Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Narrowed it down...it's time to VOTE!

Based on the given information, which diamond is the best?

  • Option 1

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Option 2

    Votes: 7 53.8%
  • Option 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Option 4

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

wwarper

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
4
Alright guys, I've been a lurker here for past couple months and have been diligently doing my homework. I know exactly what she wants, am proposing in 4wks, need to decide this weekend, and have narrowed down my stones to the following four.
PLEASE help me by casting your vote!!

I've attached a PDF that has a side-by-side comparison. Additional details uploaded as separate images. Note I've intentionally left out certain details like vendor (due to other lurkers), but also just want to judge the stones on their own merits.

My filtering criteria were as follows: round brilliant, ~1.2-1.4c, VS2-SI1, H-I, absolutely prioritizing cut to only triple X (GIA) and triple 0s (AGS), ideally in the $7-8k range. This will be paired with a 1.7mm pave setting from JA.

Please also take into account the VALUE. After browsing this forum,it's tempting to go after the best of the best, but really trying to keep my cost down as much as possible (e.g. if it's almost a $1k between an H&A and near H&A and can barely tell in real life, I would rather save the grand)

Lastly, if you think there are alternatives, please please let me know!
 

Attachments

Diamond_Hawk

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
1,221
You will likely get more responses simply posting the diamonds and any images you have to accompany them and asking for opinions.
 

fair75

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
87
I will pick option 2. The idealscope image for this diamond is great and the hearts image is better than the other two. Option 3 is nice too, but the hearts aren't as good.
 

wwarper

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
4
Thanks all!!

I do think option 2 is the most ideal..but any comments on value per dollar? #2 is also the most expensive of the bunch, for its size, etc. For example, #4 is $1400 cheaper, and roughly same size and still has proportions within ideal, I think. If visual/light performance is not THAT great of a difference, is the premium worth it?

Also small edit on the pdf, #3 should be 1.36c not 1.32c. Price-wise, they are as follows relatively (actual $ are made up):
Option 1 - $8050 (1.32c)
Option 2 - $8000 (1.22c)
Option 3 - $8060 (1.36c)
Option 4 - $6600 (1.20c)

Appreciate any and all opinions!
 

flyingpig

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
2,171
#2 is simply a better overall package considering customer service, settings, upgrade policy, and quality assurance.

#1 is good
#3. The knot inclusion is a concern. As long as it is completely eye clean and there is no durability issue, it is a good buy.
#4. You can buy the stone, have it ship to the vendor, ask for the IS. If the IS is good, proceed and have it mounted. If not, get a full refund.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,629
#2 for me.

I strongly suggest getting a setting where you buy the diamond, if possible. I also will recommend that you choose a different setting if you buy a stone from James Allen, because 1.7mm is too thin. 1.8 mm is the absolute minimum that some top ringmakers say is safe for pave. If a ring is too thin and has holes in it for pave, it can bend out of shape. Closer to 2mm is best, and 2mm is still a very thin shank.
 

wwarper

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
4
Thanks everyone for your opinions!

To DS2006's point, I'm going to go with the setting at the vendor where I buy the stone. It seems like #2 is the winner, but if you guys agree that all the options are fairly solid, perhaps I'll pick the stone based on which setting (and therefore vendor). Couple questions:

1. Does this logic make sense? Or is #2 a clear winner and should just go with whatever setting #2's vendor provides?

2. My gf's looking for a pave that's "thin, dainty, subtle", my narrowed down options are the below. Any thoughts on any of these? Past experiences, quality, etc? It seems like most folks here prefer WF's settings and think JA's settings are more sub-par, yet they're plenty popular. I think I do prefer the look of JA's..but certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice significant quality concerns.

- #1 JA' s Petite Pave (1.7mm too thin? IMO looks the best and most affordable)
https://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/platinum-petite-pave-engagement-ring-flush-fit-item-56280

- WF's Harmony Pave (2.3mm too thick? most expensive, also think the basket seems "soldered on", will ask if they can semi-custom to integrate more)
http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/diamond-settings/harmony-diamond-engagement-ring-878.htm

- WF's Charis Vatche (might be too late, given long production time, but does seem like excellent quality)
http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/diamond-settings/charis-pave-diamond-engagement-ring-by-vatche-1657.htm

Appreciate your opinions!!
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
NOT the JA ring. With pave quality REALLY matters and JA's pave reviews on their site report stone loss.

I would go for either of the other two options.
 

wwarper

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
4
Hmm...this is super tough as I really think she would prefer JA's setting over the other ones. Can anybody else attest to the quality of JA's settings??

Also, any thoughts on 14k white gold vs platinum for a thin pave? From my research, seems counter-intuitive that platinum, though stronger, is more likely to bend over time..
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

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