Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Inclusion plot on a vs2

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,121
I will take a closer look later, but generally speaking, if size is your #1 goal then a 60/60 style stone will be your friend.

In simple terms, those type of stones take the carat weight and "squish" it together so the stone is wider (bigger) but also more shallow. This obviously changes the geometry which then changes the way the light behaves as it reflects/bounces around in the stone.

The upside is you typically get a little more spread for the same carat weight.
 

lydial

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
403
I'm not seeing an issue with the 45 stars.

You can't look at that number by itself. You have to consider table size, crown angle, LGF, pavilion angles and any painting/digging effects.

Perhaps @Karl_K can elaborate and provide some of his fancy renderings.

In the interim, here is some additional data to chew on.

Screenshot_20191205-064445_Chrome.jpg




I was only pointing out the one she has is 45/the one she is looking at is 55. Otherwise the #s are identical. But the stones therefore will have slightly different optics.
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
I will take a closer look later, but generally speaking, if size is your #1 goal then a 60/60 style stone will be your friend.

In simple terms, those type of stones take the carat weight and "squish" it together so the stone is wider (bigger) but also more shallow. This obviously changes the geometry which then changes the way the light behaves as it reflects/bounces around in the stone.

The upside is you typically get a little more spread for the same carat weight.
a 60/60 style would be the 2.26 ct one? I'm sorry I don't know what 60/60 means, i thought i did. Is it table and depth? Does that mean it would be darker?

I like the 2.27 because i thought it would be like my 1.9 but with just a little size bump. I want a noticeable difference to myself, but not so obvious to those around me, without sacrificing the fire and scintillation


Thanks for all your patience everybody
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
I was only pointing out the one she has is 45/the one she is looking at is 55. Otherwise the #s are identical. But the stones therefore will have slightly different optics.
so the 2.27 optics would be.... more flashes of white light? or less sparkly? I feel silly for using the word sparkly but all i do know is i love fire and scintillation :)
 

Karl_K

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
8,780
Not a lot of time this morning but:
45% stars are generally ok, long arrow shaft in arrow images/IS/ASET point in the direction the diamond is tilted in the scope.
Do not accept most vs2s are ok, it needs checking.
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
Not a lot of time this morning but:
45% stars are generally ok, long arrow shaft in arrow images/IS/ASET point in the direction the diamond is tilted in the scope.
Do not accept most vs2s are ok, it needs checking.
Is 55 star facets bad? The diamond i would exchange it for have 55. I wish we could just see them in person

I asked again about the diamond...The response was....
"This would be eyeclean. The inclusions are light in color and hard to see with the unaided eye."

I did what everyone said. Said it was a big purchase please have someone take a look so they will have a gemologist take a look and get back to me in a couple days:bigsmile:. Their customer service was great before the initial exchange but I think my rep got annoyed that I wanted to exchange it. If it weren't me wanting just a tiny size bump i'd gladly not support the business lol.

Let's see if it's meant to be and worth the trouble
 

Karl_K

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
8,780
45-55 is generally a safe range with 40 or 60 being ok for some combinations.
With steep crowns over 35 or so 45-50ish can be better because it lowers the upper girdle angle. With extreme crown angles over 36 the shorter stars are pretty much manditory to avoid over steep uppers.
With shallower crowns say 34 and with tables around 55 a longer lgf can make the lowers steeper adding in scintillation.
With 60-60 stones the area outside the table is smaller so anything over 55 can be a problem.
That is just in general, specifics can change things and most of the time its not a huge difference.
The biggest difference to performance star% makes is the angle of the upper girdles the majority of the time.
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
Update!!! I was just given a possible trade-in with white flash I would have to spend a minimum of 18,000 Stone was 17,900 I will lose about 700 but at least I will be with white flash.
Waiting for an email from Liza to confirm.

Soooo either this stone or bite the loss and go with white flash and essentially start the search all over again.. maybe third times a charm if you all don’t get sick of me yet lol!
 
