like the Tiffany height, which I told WF, but they suggested that it is set so low that after adding a V instead of the Anita heart in the basket (new term for me), it would not allow a wedding band to sit flush. So they suggested they basically take the Anita and lower is as much as possible while still allowing a wedding band to sit flush. Will that create the type of look I’m truly going for? That’s the big mystery at this point. WF said they’d provide a CAD preview for me, but I’ve yet to clarify whether I’d need to pay before they’d take that step. So far all I’ve been told is that full payment would be due before production begins. I hope to find out about the CAD/payment timing soon. Overall, I’m HOPING that bringing it down creates a look I want.

As far as the pave setting, this I honestly have to look into more because I didn’t even realize this until you responded around the same time at WF (in which they suggested going that extra step may be crossing a line of legally replicating the Tiffany setting). I do see the difference now in the pics you highlight. My gut tells me that this won’t be a breaking point, but I’m gonna look into the details of these pave differences this weekend.

In conclusion, hoping just lowering the Anita (with a round halo) is close enough to what I’m going for, and really hoping I could see their design for this before paying. But I’ll hear soon. Is the there a pave style generally considered “better”? Like creating a nicer sparkle? My initial quick googling suggests French pave (which I believe the Anita has) creates a nice look, but I also have to assume the Tiffany one looks good.

Thank you so much for all the help so far. I wasn’t sure quite what to expect when I posted on here and the comments have been so incredibly helpful!
 

josieKat

Shiny_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
101
The picture you have of the Soleste profile is from above just slightly, and I think the height looks lower as a result. If you search for more pictures you can find more straight on views of the side and it doesn't look any lower than the Anita. Also, all the pics I can find do seem to have a bit of a donut, so no, the band would not sit flush.
 

LLJsmom

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
11,311
The picture you have of the Soleste profile is from above just slightly, and I think the height looks lower as a result. If you search for more pictures you can find more straight on views of the side and it doesn't look any lower than the Anita. Also, all the pics I can find do seem to have a bit of a donut, so no, the band would not sit flush.
Exactly this:
The picture you have of the Soleste profile is from above just slightly, and I think the height looks lower as a result.

Have you seen a Tiffany Soleste in person? Multiple Tiffany Solestes? At the Tiffany showroom, they usually have multiple Tiffany solestes, just with different stones since they use that setting for diamonds and colored stones. Have you confirmed that they all are what you consider "low"?

I have a Tiffany soleste round setting, with an aquamarine, not a diamond. And the stone is not set low at all. In fact, I would call it medium to high.


The struts are straight and not at all fluid. It looks like a jungle gym from the side and below. From the top, the halo is flat and it looks like a giant spaceship. I would say go with either BGD or WF so you can customize your ring, make it more fluid, maybe have the halo tilt down a little to make it less pancake like and more graceful. Also, the donut on Tiffany Solestes are not small, so there will be a big gap between the base of the ring and a wedding band.

Just my thoughts.
 

Tartansparkles

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 23, 2017
Messages
646
I just finished a custom piece with WF. The balance was paid in full then CADs were provided. My understanding was that if for any reason we failed to proceed to production then the balance would be refunded less the price of the CADs. It was a very smooth process and I am very happy with the results.
 

LLJsmom

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
11,311
I just finished a custom piece with WF. The balance was paid in full then CADs were provided. My understanding was that if for any reason we failed to proceed to production then the balance would be refunded less the price of the CADs. It was a very smooth process and I am very happy with the results.

Yeah, sounds fair to me.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,110
I used David Klass (DK) for my wife’s custom setting. We went through multiple CAD revisions, plastic cast and also a wax cast before the final piece was made.

Additionally BGD shipped the stone to DK and then DK did the final setting of the stone.

I never paid a dime to DK until I received pics and a video of the completed piece with an invoice.

I am not certain what DK would have charged for CAD’s only had I pulled out before finishing but I would have expected $500 or so. And I think that would have been fair, having used CAD software myself and also having dealt with engineers & technical drawings in other non-jewelry fields.

Definitely a great idea to ask each vendor their specific policies and prices so you have a clear understanding but overall I believe both will treat you fairly and respectfully should an issue crop up and you need to cancel.
 

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
Hey Sledge, so as of now I’m leaning towards WF for the center stone and I wanted to go back to the original diamond candidates before making the final push.

