In Between Two ACA...

[daisygrl]

I am in between two ACA stones.... they are a bit different size-wise. I originally wanted the bigger 1.92ct one but I feel like the 1.815ct has a lot more fire (from videos). What do you, guys, think?

Diamond | 1.921 ct G VS1 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4189535

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 1.921 carat G color VS1 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4189535

www.whiteflash.com

Diamond | 1.815 ct G VS1 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4150030

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 1.815 carat G color VS1 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4150030

www.whiteflash.com

 

[Bonfire]

I like the 1.92. Smaller table, a higher crown and fatter arrows

 

[daisygrl]

I like the 1.92. Smaller table, a higher crown and fatter arrows

I agree about the table, it is a small one indeed but I was more concerned about the sparkle part.

 

[diamondsR4eVR]

Personally, I’d go with more fire table aside. That’s just me tho. Can you ask WF to pull both and see which one performs better?

Edited to add: they both probably perform equally or close perhaps.

 

[Bonfire]

I was more concerned about the sparkle part.

Did you notice all the beautiful fire on this stone’s video? Gorgeous stone and it has all my favorite stats. You really are splitting hairs here. Both are beautiful ACAs and will be beautiful performers. The 1.92 is an excellent choice as it falls just below the 2ct price bump.

 

[daisygrl]

Did you notice all the beautiful fire on this stone’s video? Gorgeous stone and it has all my favorite stats. You really are splitting hairs here. Both are beautiful ACAs and will be beautiful performers. The 1.92 is an excellent choice as it falls just below the 2ct price bump.

I agree about splitting hairs here (anxiety?). I guess it is driven by the fact that once I purchase from WF, I will be kind of stuck with them for future upgrades. (not that being "stuck" with WF is a bad thing.)

And yes, I picked the 1.92 because it falls right below the 2ct (but withou the price tag) but the overwhelming fire of 1.81ct stone made me doubtful.

 

[daisygrl]

Like you, I personally do not care much about the table size either in ACA - since both of these stones are below 57 which is fine with me.

 

[junebug17]

I went a little cross-eyed looking at the videos...I couldn't really see a difference. I'd go for the bigger one lol. Nice that it's right below the 2 carat mark. Don't always find this. It's a gorgeous stone.

 

[lovedogs]

I would go with the bigger one, since both will be incredible in terms of cut and performance.

 

[daisygrl]

I went a little cross-eyed looking at the videos...I couldn't really see a difference. I'd go for the bigger one lol. Nice that it's right below the 2 carat mark. Don't always find this. It's a gorgeous stone.

Actually, I did go ross-eyed, too.... I am about to spend $28,000 (including taxes and my custom-made setting) so I want to make sure it will be worth it! I do not mind a smaller stone if it performs better. It is incredibly hard to pick without seeing them.

 

[Mamajemmy]

If you love both and it sounds like you like the one that is very slightly smaller, I’d absolutely do that. I don’t think you’ll see a difference in size but you will in price!

 

[MissGotRocks]

I would definitely ask WF for a comparison photo or video. I honestly doubt there is much difference in fire between the two and you might always mourn for the larger stone. . .sounds silly but it does happen!

 

[daisygrl]

I would definitely ask WF for a comparison photo or video. I honestly doubt there is much difference in fire between the two and you might always mourn for the larger stone. . .sounds silly but it does happen!

You must know me! lol. I would definitely mourn... I would ask for a photo comparison but I can't really read them. That is the problem. My WF SA who has been helping me said that 1.92ct shows slightly less light leakage. Not sure how it is possible since the 1.81ct sparkles significantly more (at least in the video.) darn.

 

[MarionC]

Tough to tell.
The sparkle you are seeing might be a slight difference in the way they were photographed. Or maybe one is slightly cleaner.
Very slight mm difference in size.
Thinking in person they would be very hard to tell apart.
Camera has one eye...you have two...in person I imagine you will be blown away no matter which one.

Price difference not that different considering the price range.
Does it really matter if you are closer to 2 carats?

If your heart likes one over the other, go for it.
Or toss a coin and see if you are happy with the coin’s choice.

...just thinking out loud.

