More help on H&A choice please

[HokieNuts]

So in my last post I listed three H&A diamonds from WhiteFlash and like you all warned me, my favorite was bought out from under me before I convinced myself I was ready. So I am again trying to decide between two diamonds, one being different from my other post. This time I am ready to pull the trigger and do have the one on reserve. I am slightly questioning myself because there seem to be a lot of inclusions on the AGS report, but was assured by Bob at WhiteFlash that it was definitely eye clean and the two diamonds were very similar.

Here they are:
http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/Diamond_Details.aspx?idno=395293
http://whiteflash.com/diamonds/Diamond_Details.aspx?idno=395296

Any opinions/advice??

Thanks Again!!! This place has made a huge difference in my buying process.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You generally don''t need to worry about VS2 inclusions. You can always ask for them to check and see if inclusions are visible from the side, if you think that would bother you. But I think both of those stones are just great, and the one you put on hold is a very good choice! Nothing wrong that I can see at all!

 

[aljdewey]

Honestly? Flip a coin......no way to go wrong selecting between those two.

 

[strmrdr]

go with the cheaper one

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

I would ask if the crystal on the more expensive one is black. i see a little black dot on the picture that might or might not be the inclusions. But if it is a black crystal under the table it may well be visible from various angles. Then check the inclusions on the 1.216. I don't see any black dots on that one, and the inclusions are primarily clouds dispersed around the edges of the girdle. I can detect a few small white dots around the edges in the image, which looks hopeful to me, though I may have overlooked something in the image, you would need one of WF staff to look at it in person to tell you the color and visibility of the inclusions from various angles.


Basically, I would pick the one that was the most eyeclean from any angle, and if the cheaper one is the only one to be totally 100% eyeclean, then I think the decision would be pretty simple.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/30/2007 11:44:38 PM
Author: strmrdr
go with the cheaper one

Ditto.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 10/1/2007 9:20:58 AM
Author: WHFSR

I would ask if the crystal on the more expensive one is black. i see a little black dot on the picture that might or might not be the inclusions. But if it is a black crystal under the table it may well be visible from various angles. Then check the inclusions on the 1.216. I don''t see any black dots on that one, and the inclusions are primarily clouds dispersed around the edges of the girdle. I can detect a few small white dots around the edges in the image, which looks hopeful to me, though I may have overlooked something in the image, you would need one of WF staff to look at it in person to tell you the color and visibility of the inclusions from various angles.

This seems to be coming up with increasing regularity, so I''m thinking a bit of balance and perspective might be helpful here.

''Black dots'' shouldn''t necessarily be of concern just because they are ''black dots''. Whether or not such inclusions can be seen with the unaided eye is subject to many variables: the vision of the observer, the placement of the inclusions, the size of the stone, the mounting the stone will live in, etc.

By way of example, here is a photo of my .73, SI2 earring stone. The pic shows black inclusions.....smack under the table. This stone is totally eyeclean in person......from the top, from the sides, from any angle.

I also have a ''black'' inclusion just off the edge of the table in my e-ring sidestone....but it''s only .30. It''s not even remote visible without a loupe from any angle.

Stones like this can represent tremendous values, so I''d encourage folks not to fall into the trap of thinking all black inclusions are bad. Like other things, it depends on the sum of the parts and not just ONE part.

 

[horatio]

I was the other person who bought the diamond mentioned. IMHO, all three are so so similar, we/you/I are actually splitting hairs among the various VS2s. If it matters to you, why not have both or a third alternative sent over to one of the top appraisers mentioned here or someone you know, and have them tell you, the unique qualities and characteristics of each of them.

I could have done it that way, but IMHO, I could have picked any of the 3 or 4 ACA''s on WF and just toss a coin and pick. My other advice to you would be just pick one from Whitflash, and pick one or two others from other vendors, and do your comparison.

I was pressed for time, so I went the easy route (WF ACA), AND I liked a particuar setting with WF, price and design was right. But if you have time, look at the other vendors. GOG and James Allen would be my other alternatives.

Horatio

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Thanks alj, it is always good to get feedback from people who have had a variety of experiences.

I def. agree and I want to point out that I advised:

"you would need one of WF staff to look at it in person to tell you the color and visibility of the inclusions from various angles."

and

"it may well be visible from various angles "NOTE: "may" does not mean "will".


and to be sure, 40X mag is not the same thing you will see with your naked eye but it is the only thing I we often have available to use. Thus, though it isn't always as bad as it seems in the image (or as good) I would still suggest that we should look at the images provided to try and find any "red caution flags." Simply because we don't have the diamonds on hand to inspect ourselves, and when we see those red caution flags we ought to recommend that the consumer use due diligence in having it inspected.

