I think I’m going to buy this 2.2ct Round! What do you think?

[doingmybest]

Hey! I think I’m going to buy this 2.2ct round. It’s I VS2. What does everyone think? I think it’s beautiful but this will be on my girlfriend’s ring forever! Soon to be fiancée… Here’s the hearts & arrows and more pictures:

View attachment 933504

 

[headlight]

Looks beautiful. Do you have the proportions to share with us?

 

[tyty333]

The attachment is not working for me...

Does have a little bit of leakage and is not an H&A but a nice stone. I'll use the HCA tool wording and say worth buying if the
price is right.

If you can see it in person make sure to look at it in all different lighting.

 

[doingmybest]

@tyty333 it's 20K. What do you think?

 

[doingmybest]

Looks beautiful. Do you have the proportions to share with us?

I attached. What do you think?

 

[DejaWiz]

$20,100 (and get $100 off if you sign up on their site):

 

[lovedogs]

It's not terrible but it's not my favorite either. I think you could do better

 

[doingmybest]

It's not terrible but it's not my favorite either. I think you could do better

Even at a 2.2ct?

 

[tyty333]

Can you post a picture of the GIA report since the link is not working?

 

[doingmybest]

@tyty333 does this work?

 

[tyty333]

My bad...I see you posted it a couple of post ago! Going by the numbers alone I would say it looks better than I thought it
would. I think the price is fair...not a steal, but fair.

 

[lovedogs]

My bad...I see you posted it a couple of post ago! Going by the numbers alone I would say it looks better than I thought it
would. I think the price is fair...not a steal, but fair.

I agree.

 

[sledge]

Try not to get too hung up on weight. Instead look at the dimensions of the stone.

The reason I say this is because the angles/proportions has so much to do with the profile. Some diamonds are tall and skinny and carry more weight in the vertical plane. As such they look small for their carat weight. Other stones can be short & fat so they carry more weight in the horizontal plane and consequently look large for their weight. Then there are ideal stones that have proportions built for the best light return and also that distributes the weight so it looks just right for the carat weight. Not to mention those proportions can drastically affect the light performance of the stone.

Carat weight is a function of length * width * height. So while everyone focuses on weight it’s actually a poor metric to gauge size.

Look at the 2.20 stone you presented and the 2.01 super ideal stone @DejaWiz presented. The weight would make it appear the stone is much larger but look at those dimensions.

2.20 = 8.23 x 8.28 x 5.18 (avg 8.25 diameter)
2.01 = 8.10 x 8.13 x 5.01 (avg 8.11 diameter)

That is a difference of 0.14mm in diameter, which equates to roughly 0.0055 inches. That’s a pretty insignificant difference but maybe we can explain how small.

1/16th inch = 0.0625
1/64th inch = 0.0156
1/128th inch = 0.0078
1/181th inch = 0.0055 <—-

Essentially we are talking about the width of a hair. Most humans can’t see a discernible difference until 0.20mm and then when on a side by side comparison.

My point is while there is obviously a numerical difference, the ability for our naked eye to see that difference is non existent. So in person the 2.20 and 2.01 will look the same diameter. And that will be what your girl sees.

However the 2.20 will be taller because it’s carrying that extra weight in the vertical plane. Depth is 62.7%. Ideally you’d like to be < 62%.

Coincidentally the WF stone is 61.7% and is an ideal cut stone with no leakage and it’s a true hearts & arrow stone. In short it’s a Ferrari diamond! Also it comes with a super generous and hassle free upgrade policy — simply spend an equal or greater amount and trade as you wish. It really doesn’t get sweeter.

The biggest drawback I see is the WF 2.01 is a J color whereas your 2.20 is an I color. That’s only one grade but as you dip into the lower colors there can be more range between grades. We don’t know how the 2.20 compares to the 2.01 but WF also sells I color stones and could do a comparison to see if that is something that is tolerable to you. Well really tolerable to HER as this stone is for her.