As you’ll recall, I had originally proposed this one as a candidate:


You then showed me this one, which you preferred:


I guess my question goes to the advantages of this one. On one hand, the way you describe it would suggest to me it is an objectively better cut and would have objectively better appearance (even if not a huge difference from the .632 carat one). But in your original response, you emphasize that the little differences can affect “preference.” So I am just a little curious what you mean, as I would assume everyone looks for the same thing in a cut (brilliance, fire, etc.).

I am leaning towards the .606 one, but am just curious if there is any reason someone would actually prefer the .632 dimensions, or whether the .606 is a fairly objectively better cut. Thanks!
 

musicloveranthony

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
295
I am leaning towards the .606 one, but am just curious if there is any reason someone would actually prefer the .632 dimensions, or whether the .606 is a fairly objectively better cut. Thanks!

I don't like the look of the 0.632. It's a combination of the table and the depth that just make it look less pleasant than the 0.606.
 

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
I used David Klass (DK) for my wife’s custom setting. We went through multiple CAD revisions, plastic cast and also a wax cast before the final piece was made.

Additionally BGD shipped the stone to DK and then DK did the final setting of the stone.

I never paid a dime to DK until I received pics and a video of the completed piece with an invoice.

I am not certain what DK would have charged for CAD’s only had I pulled out before finishing but I would have expected $500 or so. And I think that would have been fair, having used CAD software myself and also having dealt with engineers & technical drawings in other non-jewelry fields.

Definitely a great idea to ask each vendor their specific policies and prices so you have a clear understanding but overall I believe both will treat you fairly and respectfully should an issue crop up and you need to cancel.

Just FYI for everyone, spoke with WF about mine. Full payment due before CADs provided, but if after the CADs I don’t continue with production, full refund minus $250. So, pretty fair.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,110
Hey Sledge, so as of now I’m leaning towards WF for the center stone and I wanted to go back to the original diamond candidates before making the final push.

As you’ll recall, I had originally proposed this one as a candidate:


You then showed me this one, which you preferred:


I guess my question goes to the advantages of this one. On one hand, the way you describe it would suggest to me it is an objectively better cut and would have objectively better appearance (even if not a huge difference from the .632 carat one). But in your original response, you emphasize that the little differences can affect “preference.” So I am just a little curious what you mean, as I would assume everyone looks for the same thing in a cut (brilliance, fire, etc.).

I am leaning towards the .606 one, but am just curious if there is any reason someone would actually prefer the .632 dimensions, or whether the .606 is a fairly objectively better cut. Thanks!

Let's be clear, both stones are winners -- they are ACA's after all.

But let's talk nuances.

First off, the spread difference is minimal. IMO, a difference that only exists in technicality land because your naked eye isn't going to see it. So spread (and ultimately carat weight) to me is meaningless in this comparison.

Second, generally speaking we prefer an inverse relationship with the crown/pavilion angle. Meaning you pair a steep crown with a shallow pavilion or vice versa. In GIA speak, we would expect to see 35/40.6 or maybe 34/41. Normally a 35/41 would send off alarm bells as it's a steep/steep. However, in super ideal land, you can get away with stuff that normal cutters can't. And technically it's just a hair below at 34.8/40.9. Looking at the ASET, idealscope & hearts images we can clearly see this stone is a rocking beauty which basically tells us the actuals supersede any generic logic.

However, there is still some truth in the fact that all these proportions create a different personality. When combined with the right crown angle, a smaller table helps provide some additional crown height which increases upper girdle facets and this is where rainbow light (fire) is produced. So generally speaking I'd prefer a higher crown height and smaller table, assuming all other things are equal and within acceptable limits. The 0.606 has a near perfect Tolk crown/pavilion combo @ 34.6/40.8.

While differences may be minute, I think the 0.606 provides a slightly nicer combination of fire and also brightness.

While both ASET's are perfectly acceptable, the 0.606 has slightly better light return. In the ASET, red shows the most intense light return. Green is less intense. There are small slivers of green in the 0.632. This would not prevent me from purchasing, but technically the 0.606 is a little stronger IMO.

Capture2.PNG

You can also see how the table & pavilion is affecting each stone in a side by side photo of the two. Notice how the 0.606 is a little brighter? Also, while maybe not noticeable to the naked eye, the LGF's are both reported as 77 yet the smaller tabled stone appears to have slightly fatter arrows. This is a visual effect of sorts because lower LGF's typically result in fatter arrows, but we know numerically they are the same. It's the smaller table playing this visual effect. Still, to my eyes, it's more pleasing as the stone is brighter and the arrows slightly fatter providing a nicer contrast.

