How would you choose between these 1.7 ct rounds?

[michaelnyc]

Hi everyone - I would like to tap into the collective expertise of the forum. Over the past few weeks, I''ve been trying to do my homework reading this site, and I''ve come across these three candidates. They are all a bit different and have strengths and weaknesses. They all are in the 0-2 range of the HCA. I (nor my girlfriend) am not focused on any particular characteristic (i.e., color vs. clarity vs. cut etc..) - but rather would like a balanced, high quality diamond...Hope this makes sense. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Number 1 (top part of picture)
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 1.710
. Color: G
. Clarity: VVS1
. Cut: AGS 0
. Depth %: 61.3
. Table %: 56.6
. Crown Angle: 34
. Crown %: 14.6
. Star : 52
. Pavilion Angle: 40.9
. Pavilion %: 43.2
. Lower Girdle %: 78
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 7.67-7.72X4.72
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible


Number 2 (middle part of picture)

Shape: Round
Carat weight: 1.78
Cut: Ideal (GIA says Very Good)
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Depth: 61.0%
Table: 55.0%
Crown angle: 34%
Pavillion angle: 41%
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Girdle: Thin
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.91*7.87*4.81

Number 3 (bottom part of picture)

Shape: Round
Carat weight: 1.71
Cut: Ideal (GIA Excellent)
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Certificate: GIA
Depth: 61.8%
Table: 57.0%
Pavillion angle: 40.6
Crown angle: 35
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Girdle: Thin to slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.61*7.66*4.72

 

[Stephan]

I would pass on the 3rd one because of the not so perfect optical symmetry.
To choose between the 2 others, you have to know if you like the painted girdle of number 2 or the classic H&A with a normal girdle, number 1.
Some people like painted girdle, GIA doesn''t, that''s why the "only" very good cut grade.
But for such a crown/pavilion combo, it shouldn''t be a big issue but more a matter of personal preference.
Both should be gorgeous diamonds.
You could order them both and spend that extra money on shipping/insurance fees to make the good choice, and then send one back. I think it is well worth $100 to choose the best diamond to your eyes.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/30/2008 8:07:18 AM
Author: QueenMum
I would pass on the 3rd one because of the not so perfect optical symmetry.
To choose between the 2 others, you have to know if you like the painted girdle of number 2 or the classic H&A with a normal girdle, number 1.
Some people like painted girdle, GIA doesn't, that's why the 'only' very good cut grade.
But for such a crown/pavilion combo, it shouldn't be a big issue but more a matter of personal preference.
Both should be gorgeous diamonds.
You could order them both and spend that extra money on shipping/insurance fees to make the good choice, and then send one back. I think it is well worth $100 to choose the best diamond to your eyes.

I agree with Stephan. Also did you want VVS clarity particularly? I just thought I would point it out as VS is likely to be eyeclean, unless of course that is your preference! The third could still be a nice diamond, it depends on your taste and requirements.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/30/2008 8:20:40 AM
Author: Lorelei

I agree with Stephan. Also did you want VVS clarity particularly? I just thought I would point it out as VS is likely to be eyeclean, unless of course that is your preference! The third could still be a nice diamond, it depends on your taste and requirements.

It could be a matter of, they don''t seem to have anything else in that size in lower clarity for ACA''s, I just looked.



I would say, if you are not sure about the type of stone the second is, it might be safer to go with a classic cut (first).

I poked around, just to see what else they might have to offer in lower clarity, and found an interesting stone in the Expert Selection. This one is an H, which I don''t know if you would consider. It also has strong blue fluorescence, which would help it face up a bit brighter/whiter. I have a feeling this would have been branded an ACA were it not for the flo. It''s not a bad thing, Brian just doesn''t brand strong to very strong stones. If the flo is not negatively affecting it (rare), this could be a really nice stone for a really nice price. So I just thought I''d throw it out there for you. Feel free to ignore!

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1204644.htm#


Here''s another nice one, with a bit lower clarity.

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/4867/

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/30/2008 8:51:38 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/30/2008 8:20:40 AM
Author: Lorelei

I agree with Stephan. Also did you want VVS clarity particularly? I just thought I would point it out as VS is likely to be eyeclean, unless of course that is your preference! The third could still be a nice diamond, it depends on your taste and requirements.

It could be a matter of, they don''t seem to have anything else in that size in lower clarity for ACA''s, I just looked.