In this case I saw a black dot to which I admitted there may or may not be a problem, but that it is something he should ask about.

In the end though, either one could be the cleaner of the two, thus, as I said, when deciding between two such similar diamonds:


I would pick the one that was the most eyeclean from any angle

AND

" if the cheaper one is the only one to be totally 100% eyeclean, then I think the decision would be pretty simple"

Now slightly visible inclusions from the side are not really a huge deal, but when looking at such similar diamonds I would suggest it is a deciding factor.



Also, while I understand that you have had some very good experiences, I can only speak from my own experiences. In my experience, I had a .61ct ideal cut with a black inclusion smack dab under the table and it was visible from various angles. Thus I speak from my experience. You from yours, and we get a wide variety of experiences, which is excellent.

_____

but here I am going to be honest for a minute, you may not have been speaking directly too me right now, but for several weeks now you have had some things to say to me that have offended me a bit. On this occasion you may not have been talking to me directly, but you did quote me directly, and frankly I would prefer if you refrain from quoting me and/or rebuking my particular comments so directly for a while.

I don't mean to sound childish. I know you have some very valuable and helpful comments to make, and I know sometimes your comments might be right and might be opposed to something I said, but I would prefer if you just share your experiences and knowledge and let them carry their own weight rather than rebuke mine as directly as you have been recently.

Now, in this case I am not offended and I don't think you were rebuking me directly--you are usually pretty upfront about that kind of thing--but still, some of your recent comments towards me have gotten under my skin and I am not sure how I should take your comments at the moment(though admittedly I might be getting a bit paranoid about it), and I would rather just enjoy my time on PS instead of having to wonder. So please, if you have some differing understandings or information to share just let that knowledge speak for itself a little more often rather than quoting me and informing me so directly of how different our understandings might be sometime. So, if you could find some way to refrain from directly rebuking me so often I would really appreciate it. And where I have been doing the same thing to you I will try to refrain from it wherever possible as well.

I would have loved to have sent this to you in an email and try to reach some accord between the two of us in private, but of course that is not an option, and so I figured since we will both be hanging out on PS for a while yet I should do it now before some arguments started up between us again, which I would rather avoid.

 

[kcoursolle]

Both are great. I agree with Storm''s advice.

 

[aljdewey]

WHFSR......

Let's get on the same page together.

I don't see us as adversaries, and I don't want you to either.

--- I'm not trying to rebuke you. Your opinion is absolutely as valid as anyone else here....but there are times when you present information in a way that has potential to mislead other consumers/readers. Presenting opinions is fine, but you have a way of making minor things seem like major concerns, and that's not doing a service to others who are trying to learn. It creates confusion and panic, neither of which are helpful.

It's like someone yelling "LOOK OUT, there's a car in the road".....and then turning around to find out that yes, there is a car in the road------------two miles away on the horizon and unlikely to cause you bodily harm. Pushing the "look out, look out, look out" button too often creates anxiety in the minds of consumers unnecessarily. It's a valid message.....WHEN it's tempered with less urgency to suggest it's not going to be a HUGE problem.

Since PS is about educating consumers, responding to such misinformation is an important part of learning.
That response is due no matter *who* posts the misinformation. If someone else (not you) said "oh, watch out for black crystals under the table", I'd respond the exact same way. This isn't personal. If I post misinformation, I expect someone else to chime in on it, too. It just happens that lately, most of that is originating from you, so you're the one whose comments are being replied to. Were it anyone else, it would be exactly the same.

--- It's a public message board. It's the written equivalent of a group conversation. If you were in a room full people at a cocktail party and you were participating in a conversation, do you think you'd really be able to tell the others "I want you to refrain from replying to my contributions to this discussion?" No, of course you wouldn't.....and nor should that be your expectation here.

--- You seem to think that I'm trying to dog you here, and nothing could be further from the truth. I've told you time and time again that I admire your enthusiasm for the topic, and that I know you're well-intentioned. I wouldn't bother observing those positive qualities if I were trying to disrespect you. But well intentions don't negate the potential to cause harm.

--- I get what you're saying.....that you had a single stone with a black spot that you could see, so sure, you're sharing your experience. No problem. But, in several recent threads (not just this one), you've been advancing a consistent theme....that black inclusions are "often" a cause of concern, and that's just not true. Can they be? Sure they can. Does that mean they OFTEN are? Nope. See the difference?