Last edited:

KKJohnson

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
1,625
Update!!! I was just given a possible trade-in with white flash I would have to spend a minimum of 18,000 Stone was 17,900 I will lose about 700 but at least I will be with white flash.
Waiting for an email from Liza to confirm.

Soooo either this stone or bite the loss and go with white flash and essentially start the search all over again.. maybe third times a charm if you all don’t get sick of me yet lol!
I would totally accept the lose and go with Whiteflash IF you plan on upgrading again...honestly I think keeping that option available will cause a future upgrade. At this point if you cant get the size you want then you can wait a year or two and then see about upgrading again.
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
I would totally accept the lose and go with Whiteflash IF you plan on upgrading again...honestly I think keeping that option available will cause a future upgrade. At this point if you cant get the size you want then you can wait a year or two and then see about upgrading again.
While I love those 3 carats or 2.5 carats I see.... I don’t think I’d ever feel comfortable enough wearing it...

You’re so right. I would totally upgrade again and that’s just dangerous lol.
I’ll see what the gemologist says and decide from there I think.

Going to Whiteflash would be a loss for me, but I’d be able to be more picky about the cut and symmetry. Decisions decisions
 

chamois

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
381
Update!!! I was just given a possible trade-in with white flash I would have to spend a minimum of 18,000 Stone was 17,900 I will lose about 700 but at least I will be with white flash.
Waiting for an email from Liza to confirm.

Soooo either this stone or bite the loss and go with white flash and essentially start the search all over again.. maybe third times a charm if you all don’t get sick of me yet lol!
If Whiteflash offer you a trade in deal with a small loss then I think that would be a great move forward. What if you did decide to upgrade to a different stone (for whatever reason) in the future then you also have a win there too with their great upgrade option.

Please keep us posted.=)2
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
You guys have me convinced. I think you're right. WhiteFlash is the better option. If anyone has any recs with WhiteFlash please do send them my way:lol:

I saw 4 stones ACA 2ct range... a few were J color. I saw an H and I SI1.

Looks like i'll be starting over. I don't know if i should make a new thread or keep posting here



It doesn't have to be ACA, but I couldn't see images or videos for the other diamonds. Is that normal?
 

chamois

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
381
You guys have me convinced. I think you're right. WhiteFlash is the better option. If anyone has any recs with WhiteFlash please do send them my way:lol:

I saw 4 stones ACA 2ct range... a few were J color. I saw an H and I SI1.

Looks like i'll be starting over. I don't know if i should make a new thread or keep posting here



It doesn't have to be ACA, but I couldn't see images or videos for the other diamonds. Is that normal?
If I had to choose between these two options, I would go with the 2.36ct, a tiny bit bigger than the 2.26ct (although not by much) and I love the 54.8 table on the 2.36ct. Slightly better clarity too.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,121
@sledge would a 55 star facet be bad? the 2.27 has that...
I don't see 55 stars as an issue. It doesn't look like you have painting/digging issues. We don't have a detailed SARIN report to review all the actual values, but the rounded values provided on the cert seem to work with each other.


I was only pointing out the one she has is 45/the one she is looking at is 55. Otherwise the #s are identical. But the stones therefore will have slightly different optics.
Gotcha. I think the keyword is slight differences.


a 60/60 style would be the 2.26 ct one? I'm sorry I don't know what 60/60 means, i thought i did. Is it table and depth? Does that mean it would be darker?

I like the 2.27 because i thought it would be like my 1.9 but with just a little size bump. I want a noticeable difference to myself, but not so obvious to those around me, without sacrificing the fire and scintillation


Thanks for all your patience everybody
Stones are labeled as 60/60's when the depth = 60% and the table = 60%. Sometimes the values aren't spot on 60, but close like 59.5 or something similar.

Keep in mind, when a proportion such as the table or depth changes, then it affects other things too like the crown & pavilion angles. All these proportions play into the performance of the diamond.

Generally speaking, 60/60 stones will have less fire and more white light return/brilliance.

The type of stone you initially picked (55 table, 34.5/40.8, 75 LGF) will be more firey but have less white light return/brilliance. Without getting too geeky on you, it's because the table size, depth, crown & pavilion angles are all changing differently in each stone.