I would say, if you are not sure about the type of stone the second is, it might be safer to go with a classic cut (first).

I poked around, just to see what else they might have to offer in lower clarity, and found an interesting stone in the Expert Selection. This one is an H, which I don''t know if you would consider. It also has strong blue fluorescence, which would help it face up a bit brighter/whiter. I have a feeling this would have been branded an ACA were it not for the flo. It''s not a bad thing, Brian just doesn''t brand strong to very strong stones. If the flo is not negatively affecting it (rare), this could be a really nice stone for a really nice price. So I just thought I''d throw it out there for you. Feel free to ignore!

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1204644.htm#


Here''s another nice one, with a bit lower clarity.

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/4867/

 

[Ellen]

Oh my goodness, thank you Miss Lorele!

 

[girlie-girl]

Based solely on the images you posted, I like the first diamond best.

 

[Upgradable]

That H that Ellen found at Whiteflash is kickin''!! If I were in the market I''d be all over that baby in a heartbeat!!

 

[Stephan]

Date: 8/30/2008 11:18:54 AM
Author: Upgradable
That H that Ellen found at Whiteflash is kickin''!! If I were in the market I''d be all over that baby in a heartbeat!!

Very strong blue fluorescence...
You should also ask Brian why this diamond didn''t become ACA.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/30/2008 11:18:54 AM
Author: Upgradable
That H that Ellen found at Whiteflash is kickin''!! If I were in the market I''d be all over that baby in a heartbeat!!

I know, that was an excellent find from Miss Ellen!!

 

[iheartscience]

I''d get the ACA. ACAs are gorgeous and Whiteflash has a great upgrade policy (100% of what you spent originally goes towards another diamond from them and there are no price restrictions on what you have to spend) and their customer service is top notch. The ES from WF that Ellen posted is also gorgeous.

 

[iheartscience]

I forgot to point out that a lot of people say when you make a list, you usually put what you like the best first. So the ACA wins if that''s true!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/30/2008 11:21:56 AM
Author: QueenMum

Date: 8/30/2008 11:18:54 AM
Author: Upgradable
That H that Ellen found at Whiteflash is kickin''!! If I were in the market I''d be all over that baby in a heartbeat!!

Very strong blue fluorescence...
You should also ask Brian why this diamond didn''t become ACA.

Stephan, as I posted earlier, Brian doesn''t brand strong to very strong stones. Just his policy.

I agree, that H awesome!

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 8/30/2008 8:07:18 AM
Author: QueenMum
I would pass on the 3rd one because of the not so perfect optical symmetry.
To choose between the 2 others, you have to know if you like the painted girdle of number 2 or the classic H&A with a normal girdle, number 1.
Some people like painted girdle, GIA doesn''t, that''s why the ''only'' very good cut grade.
But for such a crown/pavilion combo, it shouldn''t be a big issue but more a matter of personal preference.
Both should be gorgeous diamonds.
You could order them both and spend that extra money on shipping/insurance fees to make the good choice, and then send one back. I think it is well worth $100 to choose the best diamond to your eyes.

HI:

I have a suspicion both 1 and 2 would be gorgeous--and the spread on two is desirable. VG rating for the variable "polish" I could live with. Would any leakage in #2 really be detectable IRL? IS looks pretty good to me.... Let me have it man, as I am always happy to be wrong!

BTW, I would not buy a stone with SBF--but that is just me. Either you love them or ya don''t......

cheers--Sharon

 

[Stephan]

Date: 8/30/2008 12:01:23 PM
Author: Ellen
Stephan, as I posted earlier, Brian doesn''t brand strong to very strong stones. Just his policy.

Yes, and the very thin to medium girdle is something I never saw in ACA''s, but I didn''t see them all.

 

[Upgradable]

Date: 8/30/2008 12:05:09 PM
Author: QueenMum

Date: 8/30/2008 12:01:23 PM
Author: Ellen
Stephan, as I posted earlier, Brian doesn't brand strong to very strong stones. Just his policy.

Yes, and the very thin to medium girdle is something I never saw in ACA's, but I didn't see them all.

However the sarin report is much more forgiving on the girdle thickness (medium to slt thick). How would you react to the discrepancy between the AGS and sarin?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/30/2008 12:52:12 PM
Author: Upgradable

Date: 8/30/2008 12:05:09 PM
Author: QueenMum

Date: 8/30/2008 12:01:23 PM
Author: Ellen
Stephan, as I posted earlier, Brian doesn''t brand strong to very strong stones. Just his policy.