Speaking of which most ladies see color more easily than us men. Do you know for certain she is okay with I color? Even at I color you are getting to a point you want to be sure on her preference.

 

[doingmybest]

Try not to get too hung up on weight. Instead look at the dimensions of the stone.

The reason I say this is because the angles/proportions has so much to do with the profile. Some diamonds are tall and skinny and carry more weight in the vertical plane. As such they look small for their carat weight. Other stones can be short & fat so they carry more weight in the horizontal plane and consequently look large for their weight. Then there are ideal stones that have proportions built for the best light return and also that distributes the weight so it looks just right for the carat weight. Not to mention those proportions can drastically affect the light performance of the stone.

Carat weight is a function of length * width * height. So while everyone focuses on weight it’s actually a poor metric to gauge size.

Look at the 2.20 stone you presented and the 2.01 super ideal stone @DejaWiz presented. The weight would make it appear the stone is much larger but look at those dimensions.

2.20 = 8.23 x 8.28 x 5.18 (avg 8.25 diameter)
2.01 = 8.10 x 8.13 x 5.01 (avg 8.11 diameter)

That is a difference of 0.14mm in diameter, which equates to roughly 0.0055 inches. That’s a pretty insignificant difference but maybe we can explain how small.

1/16th inch = 0.0625
1/64th inch = 0.0156
1/128th inch = 0.0078
1/181th inch = 0.0055 <—-

Essentially we are talking about the width of a hair. Most humans can’t see a discernible difference until 0.20mm and then when on a side by side comparison.

My point is while there is obviously a numerical difference, the ability for our naked eye to see that difference is non existent. So in person the 2.20 and 2.01 will look the same diameter. And that will be what your girl sees.

However the 2.20 will be taller because it’s carrying that extra weight in the vertical plane. Depth is 62.7%. Ideally you’d like to be < 62%.

Coincidentally the WF stone is 61.7% and is an ideal cut stone with no leakage and it’s a true hearts & arrow stone. In short it’s a Ferrari diamond! Also it comes with a super generous and hassle free upgrade policy — simply spend an equal or greater amount and trade as you wish. It really doesn’t get sweeter.

The biggest drawback I see is the WF 2.01 is a J color whereas your 2.20 is an I color. That’s only one grade but as you dip into the lower colors there can be more range between grades. We don’t know how the 2.20 compares to the 2.01 but WF also sells I color stones and could do a comparison to see if that is something that is tolerable to you. Well really tolerable to HER as this stone is for her.

Speaking of which most ladies see color more easily than us men. Do you know for certain she is okay with I color? Even at I color you are getting to a point you want to be sure on her preference.

I agree with most of this but it's still a beautiful diamond at 2.2ct for 20k. I rather go up in the size which isn't extremely noticeable you're right but it still means the diamond is larger than to make this already bright diamond more bright that's probably even less noticeable.

 

[DejaWiz]

I agree with most of this but it's still a beautiful diamond at 2.2ct for 20k. I rather go up in the size which isn't extremely noticeable you're right but it still means the diamond is larger than to make this already bright diamond more bright that's probably even less noticeable.

The primary reasons that I recommended the WF ACA is twofold:

1. There is some unevenness in the pavilion facets due to a little less precise cut quality showing in the 2.20

2. WF has a no stipulations lifetime upgrade program which has only one requirement: the diamond being upgraded to must be at least the same price as the diamond being traded in.

Here are the areas of concern with the 2.20 (compare the advanced images to those of the WF ACA).








Here is a comparison that will give you a rough idea of just how tiny the difference is...only a 3% difference in face-up surface area!

2.01ct Round (8.1×8.13×5.01) vs 2.2ct Round (8.23×8.28×5.18)

Compare 2.01 carat Round (8.1×8.13×5.01mm) vs 2.2 carat Round (8.23×8.28×5.18mm) on actual diamond size and finger coverage (51.72mm² vs 53.52mm²)

www.diamdb.com

We sincerely want you to get the best optical performance that can be attained for a modern round brilliant. Ultimately, the choice is yours.

