In Between Two ACA...

[daisygrl]

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.

The individual videos can mess with one's head and they did just that with mine. The video WF created for me definitely put my mind more at ease or should I say fulfilled my hopes.

Btw, the one on the right you said you liked is the one with a slightly larger table and lower crown. it is the smaller stone: 1.815

 

[sledge]

I've looked at this video at least 20-30x. On my mobile, they are so close I couldn't deem a winner, performance wise.

I would say the one on the left looks a little bigger.

On my 55" monitor at work I might give a tiny edge to the one on the right. It appears to fire off faster and the rainbow flashes reach out a little "longer" if that makes sense. But we are talking fractions here. And I'm not sure that faster is better either. Not to mention you won't see it IRL at that magnification and probably not under those optimal light conditions.

I think both stones are total sparkle bombs, and I would be proud to own either. Due to the slight size bump, cleaner clarity plot and super crisp advanced images I think the 1.921 is probably the better choice overall. Or at least the way I would roll if I had your decision.

FWIW, I did screen cap a few shots of the custom video WF provided to you.

 

[sledge]

Btw, the one on the right you said you liked is the one with a slightly larger table and lower crown. it is the smaller stone: 1.815

Depends which "right" he meant.

At the start of the video, the 1.815 is on the right, but as you rotate 180 degrees to the pavilion view (like the last picture I just posted) the 1.815 is on the left in that view.

 

[daisygrl]

I've looked at this video at least 20-30x. On my mobile, they are so close I couldn't deem a winner, performance wise.

I would say the one on the left looks a little bigger.

On my 55" monitor at work I might give a tiny edge to the one on the right. It appears to fire off faster and the rainbow flashes reach out a little "longer" if that makes sense. But we are talking fractions here. And I'm not sure that faster is better either. Not to mention you won't see it IRL at that magnification and probably not under those optimal light conditions.

I think both stones are total sparkle bombs, and I would be proud to own either. Due to the slight size bump, cleaner clarity plot and super crisp advanced images I think the 1.921 is probably the better choice overall. Or at least the way I would roll if I had your decision.

FWIW, I did screen cap a few shots of the custom video WF provided to you.

Lol, I did the same... I took a screen shot of a certain angle where the size is so obvious even given we are talking about minuscule fractions of mm.

As far as the fire, I paused the video many times and it was 50/50 for me... sometimes when paused, the smaller one had more sparkle but then other times the larger one did. The rainbow flashes are a bit longer on the smaller one in all videos.

Since I successfully eliminated the "sparkle" factor, the size definitely makes a decision easier. Regarding the clarity of both VS1 - to tell you the truth, the mini inclusions right on the table of 1.81 stone would bug me ("mind clean" thing) when I know it could be "cleaner."

Again, as always, thank you Sledge, and all the involved ones with investing the time to help me make the decision. It is so far the largest purchase that I have made regarding jewelry, and it was not an easy one, but you definitely put my mind at ease.

 

[ac117]

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...

Exciting!! Please come back with pics once you get it! Sorry if I missed it, but what setting is it going in?

 

[daisygrl]

Exciting!! Please come back with pics once you get it! Sorry if I missed it, but what setting is it going in?

Oh, you did not miss it as I did not talk much about it. It will be a custom made by WF (plain Tiffany style as I want the stone to pop.)

I will definitely post pics (might be a while since it is a custom made setting) but am already excited!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Very glad to see you chose the 1.92! Both stones would be equally beautiful, but I'd go for the bigger one! I'd never go by those videos anyway. That is not remotely related to how you'll see the diamond most of the time in real life!

 

[daisygrl]

Very glad to see you chose the 1.92! Both stones would be equally beautiful, but I'd go for the bigger one! I'd never go by those videos anyway. That is not remotely related to how you'll see the diamond most of the time in real life!

Agreed! Since the pics and videos are so enlarged (considering the stone itself is a little bit below 8mm) but they can mess with one's head.
In the end, if I had not gone for the bigger one I would whine about the size... and even though it is only a fraction of mm, it is notable, as seen in the videos!

 

[MissGotRocks]

Agreed! Since the pics and videos are so enlarged (considering the stone itself is a little bit below 8mm) but they can mess with one's head.
In the end, if I had not gone for the bigger one I would whine about the size... and even though it is only a fraction of mm, it is notable, as seen in the videos!

I think you made the right choice! Please come back with pictures for us when you get the ring. Excited for you!

 

[daisygrl]

I think you made the right choice! Please come back with pictures for us when you get the ring. Excited for you!

Thank you! I definitely will!

 

[Bonfire]

Yay! You really couldn’t have gone wrong with either choice, but bigger isn’t a bad thing right?!

 

[daisygrl]

Yay! You really couldn’t have gone wrong with either choice, but bigger isn’t a bad thing right?!

It never is...

 

[gregchang35]

The individual videos can mess with one's head and they did just that with mine. The video WF created for me definitely put my mind more at ease or should I say fulfilled my hopes.

Btw, the one on the right you said you liked is the one with a slightly larger table and lower crown. it is the smaller stone: 1.815

I should have clarified and here is what I meant... the right one when we can see the profile.When @sledge did the screen shots, it was easier for me to identify for you. I don’t know why I didn’t think to do that. oops-Sorry for the confusion.
and since the screen shot was taken, I can see the difference in size.

Also, knowing that the inclusions are in/under the table, it would not have been a contender for me, as it would have bugged me knowing that the other one performs similarly and is a cleaner stone.


congrats in making a decision.

can’t wait to see the end product.

 

[daisygrl]

I should have clarified and here is what I meant... the right one when we can see the profile.When @sledge did the screen shots, it was easier for me to identify for you. I don’t know why I didn’t think to do that. oops-Sorry for the confusion.
and since the screen shot was taken, I can see the difference in size.

Also, knowing that the inclusions are in/under the table, it would not have been a contender for me, as it would have bugged me knowing that the other one performs similarly and is a cleaner stone.


congrats in making a decision.

can’t wait to see the end product.

Yep! Exactly my thoughts. To tell you the truth, the mini inclusions right on the table of 1.81 stone would bug me too ("mind clean" thing) when I know it could be "cleaner." Plus, the size is notable.

I guess, the reason I started the post was that if you, guys, thought that the smaller stone is better, I would have chosen to wait for another stone closer to 1.9ct instead of buying it.

 

[sledge]

Again, as always, thank you Sledge, and all the involved ones with investing the time to help me make the decision. It is so far the largest purchase that I have made regarding jewelry, and it was not an easy one, but you definitely put my mind at ease.

You're very welcome. Glad to have helped you, and happy you have reached a decision point!

By the way, love the fact you are doing a simple solitaire to showcase the stone.

Be sure to post lots of pictures when you get it -- we need our fix of diamond ****, lol.

 

[daisygrl]

@sledge I can't wait to show it off even though it might take a little longer due to setting being a custom made.
For some reason, for the past few days, every time i tried to reply to someone, it shows me this: This message is awaiting moderator approval, and is invisible to normal visitors." Not sure why. I contacted moderators and they said that it was a glitch but it keeps doing it.

 

[Tanalasta_01]

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?

The diamond initially on the left looks like it is of a slightly higher colour grade. Very subtle. Not something you would notice in real life. And it may just be my own subjective observation. I think it is splitting hairs otherwise between the two. In practical terms, you would be happy with either. Once set in a ring, you won't have another one next to it to compare (please don't go around and do this). It will look stunning. We did a lot of hair splitting ... and it's really not necessary in the end!

I would ask WF for an honest opinion what they think.