Yes, and the very thin to medium girdle is something I never saw in ACA''s, but I didn''t see them all.

However the sarin report is much more forgiving on the girdle thickness (medium to slt thick). How would you react to the discrepancy between the AGS and sarin?

That''s why I went ahead and recommended it, I saw that on the Sarin too. I''d go with that (Sarin) myself, but one could always ask to be sure.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/30/2008 11:21:56 AM
Author: QueenMum

Date: 8/30/2008 11:18:54 AM
Author: Upgradable
That H that Ellen found at Whiteflash is kickin''!! If I were in the market I''d be all over that baby in a heartbeat!!

Very strong blue fluorescence...
You should also ask Brian why this diamond didn''t become ACA.

Ellen''s right, Stephan.....Brian has traditionally not allowed stones with fluorescence into the ACA brand.

It''s funny, because this is the third time this topic has come up lately, and it makes me wonder how people would feel about being able to buy branded stones *with* fluorescence of some kind.

In order not to hijack this thread, though, I''ll start another one.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/31/2008 2:37:24 AM
Author: Allison D.

Ellen''s right, Stephan.....Brian has traditionally not allowed stones with fluorescence into the ACA brand.

It''s funny, because this is the third time this topic has come up lately, and it makes me wonder how people would feel about being able to buy branded stones *with* fluorescence of some kind.

In order not to hijack this thread, though, I''ll start another one.

Alj, should I take this to mean flo at any level? I always thought it was only strong to very strong. Just wondering for future reference.

 

[michaelnyc]

Queen Mum - I don''t really have a clarity preference other than it being "eyeclean".

 

[michaelnyc]

Wow Ellen, thanks so much for your recommendations! I certainly am intrigued by both the WF and GOG stone suggestions - I''m a little tentative on the H and the Strong Blue Fluorescence. I had been thinking G was OK, but not to go as far down as H. That said, given the price I may actually purchase it and see what it looks like live.

 

[first123]

I almost bought that H colored WF stone with the strong flo. I called and spoke with Brian about it and he said he would not reccomend it for an engagement ring unless the receiver of the ring has requested a SF. He said it creates a very noticable bluish violet tint in sunlight (as you might expect) and like most people on this forum, you will either love that effect or hate it. So an engagement ring might not be the best piece of jewelry to find out whether or not you like strong flo.

 

[Kelli]

Personally I would LOVE the fluorescence, and go with that one. But of your three choices, I like the ACA simply because you will not find an ACA that isn''t stunning. The vvs clarity is overkill though, just IMO. The other stones look like they could be gorgeous too, I would just want the safest option. An ACA with an AGS light performance grade of 0------ you can''t go wrong with that.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/2/2008 2:45:11 PM
Author: Kelli
Personally I would LOVE the fluorescence, and go with that one. But of your three choices, I like the ACA simply because you will not find an ACA that isn''t stunning. The vvs clarity is overkill though, just IMO. The other stones look like they could be gorgeous too, I would just want the safest option. An ACA with an AGS light performance grade of 0------ you can''t go wrong with that.

True. However, there are many GIA stones that are just as beautiful as ACA''s. One just needs to know what to look for. That one from GOG happens to be a branded stone too, they cut an extremely beautiful stone, and get them graded at both labs.

first123, thanks for the info on the WF stone!

 

[michaelnyc]

OK....so I hate to complicate this but how do people feel about this diamond that Ellen found?

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4867/

Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.71ct
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
GIA Cut Grade: Excellent
Optical Symmetry: Superior
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None
Culet: None
Width: 7.71mm
Length: 7.74mm
Depth: 4.77mm
Table Percentage: 55.00%
Depth Percentage: 61.70%
Crown ∠: 34.33°
Crown Depth: 15.30%
Pavilion ∠: 41.00°
Pavilion Depth: 43.50%

 

[Ellen]

michael, I would go for the GOG in a heartbeat. It''s much less money, just a hair bigger, and it''s an Isee2 branded diamond. I happen to own one of these stones, along with some ACA studs, and they are definitely just as beautiful. That is a gorgeous stone!

 

[Upgradable]

G VS2, a sweet spot!! Looks like a winner!!