--- I want you to enjoy your time on PS, too, and I don't wish/want to encroach upon that. I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings...not yours, and not anyone else's. I'm here because I want to help folks learn how to make good purchases.

That said, you can directly influence responses. Try not to overstate cautionary things as though they were imminent dangers. Suggest something is possible without suggesting that it's *likely*, and that will go a long way toward not feeling rebuked.

I ferverently want us all to 'play nicely', too.....but you can count on this: If you keep waving the "look out, there's a car in the road" flag, I'm going to keep coming back with "yeah, but it's 3 miles away. Probably not a huge thing to worry about." Please don't be offended; it's in the spirit of helping us all learn.

There's a oft-used joke that comes to mind:

Patient: "Dr., my finger hurts when I do THIS....."
Dr. "Then stop doing that".

 

[horatio]

How about this diamond from GOG:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3639/

 

[TravelingGal]

Re: the black booger issues...

The only real flaw in my cushion is a black booger right under the table, which makes it a SI1. I was concerned about it, but it''s eyeclean. In fact, my appraiser said the inclusion is actually white, not black, but I believe it''s black (as I can see it through the side.) WF also said it was black, so who knows.

You can see it in the IS image and 40 mag photo here. It''s not an issue in real life. I love my stone!

(Booger can be seen at about 1:30 from the culet.) And look how big the culet looks in the IS...you can''t even see it in the 40 mag.

 

[aljdewey]

Ok.....I thought of another way this might make more sense for you, WHFSR:

I live in New England. Hasn''t been a hurricane here since 1991. Massachusetts is absolutely NOT a high-risk hurricane state. Florida? Absolultely. North Carolina? You betcha. Massachusetts: VERY remote probability.

So, let''s assume you happened to have been in Massachusetts during the hurricane in 1991 (singular experience).

If we were on a travel board and a poster asked about places to visit on her upcoming vacation to Massachusetts in October, do you think it would warrant warning everyone with "well, just make sure you look into trip insurance because you''re going there during hurricane season, so you could run into that"??? I don''t.

Even worse would be saying (based on your one hurrican experience in MA), "Well, I saw the news last week about a storm there, and I think based on the clouds that it was a hurricane, so you really want to check into trip insurance before you go."

Is it possible that a hurricane could strike? of course it''s possible.....but is it probable enough to say "hey, make sure you check that out?" Not in my estimation.

Cautioning is a very powerful thing....especially in an arena like jewelry, where people are already fearful that they''re going to make a catastrophic mistake. Therefore, cautioning has to be applied judiciously and gently.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/1/2007 5:43:49 PM
Author: aljdewey
WHFSR......

Let''s get on the same page together.

I don''t see us as adversaries, and I don''t want you to either.


It''s like someone yelling ''LOOK OUT, there''s a car in the road''.....and then turning around to find out that yes, there is a car in the road------------two miles away on the horizon and unlikely to cause you bodily harm. Pushing the ''look out, look out, look out'' button too often creates anxiety in the minds of consumers unnecessarily. It''s a valid message.....WHEN it''s tempered with less urgency to suggest it''s not going to be a HUGE problem.

Sorry, but that thar was funny.

Alj makes a great point though WH. You do have a tendancy to make mountains out of molehills sometimes, and it just isn''t necessary. A simple, "you might want to make sure it''s eyeclean" will almost always suffice. If you feel you personally want to be more thorough than that, there''s nothing wrong with adding, "and make sure you and the vendor are on the same page as to what eyeclean means".

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 10/1/2007 6:21:46 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/1/2007 5:43:49 PM
Author: aljdewey
WHFSR......

Let's get on the same page together.

I don't see us as adversaries, and I don't want you to either.


It's like someone yelling 'LOOK OUT, there's a car in the road'.....and then turning around to find out that yes, there is a car in the road------------two miles away on the horizon and unlikely to cause you bodily harm. Pushing the 'look out, look out, look out' button too often creates anxiety in the minds of consumers unnecessarily. It's a valid message.....WHEN it's tempered with less urgency to suggest it's not going to be a HUGE problem.

Sorry, but that thar was funny.

Alj makes a great point though WH. You do have a tendancy to make mountains out of molehills sometimes, and it just isn't necessary. A simple, 'you might want to make sure it's eyeclean' will almost always suffice. If you feel you personally want to be more thorough than that, there's nothing wrong with adding, 'and make sure you and the vendor are on the same page as to what eyeclean means'.