 

[sledge]

Below is a side by side video I created for you.

In zoomed view from the original web page content (much clearer than the video -- used free Loom plugin to record) you can see the 1.815 has more rapid and larger rainbow flashes.

Like others, I do like the slightly smaller table although it's not even a full 1% smaller so likely not noticeable to the naked eye. I also like the 76 LGF's as the arrows are fatter, which to some degree is over emphasized as same size LGF's on a smaller table will look fatter.

I like the size of the 1.921 and also the clarity plot seems extremely clean, moreso than the 1.815, although I realize at VS1 neither is a concern of any magnitude.

I would definitely have WF pull and play with them in a variety of lighting conditions to see how they perform in the real world. Remember, the videos are magnified and designed to show off close to maximum fire. When not zoomed and not in that specific lighting condition you may end up with a different opinion.

That said, I don't think you are crazy and understand you wanting to get this right. Is there any chance you can visit their showroom in Sugar Land (near Houston)?

 

[daisygrl]

Below is a side by side video I created for you.

In zoomed view from the original web page content (much clearer than the video -- used free Loom plugin to record) you can see the 1.815 has more rapid and larger rainbow flashes.

Like others, I do like the slightly smaller table although it's not even a full 1% smaller so likely not noticeable to the naked eye. I also like the 76 LGF's as the arrows are fatter, which to some degree is over emphasized as same size LGF's on a smaller table will look fatter.

I like the size of the 1.921 and also the clarity plot seems extremely clean, moreso than the 1.815, although I realize at VS1 neither is a concern of any magnitude.

I would definitely have WF pull and play with them in a variety of lighting conditions to see how they perform in the real world. Remember, the videos are magnified and designed to show off close to maximum fire. When not zoomed and not in that specific lighting condition you may end up with a different opinion.

That said, I don't think you are crazy and understand you wanting to get this right. Is there any chance you can visit their showroom in Sugar Land (near Houston)?

Sledge, thank you SO much for making this video! You are too kind to go this far creating a video and all.... it might appear that I am splitting hairs but it is also a lot of money (at least for me) so I would like to analyze what I can. I do agree with you that the clarity (even though identical on both stones) is much nicer in 1.92 one. I am not too keen on 61.9% depth (on the edge) but still ok (would prefer up to 61.6).

When asked WF, the SA told me that the 1.815 has slightly more light leakage - not sure how it is possible but I will call them again and ask more questions.

Sledge, do you think that the 1.815 stone's more rapid rainbow flashes might be visible to the naked eye?

No, it is, unfortunately not possible for me to go to Houston to see them in person as I am in LA.

 

[sledge]

What -- more leakage!?!

Not sure what they were trying to say, or why they used that term but it seems wrong. The images on both stones are rock solid and don't indicate any leakage problems. I would want to better understand their POV.

Also, I would request side by side still photographs from the top and sides to see if there is any minor differences in color. G is great already, but if you have a very strong G (almost F) that would count for something to me.

I would also want side by side video(s) of the two stones together in a variety of lighting conditions. While you may not be able to accurately detect everything from a video, at least it may give you a better idea. Also, maybe talking with your SA, or potentially Bryan (aka @Texas Leaguer), to help verbally describe the differences in an accurate & meaningful manner.

In regards to depth, I would not be worried about 61.9 vs 61.6. I am not certain what differences you may see with your naked eye. Despite both stones being cream of the crop, they may have slight personality variances that your eyes appreciate and see differently than someone else.

I do think the zoomed videos emphasize those differences, but I can respect trying to pinpoint your decision when such a large purchase is at stake.

 

[daisygrl]

What -- more leakage!?!

Not sure what they were trying to say, or why they used that term but it seems wrong. The images on both stones are rock solid and don't indicate any leakage problems. I would want to better understand their POV.

Also, I would request side by side still photographs from the top and sides to see if there is any minor differences in color. G is great already, but if you have a very strong G (almost F) that would count for something to me.

I would also want side by side video(s) of the two stones together in a variety of lighting conditions. While you may not be able to accurately detect everything from a video, at least it may give you a better idea. Also, maybe talking with your SA, or potentially Bryan (aka @Texas Leaguer), to help verbally describe the differences in an accurate & meaningful manner.

