How is this an AGS 000?

[Dancing Fire]

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3979464,4018650,3999632,4059369

The G VS2 would be my pick.

 

[sledge]

Out of the SI1s posted by @sledge, I would say the 2.16 F/SI1 is probably the most likely to be reasonably eye-clean judging by the videos, as all of the noticeable inclusions are white crystals:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4059369.htm

The other 2 SI1s have some black carbon specks. In general, white crystals are usually hidden fairly well by the brilliance of an MRB, but black carbon is much more noticeable. The G/VS2 is also nice, but it's smaller than the SI1s.

One advantage to looking at WF vs virtual inventory are these stones have gone through a vetting process to ensure they are structurally sound and have no inclusions that affect light performance. If either existed, they would be kicked from the ACA brand.

Additionally these stones are in stock in Houston in their vault. They can have a gemologist pull one or all of them and verify they are eye clean and compare one against the other to see if one shines above the others in terms of color, clarity, etc.

Also, WF does a great job being transparent and giving us useful data. This means magnified views and videos that sometimes makes inclusions appear worse than our naked eye can notice. I absolutely agree these stones need to be pulled and verified to be eye clean, especially when black inclusions are present; however, I also have a little hope magnification is playing a role as the individual pages list them all as eye clean which WF defines as 10" away looking at a top view with good lighting and 20/20 vision.

 

[OoohShiny]

Exactly this. Diamonds are a zero sum game. Obviously, if cost weren't an issue whatsoever, most people would be choosing D/IF-VVS perfectly cut diamonds. In today's society, most of the general public wants an eye-clean stone that is as close to colorless as possible. Since high clarity and colorlessness is desirable, diamonds with these traits will demand a premium. Often, if people want to maximize the size of the stone for their budget, they'll make compromises in either the colorlessness or eye-cleanliness of the diamond to achieve that. There's nothing wrong with that, but you need to understand where you're willing to compromise to achieve that goal. If you want 2.25+ carats at $24k, then it is certainly possible to achieve that. But you're going to have to make compromises in either the cut, color, or clarity to get there.

I think that, increasingly in the future, balancing the criteria may well also include consideration of whether Mined or Man Made Diamonds will be desired/required - given their lower production costs, they could be an / the only viable option for some buyers.

 

[TreeScientist]

I think that, increasingly in the future, balancing the criteria may well also include consideration of whether Mined or Man Made Diamonds will be desired/required - given their lower production costs, they could be an / the only viable option for some buyers.

Good point. Similar to the decision that many people make in today's Sapphire/Ruby market. Some people want a 5 carat unheated ruby of the finest pigeon's blood red. Well, unless you have $100K+, you're not going to get that. But many people wanting a large, perfectly-colored ruby will choose a flux-grown specimen.

There will always be a desire/demand for natural stones, as can bee seen by the stratospheric premiums still commanded by the finest of rubies/sapphires some 100 years after the first flame-fusion sapphires hit the market. But for those who just want the beauty and don't care about the origin, there's always MMGs (man-made gems).

 

[sledge]

Obviously I favor mined diamonds over man made but personal preference aside, many people that would consider a synthetic for ordinary jewelry may not be as open minded for an e-ring and wedding band.

Let's not dismiss the fact $24k is still a healthy budget. The main drivers are the F+ color and approx 2.25ct size.

Reality is depending on the setting used, color could probably drop to G/H fairly comfortably, keep an SI1 for eye clean and really define the driving force behind 2.25cts. If a friend had 2.25ct and it was decided that was the right size, then the question becomes the proportions and measurements of that model stone. As we know, a steep/deep looks small for its weight just as 60/60 looks larger for its weight. For these reasons I find it very confusing to shop size by weight.

One advantage to going super ideal is getting a stone that fits today's budget and having the flexibility to upgrade in the future without hassle because of their superior trade in programs.