The alternate 2.27 stone you originally inquired about is very similar to your initial pick, and would perform very similar. As pointed out, the stars are different but I think that is a minor thing.

The 2.21 and 2.01 stones are 60/60 style stones.

What is meant on the HCA about stones with shallow angles and depths is they are more prone to obstruction. The graphic below shows how in lighting, all is great but as the viewer's head obstructs the overhead lighting the diamond turns dark.

Shallow gif.gif

so the 2.27 optics would be.... more flashes of white light? or less sparkly? I feel silly for using the word sparkly but all i do know is i love fire and scintillation :)
As I noted above, the 2.27 would perform very similar to the 1.90 stone you initially upgraded to.


Not a lot of time this morning but:
45% stars are generally ok, long arrow shaft in arrow images/IS/ASET point in the direction the diamond is tilted in the scope.
Do not accept most vs2s are ok, it needs checking.
Thank you for confirming. Thought the IS image was on a tilt, but love to have expert eyes confirm.


45-55 is generally a safe range with 40 or 60 being ok for some combinations.
With steep crowns over 35 or so 45-50ish can be better because it lowers the upper girdle angle. With extreme crown angles over 36 the shorter stars are pretty much manditory to avoid over steep uppers.
With shallower crowns say 34 and with tables around 55 a longer lgf can make the lowers steeper adding in scintillation.
With 60-60 stones the area outside the table is smaller so anything over 55 can be a problem.
That is just in general, specifics can change things and most of the time its not a huge difference.
The biggest difference to performance star% makes is the angle of the upper girdles the majority of the time.
Great info -- thanks for sharing!


Update!!! I was just given a possible trade-in with white flash I would have to spend a minimum of 18,000 Stone was 17,900 I will lose about 700 but at least I will be with white flash.
Waiting for an email from Liza to confirm.

Soooo either this stone or bite the loss and go with white flash and essentially start the search all over again.. maybe third times a charm if you all don’t get sick of me yet lol!
Only you can determine the right answer.

The nice thing about WF is upgrading is super easy, so if you find yourself wanting bigger size, better color and/or better clarity then it's easy to move towards your heart's desire. Also, I love the fact they are precision cut H&A stones and you get all the advanced images to make a good solid decision upon. Plus, if you have questions about something, simply ask and they will pull the stone from their vault (no overseas suppliers to hassle with like JA and other drop shippers) and they can give you an honest review/opinion. Want more videos or pics, no problem -- just ask.

The kicker is it comes at an expense. On the initial trade you are $700 less right off the bat. Personally I don't consider that too bad, but it's still money out of your pocket. Worse yet, from what I recall, you had to spend $12k minimum for the 1.90 stone at JA. With WF, you have to spend $18k minimum.

Altogether that is a swing of about $6,700 difference. Do you have the available cash flow for that much of a difference?

Even if you stick w/ JA, is a 0.30-0.40mm size gain worth jumping over the 1.90 mark to the 2.xx mark, and spending another $5-6k?

While you aren't getting H&A precision stones with JA, and it is frustrating you will likely save a few bucks using them. We can probably match size and dollars at WF but it will probably come at the expense of color or clarity from the JA stones you are looking at.

But if you did stick with JA, you'd be really stuck if you ever wanted to upgrade again as you'd have to spend 2x the amount of your 1.9 -- so roughly $24k, right? And if you wanted to upgrade after that, we are talking $48k.

So part of the right answer involves getting honest with yourself and determining if you think you will be upgrading again. If so, then to me it seems more logical to rip the band aid off and switch to WF before you get more dollars and frustration tied up with JA.

Again, all these are personal questions. I don't really care if you answer them here or not, but you need to be honest with yourself so you can make the right decision for YOU.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,121
Holy fireballs...there were posts that showed up as I was writing my (long) response above.

Love the 2.365 proportions & images -- 54.8 table, 61.8 depth, 34.6 crown, 40.8 pavilion & 77 LGF :love: :love: :love:

Also, did you notice the spread? The biggest of any stone thus far -- 8.56 x 8.58. And it still has proportions for big fire.