In regards to depth, I would not be worried about 61.9 vs 61.6. I am not certain what differences you may see with your naked eye. Despite both stones being cream of the crop, they may have slight personality variances that your eyes appreciate and see differently than someone else.

I do think the zoomed videos emphasize those differences, but I can respect trying to pinpoint your decision when such a large purchase is at stake.

I did not understand why they would use the word "leakage" with ACA stones either but here is what they wrote to me (it also explains the solid G color in both stones):

"The 1.815ct is a beautiful diamond as well! Size wise it is very comparable to the 1.92ct and the color is consistent as well. Visually they are both bright white with edge to edge light return. It’s really difficult to say that one performs “better” than the other. Taking a look at the light performance images, I’d say that the 1.92ct has slightly less light leakage than the 1.815ct."

 

[Mamajemmy]

Great video! I can see why you are drawn to the 1.8. I am too!

 

[sledge]

I'm still puzzled by the leakage comments. Although I will say when I first pulled up the images of the two stones, my mind immediately thought the 1.921 was a smidge more cleaner/perfect. Definitely not leaking though. Hate that term.

Here's a different view where you can flip back & forth between the various images rather easily. Also, you can click on the video and it doesn't zoom as large as the individual web pages.

When you look at the video from this perspective, what do you think?

Diamond comparison | Compare Diamonds to choose and buy the best one

Whiteflash gives you an excellent opportunity to compare diamonds to make a great deal. With diamond’s parameters provided, you can compare any detail.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[sledge]

Also, for fun...here are screen caps of the computer generated ASET's from the certs of each stone. Granted, actual ASET's are more revealing but figured we'd add since we're splitting hairs anyhow, lol.

To my eyes, the 1.921 has a little more clustering that kind of blends with the (fatter) arrow shafts a bit.

 

[daisygrl]

I'm still puzzled by the leakage comments. Although I will say when I first pulled up the images of the two stones, my mind immediately thought the 1.921 was a smidge more cleaner/perfect. Definitely not leaking though. Hate that term.

Here's a different view where you can flip back & forth between the various images rather easily. Also, you can click on the video and it doesn't zoom as large as the individual web pages.

When you look at the video from this perspective, what do you think?

Diamond comparison | Compare Diamonds to choose and buy the best one

Whiteflash gives you an excellent opportunity to compare diamonds to make a great deal. With diamond’s parameters provided, you can compare any detail.

www.whiteflash.com

I called and asked about the "leakage" comment as well as videos side by side and asking my SA to check the stones personally so that she can give me her opinion (I trust her.) I think what she meant by the "leakage" was that the center of 1.815 has small white dots and she believed that it is from the inclusions (they are on the table for this stone) which might slightly be impacting a light return (again, nothing you see with naked eye but...since I am so good at splitting hairs.)

Aslo, like you Sledge, when comparing them side by side from the link you provided, the 1.92 appears crispier to me (not brighter but more defined, if that makes sense.)

As far as vides that are not as zoomed in, I do not see the difference to be as profound as I did when the videos were enlarged.

Now, I am waiting for the video comparisons...

PS: I have a job, I swear... I just want to make sure that my purchase is 100%

 

[sledge]

I think what she meant by the "leakage" was that the center of 1.815 has small white dots and she believed that it is from the inclusions (they are on the table for this stone) which might slightly be impacting a light return

I noticed the inclusions on my first review, but guess I never thought of them as "leakage" so much as just inclusions. Then again, leakage is still the wrong term. From a theoretical standpoint, it would be an obstruction or blockage that impedes light performance, right? In actuality, the inclusion is tiny and not really obstructing or blocking anything of any discernible magnitude in this case.

Remember, when WF vets their stones they check for inclusions that impede light performance. It's possible a stone has the best cut but covered in clouds or has a crystal, etc that somehow messes with the LP of the stone. They check and if it has those sort of problems, it doesn't get ACA pedigree.

