Move over Tiffany, ACA is replacing you!

[Weecam]

So as I mentioned in my other post about being disappointed with my 1.18ct Tiffany ring, well it finally sold. I didn’t get what I wanted for it but I’m ready to move on.

After doing tons of research and using the preferred dimensions listed on this wonderful site, I found 5 diamonds. All VS1 G colour, two 1.2ct and three 1.4ct. I reached out to a Whiteflash representative and we narrowed it down to this diamond. https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4015035.htm

She actually pulled all of them out of the vault to examine them and said all five were great contenders!
I actually was leaning more towards this one: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4008482.htm because there’s only one feather and no comment about “additional clouds not shown”. However upon her inspection, the feather was easier to find under magnification than the tiny inclusions in the 1.412ct diamond.

Do you think I made the right choice?

 

[HappyNewLife]

They're both STUNNING! I wouldn't know how to pick... They're the same color/clarity/size/table %. I'd probably go with the one WF picked for you and put the $200 saved into the setting

Clouds not shown shouldn't be a problem with an ACA that has been vetted by the AGS for ideal light return

 

[sledge]

You have to remember these are VS1's and you will need a scope to see the inclusions. Both are eye clean, and neither have inclusions that will impede light performance.

Look at both videos in full size (not the smaller "compare" screen). The 1.412 appears to have more fire and is more lively to me. For that reason that is what I would choose if the decision were mine. The other isn't a bad choice by any stretch of the imagination. It's gorgeous too. Just the 1.412 speaks to me more and has "personality" I like better.

Comparing the AGS proportions chart, you can see how close they are to each other. You can see the 1.412 is actually pushing the fringe of ideal. Although in a sense it doesn't matter as both stones have ASET, Idealscope and H&A images to confirm light performance and symmetry and supersedes what these generic charts tell us. I just find it interesting for my own purposes to compare live examples to the charts.



More interesting -- the 1.43 appears to have very slight leakage in the ASET around the 2 o'clock position. Hey @Texas Leaguer, have you noticed this?

 

[MissGotRocks]

I definitely like the 1.41 stone better! It should be a bright, lively stone! Congrats on the sale of your Tiffany ring and moving into a larger, dazzling stone. Can't wait to see it set!

 

[Weecam]

They're both STUNNING! I wouldn't know how to pick... They're the same color/clarity/size/table %. I'd probably go with the one WF picked for you and put the $200 saved into the setting

Clouds not shown shouldn't be a problem with an ACA that has been vetted by the AGS for ideal light return

Yes that’s what I was told, no haziness at all. She had to look at the plot to determine where the inclusions were under magnification.

 

[Weecam]

I definitely like the 1.41 stone better! It should be a bright, lively stone! Congrats on the sale of your Tiffany ring and moving into a larger, dazzling stone. Can't wait to see it set!

Thank you!

 

[Weecam]

You have to remember these are VS1's and you will need a scope to see the inclusions. Both are eye clean, and neither have inclusions that will impede light performance.

Look at both videos in full size (not the smaller "compare" screen). The 1.412 appears to have more fire and is more lively to me. For that reason that is what I would choose if the decision were mine. The other isn't a bad choice by any stretch of the imagination. It's gorgeous too. Just the 1.412 speaks to me more and has "personality" I like better.

Comparing the AGS proportions chart, you can see how close they are to each other. You can see the 1.412 is actually pushing the fringe of ideal. Although in a sense it doesn't matter as both stones have ASET, Idealscope and H&A images to confirm light performance and symmetry and supersedes what these generic charts tell us. I just find it interesting for my own purposes to compare live examples to the charts.



More interesting -- the 1.43 appears to have very slight leakage in the ASET around the 2 o'clock position. Hey @Texas Leaguer, have you noticed this?

Thanks @sledge! You’re a pro already!!

 

[sledge]

Thanks @sledge! You’re a pro already!!

Thank you.

And eek....not sure I deserve a title of pro. I'm still learning. People like @rockysalamander and several others here deserve that title way more than I do. But I do have fun. Never thought I'd enjoy diamonds so much. Just trying to pay it forward as I received some wonderful help and guidance as I've been chugging along on my journey.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Wow, you made a fantastic choice!!! I love the stone you chose!

However, the other stone is outstanding, as well. The circled area isn't leakage @sledge . If you look at the idealscope image, you can see the white areas of intentional leakage. There is no leakage where sledge circled in white.

 

[sledge]

Wow, you made a fantastic choice!!! I love the stone you chose!

However, the other stone is outstanding, as well. The circled area isn't leakage @sledge . If you look at the idealscope image, you can see the white areas of intentional leakage. There is no leakage where sledge circled in white.

Yes, I should not have used the term "leakage". Looking back, clearly this is not the case when reviewing the IS image. However, it does show up as green indicating slightly less intense light return. Normally you'd see red in that area.

Either way, it's really really minor and I don't think it adversely affects the stone. I am sorry if I gave off that impression.

 

[Weecam]

Wow, you made a fantastic choice!!! I love the stone you chose!

Thank you @rockysalamander!