Also, you will notice the arrows seem more dark & crisp than the ones on the 0.632. Nothing major, but again more pleasing to my eyes.

Capture1.PNG


Again, I can't stress enough these are nuances. I think both stones are gorgeous and would consider either for a purchase, but I do prefer the 0.606 for reasons I've stated above.

Just FYI for everyone, spoke with WF about mine. Full payment due before CADs provided, but if after the CADs I don’t continue with production, full refund minus $250. So, pretty fair.

I appreciate you updating the forum on this. I agree, this is more than fair.
 

bludiva

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
2,743
Just FYI for everyone, spoke with WF about mine. Full payment due before CADs provided, but if after the CADs I don’t continue with production, full refund minus $250. So, pretty fair.

$250 was the CAD fee/deposit we paid for a custom job also (different vendor)...seems like somewhere around 2-300 is pretty standard
 

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
Thank you everyone for the help! Just made payment to start the process. Went with the .606 center stone and custom setting from WF. For the custom, basically using the Anita but with a round halo, V instead of the heart and lowered profile (lowest possible while still permitting a wedding band to sit flush). Really appreciate all of the helpful discussion.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,110
Congratulations on reaching a final decision! Can’t wait to see the final product. Please be sure to post pics once done.

Also, if you need help with the CAD’s during design let us know, and we will be glad to lend a hand.
 

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
Much love to BGD, but if upgrade was a big deal to me I for sure would consider WF more heavily (the 0.606 F-VS2, very clean BTW). Not only is the policy more flexible, but their inventory is also deeper making it easier to upgrade when you want and also gives you plenty of choices when the time comes.

I'm less bothered with using different vendors for stone & setting. However, I agree it's always easier (and preferred) to deal with one entity. But more importantly, the setting in question is fairly easy to replicate with either vendor so I don't see a compelling reason for the additional grief personally. Wherever I bought the stone I would also buy the setting in this particular case (especially since WF has already quoted an equal price).

In my case, I had a unique setting that was going to require lots of coordination either way, even if I stuck with where I bought the stone. Also, there was price swings from the various vendors I consulted.



I personally like 15%+ but that's not a hard fast rule. I'm looking at all the proportions and how they play into effect with one another. However, in this case everything aligns really well and that smaller 54/55 table gives a smidge more crown height which increases the upper girdle facets and it should be a little more firey as a result. The differences will be minimal to the naked eye. But when comparing from a group of super ideals, we can have the luxury of comparing small nuances.

Sort of like race cars, going 10 flat in the 1/4 is fast. Doing it 9.99 is essentially the same from ordinary Joe's perspective, but better IMO because your car is a 9-second car at the point vs a 10-second one.

Hey sledge,
While I wait for my CAD images, I actually had an additional question on my diamond that also reflects a more general understanding of reviewing diamonds. It concerns the clarity of the .606 carat one I chose.

As a VS2, I was hoping I could be fairly confident it was “eye clean.” Now I know the meaning of this can vary. I think BGD and WF determine it as clean with 20/20 vision from 10 inches away, or something along those lines. I asked about this particular diamond and they confirmed it was “eye clean.”

I was certainly hoping to get a diamond that is “eye clean” even if examined a little more thoroughly then the specific distance used for the “eye clean” rule. I asked WF and was assured it was clean.

I see that you described this diamond as “very clean,” which I assumed was with respect to clarity. This is of course only gave me more confidence. So my question comes down to the fact that I think I can see inclusions on the magnified image below. I am wondering how one can be confident such inclusions wouldn’t be any issue using normal eyes without magnification. Is it because of the location of these flaws? The type? Both? Thanks for the help.

1623077588440.jpeg
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,110
Hey sledge,
While I wait for my CAD images, I actually had an additional question on my diamond that also reflects a more general understanding of reviewing diamonds. It concerns the clarity of the .606 carat one I chose.

As a VS2, I was hoping I could be fairly confident it was “eye clean.” Now I know the meaning of this can vary. I think BGD and WF determine it as clean with 20/20 vision from 10 inches away, or something along those lines. I asked about this particular diamond and they confirmed it was “eye clean.”

I was certainly hoping to get a diamond that is “eye clean” even if examined a little more thoroughly then the specific distance used for the “eye clean” rule. I asked WF and was assured it was clean.

I see that you described this diamond as “very clean,” which I assumed was with respect to clarity. This is of course only gave me more confidence. So my question comes down to the fact that I think I can see inclusions on the magnified image below. I am wondering how one can be confident such inclusions wouldn’t be any issue using normal eyes without magnification. Is it because of the location of these flaws? The type? Both? Thanks for the help.