 

[lovedogs]

The primary reasons that I recommended the WF ACA is twofold:

1. There is some unevenness in the pavilion facets due to a little less precise cut quality showing in the 2.20

2. WF has a no stipulations lifetime upgrade program which has only one requirement: the diamond being upgraded to must be at least the same price as the diamond being traded in.

Here are the areas of concern with the 2.20 (compare the advanced images to those of the WF ACA).








Here is a comparison that will give you a rough idea of just how tiny the difference is...only a 3% difference in face-up surface area!

2.01ct Round (8.1×8.13×5.01) vs 2.2ct Round (8.23×8.28×5.18)

Compare 2.01 carat Round (8.1×8.13×5.01mm) vs 2.2 carat Round (8.23×8.28×5.18mm) on actual diamond size and finger coverage (51.72mm² vs 53.52mm²)

www.diamdb.com

We sincerely want you to get the best optical performance that can be attained for a modern round brilliant. Ultimately, the choice is yours.

All of this.

 

[lulu_ma]

This video might help. The superideal cut diamond has edge to edge brightness which make it appear brighter...

This video will illustrate the difference between an okay cut versus superideal. We are all consumers commenting here. We just like to see people get the best value/ cut for their money.

 

[sledge]

Ultimately all we can do is try to inform you. The cash is yours to lay down as you wish. I’m a simple guy and believe the diamond with the most sparkle is the best. It’s what I chose for my wife and what I’d recommend anyone else choose too.

If you want “good enough” instead of extreme performance I get it. But I hate the reasoning. Yup it weighs more but it looks the same size. The irony being the extra weight you value so much is what makes it perform worse.

There are people here who pick size over beauty but it’s when size increase is visible and meaningful to the naked eye. The 2.20 doesn’t give you that benefit.

Let us know if we can help further. Wishing you luck and happiness whatever you decide is right for you and yours.

 

[jewels4life]

Ultimately all we can do is try to inform you. The cash is yours to lay down as you wish. I’m a simple guy and believe the diamond with the most sparkle is the best. It’s what I chose for my wife and what I’d recommend anyone else choose too.

If you want “good enough” instead of extreme performance I get it. But I hate the reasoning. Yup it weighs more but it looks the same size. The irony being the extra weight you value so much is what makes it perform worse.

There are people here who pick size over beauty but it’s when size increase is visible and meaningful to the naked eye. The 2.20 doesn’t give you that benefit.

Let us know if we can help further. Wishing you luck and happiness whatever you decide is right for you and yours.

I agree with you 100 percent sledge ! My ring isn’t large , but it does have intense sparkle and that for me , is way more important to me than size .

 

[NY_Resonant]

I’m someone who would usually be willing to give up a little on cut (Ie: Going from perfect super ideal to great XXX GIA with good ASET image — not a bad XXX like shown in many videos) in return for size… but in this case we are talking about 3% size difference — I would NOT sacrifice any cut at all for that minuscule size gain.

If I was the buyer here and the COLOR difference between an I and a J did not bother me — i’d go with the better cut.

If they aren’t 1000% sure on the color being well received, i’d recommend going with vendor with best upgrade policy. I’m color sensitive neither an I nor a J would work for me.

 

[DejaWiz]

This video might help. The superideal cut diamond has edge to edge brightness which make it appear brighter...

This video will illustrate the difference between an okay cut versus superideal. We are all consumers commenting here. We just like to see people get the best value/ cut for their money.

To augment this wonderful video, here is another wonderful video that shows the visual difference in more of a real-world viewing scenario:

 

[jewels4life]

To augment this wonderful video, here is another wonderful video that shows the visual difference in more of a real-world viewing scenario:

I love the jaan Paul videos

 

[daisygrl]

The diamond (2.2) is deep. You are paying for the depth not the circumference (if size is your concern). If you do not care for sparkle but size instead, go for 60/60 stone.

But based on your responses you seem to like the 2.2 stone regardless of what we say so I do not understand the point of this post where you asked for advice but proceeded to rebut it.