My only concern is the J color. Ask WF if this is a strong or weak J. Colors have ranges, and the further you go down the color scale the more variance there is in that range. So you may have a J that looks like almost like an I, or you may get a J that looks almost like a K. Or maybe just a plain ole' J, lol.

I'd have WF compare against similar H and I colored stones. Try to get videos, plus still pictures of the body/pavilion which is where you can actually see/grade color.

Are you comfortable with the money? I remember one of the JA stones was $17k and you didn't seem to happy about that.
 

lydial

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
403
I think @Novicenovice has developed a case of being a PS’er almost as quickly as I did! once you see the easy way of buying a beautiful diamond (whatever path that is), and easier upgrade policies... it is hard to walk away from a “sure thing” but the decisions are tough! So if you go for an ACA from WF have fun shopping! And I f you go for the “55” stone, enjoy it! No matter what you will be getting one gorgeous diamond:)
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
@sledge
I thought long and hard about your post.
forgive me everyone and sledge to properly respond I am at a conference now (running around rushed), I can’t thank you enough for making it clearer to me and taking the time to really help me decide and educate me... I have two diamonds in question and wanted to gather your thoughts on the better one of the two real quick so I can place it on hold

I hope many people can benefit from this post as much as I did. I’m in awe of how welcoming and thoughtful everyone has been here on PS.


 

Attachments

Last edited:

KKJohnson

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
1,625
nix that 2.26, why didn't you do the comparison for the 2.36 and 2.41?
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
She said the 2.26 was more lighter in color.... between the 3 what do you guys think?

just asked to compare the 2.3and 2.4 :)
 
Last edited:

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,121
I think I'd like to see all 3 of the stones against one another when comparing color.

Also, here is a different view comparing these 3 stones:


In all honesty, all 3 of these stones have rather amazing and very, very similar proportions. You have no "bad choice".

Using the comparison view and blowing up Chrome to 400% and stretching out my web browser window (I have a 52" monitor) I was able to get all 3 of the stones in video rotation. To me, under the glamour lights it appears the 2.411 stone has a tad more fire.

I tried to capture it in a still pic below, but it was hard. I'm really nitpicking here as I think all 3 choices are splendid. I'm not even sure you'd see much difference in performance IRL. However, I do think it'd be interesting to know how WF ranks each stone in terms of fire/performance.

1575672557116.png

On the 2.266 stone, I do not like the knot inclusion on the pavilion. I realize it's the 4th and least impactful inclusion, but I just don't like them. It's an ACA and WF has vetted, so I'm sure it's fine but for me it's a mind clean issue so I would personally eliminate that stone unless I had a very strong reason not to do so.

Just a small perk, but when I ignore total dollars and look at dollars per carat that you are spending, the 2.411 stone is also a very slightly better value than the 2.266 stone.

CapturePrice.PNG


For me, I'd be down to the 2.365 or 2.411.

I personally prefer VS2 clarity, but when I look at the video I can't tell enough of a difference to make me sway one way or the other. I'd be curious what WF has to say about each stone being eye clean. I'm picky. I want to know it's eye clean if I stare at it intently while zoomed up on that baby, lol. I'm sure both are okay, but if there is some variance that may play into the deciding factor.

The only thing I notice odd about the 2.365 is the lower arrows look a tad shorter than the top arrows. I'm not sure if the stone was titled when the picture was taken or there is some minor variance. And more importantly, does it have any meaningful impact on the stone? Looking at the video I'd say not. Still, might be a worthwhile conversation with WF about it.

Again -- nitpicky stuff. All 3 are awesome choices, but if you are down to these 3 you have to finalize to just 1....unless you want to buy me your second place winner, lol.