A CUT ABOVE® Diamonds Specifications and Qualifications

Uncover the diamond specifications and qualifications that make up the Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® diamonds. The most carefully crafted diamonds in the world.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[daisygrl]

I noticed the inclusions on my first review, but guess I never thought of them as "leakage" so much as just inclusions. Then again, leakage is still the wrong term. From a theoretical standpoint, it would be an obstruction or blockage that impedes light performance, right? In actuality, the inclusion is tiny and not really obstructing or blocking anything of any discernible magnitude in this case.

Remember, when WF vets their stones they check for inclusions that impede light performance. It's possible a stone has the best cut but covered in clouds or has a crystal, etc that somehow messes with the LP of the stone. They check and if it has those sort of problems, it doesn't get ACA pedigree.

A CUT ABOVE® Diamonds Specifications and Qualifications

Uncover the diamond specifications and qualifications that make up the Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® diamonds. The most carefully crafted diamonds in the world.

www.whiteflash.com

I very much agree... if ACA is referred to as "leakage"... then what about all other stones that are not ACA ? SA said that comparing ASETs and ISs, the 1.92 looks a bit better. I believe my SA in WF is very transparent and honest (she was like that when I asked her about fluorescence when she mentioned that both stones might be reacting to some fluorescence but still be qualified as 'none" by GIA standards (since the word "negligible" is so broad.) That is how honest she is. So, she might have misused the word "leakage." But I do appreciate her honesty as she was in no way trying to sugar-coat how great the stone is (even though it is.)

Still wonder what those two white dots are - they would bother me, to be honest...

 

[daisygrl]

I have just received the video of both diamonds side by side. Same background even though I emphasized and was hoping for the videos in different environment. What do you, guys, think?

 

[chamois]

I have just received the video of both diamonds side by side. Same background even though I emphasized and was hoping for the videos in different environment. What do you, guys, think?

I can see a clear difference in size between the two. I prefer the smaller table on the larger ACA. Both will be great performers though. Are there any other ACA options, or just these two ACA’s in the running?

 

[daisygrl]

I can see a clear difference in size between the two. I prefer the smaller table on the larger ACA. Both will be great performers though. Are there any other ACA options, or just these two ACA’s in the running?

Just these two since the other ones available were higher in color and/or clarity and, thus, the price as well... I am happy with G/VS1 combo and would rather pay for a size than an F color.

 

[gregchang35]

You have been given some great guidance so far.

it sounds like the following are your concerns
1) the performance of the larger stone
2) size of the stone
3) cost
4) two dots on the smaller stone.

These stones are the cream of the crop and splitting hairs is fine to do. Analysis paralysis does occur when spending this kind of money.

Based on what I can understand are your main concerns- 1)-3) it sounds like the smaller stone is the way to go. Given 4) being worrisome to you- the larger stone sounds like the better choice.



if it were me: I am not an MRB person. I like OEC’s broader flashes of light, smaller tables and higher crowns.. and from the side by side imaging provided by WF, I really like the one on the right.

I couldn’t tell the size difference. They both sparkle like crazy. I prefer the profile of the one on the right. I am not sure which size stone that is.

 

[ac117]

The one on the left actually sparkles more to me, which I can also tell is the larger 1.92. Smaller table, puffier crown, fatter arrows - I'd stick with that one! Comparing the individual videos can play tricks on your mind bc they're not side by side but this video they provided of both would assuage my doubts if I were you!

 

[daisygrl]

The one on the left actually sparkles more to me, which I can also tell is the larger 1.92. Smaller table, puffier crown, fatter arrows - I'd stick with that one! Comparing the individual videos can play tricks on your mind bc they're not side by side but this video they provided of both would assuage my doubts if I were you!

This is precisely what I have thought! The video WF created for me definitely assuaged my doubts and helped made the decision. The 1.92 sparkled more in this video for some reason and it was surprising to me (can't say i wasn't happy about it .) The size was also a lot more notable than I would think (especially at 0.20min), even though they might look similar from top view.

And yes, the individual videos can mess with you for sure. Giving how much money is at stake and I really hate returns, I want this to be "the one" for a while (until upgrade sometime down the road.) WF was helpful beyond measures so I am very happy to be "stuck" with them for future upgrades.

I think I have made my decision...