1623077588440.jpeg

Great question!

First off, you are correct that everyone's definition of eye clean can mean different things. It is always good to check with each vendor to ensure what their specific definition of eye clean means. Here is WF's version:


Although their stones meet this basic definition, many will meet more stringent definitions a buyer may find important to them. However, when you expect more than average, you should have a conversation to confirm you will not be disappointed.

That said, I like to think of clarity in terms of "layers" and why I think the VS2 stone you picked will indeed be eye clean:

1. The stone is 0.606 carats. Smaller stones can get away with lower clarities because the inclusions themselves are smaller relative to the stone.

2. Clarity is measured at the labs using 10x magnification. VS means very slightly included, meaning the average bear may struggle a bit to see those inclusions using a 10x scope.

3. WF videos are more like 30-40x. This is a blessing and curse. It gets you up in the details and -- it gets you up in the details! To put things in perspective, nearly every diamond has the GIA/AGS report number inscribed on the girdle. Branded stones may even have company logos. For instance, my wife's has Brian Gavin Blue in a special font. Her stone is 0.867. I absolutely cannot see the inscription with the naked eye. Many people struggle to see them at 10x. However, at 30x most people can then read them fairly easily.

4. Now think about the fact when you read something or "closely inspect" it. Generally speaking, the closer we bring it to our face the more we "zoom" it, right? However, at what point does it get too close to your face to focus on clearly? For many people that distance is around 10-12". Those with above average eye vision may get to 6" or so before focus reverts. Seeing things with our naked eye is much, much harder than under a magnified condition.

Also, please have a read of this education article on clarity. It's a bit long but really goes a long way in helping solidify what I am talking about.


Lastly, although I realize you purchased from WF, one thing I do like about BGD's website is they give you an "eye clean view" of their stones. I found a stone of similar size to yours, actually a smidge bigger, and of slightly worst clarity @ SI1. It has a crystal on the table that is very apparent in the zoomed video. However, look at how it's not detectable at 5x. Now imagine it at 1x which is what your naked eye sees.

I use this as an example because I believe it's worse than your stone, and want you to have warm fuzzies about the clarity. Hopefully this provides that assurance.

https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/0.712-d-si1-round-diamond-ags-104090535069

Zoomed view I screen captured on a rotation:
Capture.PNG

Eye clean view @ 5x:
Capture2.PNG

Lab report showing crystal:
Capture3.PNG
 

Buffalo6

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
11
Thanks for this. I do feel more comfortable now.

Got the CADs today. As requested, they are pasted below. The general idea was to mimic the BGD Anita Halo but round halo, V instead of the heart and lower profile while still allowing a wedding band to sit flush. The design seems to fit this. I’ve asked them just a couple questions. First, the diamond seems set pretty high above the halo. Not sure if that’s just a CAD thing. I know some rings are set like that but I’d prefer it set a little lower so I’ll see what they say. The second issue concerns the halo shape. From the overhead view it almost looks like a flower shape instead of being a smooth circle. Again, not sure if this is a CAD thing but I’ve brought it up so we’ll see what they say.

1623273394868.png
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
23,785
I agree that you need clarification on the two questions you asked (its set too high in the halo for me too).
Pictures really help so that you both know what you are talking about and agreeing to.

I would find an up-close picture of a halo that you like the way its set and send it to them so they know exactly what you mean
as far as the height of the stone in the halo.

Same goes for the finished roundness of the halo...send them a picture so they know what you want and agree that that's what
they are doing. I imagine its just the CAD that looks that way and the finished product will be "round"...but never hurts to
double-check IMO.

Pictures, conversations, and agreed resolutions should help WF know how you want the finished product to look.

See what other have any advice about the CADs.
 

WDWDiamond

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
42
When I did my custom ring with WF the first CAD did not come back how I thought I described to them. I then created a VERY detailed PowerPoint with drawings, pictures and descriptions for exactly what I wanted. My revised CAD came back perfect. I may have went overboard but it worked out in the end. :cool2:
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Father's Day Jewelry: 2021
    Father's Day Jewelry: 2021
    Diamond Prices - June 2021
    Diamond Prices - June 2021
    Guess What: Dispersion and Fire Aren't the Same Thing
    Guess What: Dispersion and Fire Aren't the Same Thing

Need expert help finding that diamonds?

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top