2.365 J VS2

hearts-and-arrows-round-diamond-ags-104105373024-idealscope-160306.jpg

Inkedhearts-and-arrows-round-diamond-ags-104105373024-idealscope-160306_LI.jpg
 

coda72

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
1,602
If you are sensitive to color, a J stone might have too much tint for you. Of course if you go with a WF stone, you can upgrade to a higher color anytime you want. I had a J stone for 3 years, and while it was beautiful, the tint always bothered me. I recently had the opportunity to upgrade to an I colored stone, so I took it.
 

Karl_K

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
8,780
Time out for an educational moment please.
This is 99.99999+% of the time an image issue with modern stones.
Long arrow shaft shows the direction the stone is tilted.
A crown cut tilted relative to the pavilion can also cause it but in modern stones that is very very very rare.
In very old stones it is more common as the transfer processes were not always as precise as today.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,121
Time out for an educational moment please.
This is 99.99999+% of the time an image issue with modern stones.
Long arrow shaft shows the direction the stone is tilted.
A crown cut tilted relative to the pavilion can also cause it but in modern stones that is very very very rare.
In very old stones it is more common as the transfer processes were not always as precise as today.
I was unaware of the percentages, but I did recognize and even state I thought the image was probably tilted. I really wasn't trying to dig on the stone, so I hope it didn't come across that way. I truly believe all 3 stones are awesome choices.

Truth be told, I probably wouldn't have even mentioned it but a month or so back there was another user looking at a WF stone and it had a similar issue. I thought the issue was tilting and asked @Texas Leaguer to confirm since it was his stone. After reviewing, his response was that there was some minor variation and it wasn't just tilt.

Again, sorry if my comments came off as negative, or incorrect.


The only thing I notice odd about the 2.365 is the lower arrows look a tad shorter than the top arrows. I'm not sure if the stone was titled when the picture was taken or there is some minor variance.
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
Hello all! I am back and excited with an update. I am also happy to say that I will be going with a Whiteflash diamond!!
As a last minute consideration before I follow through with the 2.4 J SI1

these are the three I’m considering...






03B5424F-813F-40A9-8575-5D26A6CEF26D.jpeg F2731198-3BBD-40F7-A94A-EF7386E56DF7.jpeg 98300D3D-7A15-40B3-B1BF-FE66E6453DBC.jpeg 2BC5FA16-3D92-4EEB-8EAB-C7A2503EBAE8.jpeg
Obviously the I is the lightest. But I’m not sure if the size difference is worth it. I know it’s a very subjective thing that differs from person to person.

my rep has been incredibly patient and so helpful. Basically, won me over enough to make me feel better about spending this much when comparing the help from WF vs JA.
She said that the 2.365 was the warmest. I’m color sensitive, but I don’t know how much of a difference it would be in person when comparing the I to the J. I saw color in my previous I very easily. I ignored it. Should I go with the 2.4 ? Should I go with a vs2? @sledge @KKJohnson
 

coda72

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
1,602
I think you should go with the J, SI1 if it’s confirmed to be eye clean. Since you’re going with WF, you can always trade up to an H or I color stone whenever you want.
 

Novicenovice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
64
I think you should go with the J, SI1 if it’s confirmed to be eye clean. Since you’re going with WF, you can always trade up to an H or I color stone whenever you want.
I did it!!!! I just sent in the confirmation because you’re absolutely right. The size was the deterrent for me for the last one so hopefully I can get over it and will love it once I see it. Thank you all so, so much. Without PS I would’ve never know or learned as much as I did and wouldn’t have had the chance to change over to Whiteflash.

Not to bash but JA hasn’t even updated me with the gemologist report that I asked for a while ago and has pretty much left me in the dark. (Maybe they’re perusing the forums?) They were great until I wasn’t happy with the upgrade diamond. I get it.. it’s annoying. But the WF rep sent me as many pics as I needed and helped as much as she could. No matter how many questions I asked. What a difference. Hopefully that helps someone reading this in the future.
On a side note...

does anyone notice how the 2.4 J looks lighter when pictured only next to the 2.365 and it looks like the darkest one when it’s between the other two? I’m confident in the 2.4, it’s just an odd observation. It even looks darkest face on when between the three. Is that because of an obstruction?
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top