Well, I gotta 'Word' Ellen on that...I think, WHFSR, the issue that keeps coming up is a lot of the time is that you have a propensity to make a comment like "I'm not an expert but I suspect/guess that..." and people aren't looking for guesses or theories, they're usually looking for facts so they can use that in their decision making for making a very expensive luxury purchase. Does that make sense? I think Alj just tries to bring up facts and correct incorrect statements that someone might mistake for fact and possibly affect their diamond purchasing.

Wow, that last sentence even confused me!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/1/2007 6:43:52 PM
Author: surfgirl
Well, I gotta ''Word'' Ellen on that...I think, WHFSR, the issue that keeps coming up is a lot of the time is that you have a propensity to make a comment like ''I''m not an expert but I suspect/guess that...'' and people aren''t looking for guesses or theories, they''re usually looking for facts so they can use that in their decision making for making a very expensive luxury purchase. Does that make sense? I think Alj just tries to bring up facts and correct incorrect statements that someone might mistake for fact and possibly affect their diamond purchasing.

Wow, that last sentence even confused me!

I got it.

 

[HokieNuts]

Wow, this has turned into quite a long post. Much more response then I thought I would get.

I am going to go ahead with the stone that I have on reserve. I just got off the phone with Bob at WF and he assured me that the stone is eye clean from both the top and sides. I have also emailed with Dave Atlas to get him to take a look at it before I purchase it. Hopefully the appraisal will be setup tomorrow.

Right now I am leaning towards this
setting in platinum. I have no guidance from my girlfriend so hopefully she likes it. Comments are always appreciated as this is definitely the first engagement ring I have bought (and hopefully the last!)

Thank you all so much for your input.

Horatio, that diamond from GOG looks great as well. I''m taking a look at this one first because WF has the setting I like. I''m looking forward to seeing the pics of your ring when you get it. p.s. I''m really pissed at you because you bought the diamond I wanted

 

[Ellen]

Hokie, that stone should be gorgeous.

As for the setting you picked, I had a thought or two, after I read you had gotten no guidance from your sweetie. Here they are, for what they're worth. Take em or leave em.

Gals can be kinda picky about their jewelrey (but not all). If you don't know fore sure that she'll like this style, I'd be more apt to get WF's simple Tiffany style in WG, for 200. Then, let her pick the setting out. If she likes the original, great. If not, you're not out a bunch of moola.


It's just an awful lot of money to guess on....KWIM?



And sorry we kinda jacked your thread a bit!!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 10/1/2007 7:27:02 PM
Author: HokieNuts
Wow, this has turned into quite a long post. Much more response then I thought I would get.

I am going to go ahead with the stone that I have on reserve. I just got off the phone with Bob at WF and he assured me that the stone is eye clean from both the top and sides. I have also emailed with Dave Atlas to get him to take a look at it before I purchase it. Hopefully the appraisal will be setup tomorrow.

Right now I am leaning towards this
setting in platinum. I have no guidance from my girlfriend so hopefully she likes it. Comments are always appreciated as this is definitely the first engagement ring I have bought (and hopefully the last!)

Thank you all so much for your input.

Horatio, that diamond from GOG looks great as well. I''m taking a look at this one first because WF has the setting I like. I''m looking forward to seeing the pics of your ring when you get it. p.s. I''m really pissed at you because you bought the diamond I wanted

YAY, Hokie. That''s perfect. You''ve done your diligence in talking with your vendor and confirming that it''s eyeclean, and you''ve picked a vendor with a good return policy so there''s no risk.

Nicely done.....I''m sure she''s going to be thrilled!

 

[HokieNuts]

Ellen, I appreciate your concerns/comments. Even though she hasn't directly told me what she likes and doesn't, I've been paying close attention to her comments and reactions to rings as my friends have gotten engaged. I also had one of her friends do some investigation work for me and get me some ideas which was helpful. We've been dating for 5 years so I've got a pretty good idea of her taste in jewelery. Everything she wears I have bought her...

No big deal on jacking the thread. I've been reading everything that I can and it's all been helpful in making the decision.

Thanks Alj.

 

[aljdewey]

My pleasure. Enjoy the hunt; it''s a great experience.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/1/2007 10:44:22 PM
Author: HokieNuts
Ellen, I appreciate your concerns/comments. Even though she hasn''t directly told me what she likes and doesn''t, I''ve been paying close attention to her comments and reactions to rings as my friends have gotten engaged. I also had one of her friends do some investigation work for me and get me some ideas which was helpful. We''ve been dating for 5 years so I''ve got a pretty good idea of her taste in jewelery. Everything she wears I have bought her...

Well then, it sounds like you''re good to go!!

Please come back with hand pics if you can, we''d love to see them. And good luck!