Need advice between 3 loose diamonds

[bb137]

Hi everyone! I'm hoping someone out there can help me out. I've been a long time lurker and I'm finally starting to look for an upgrade for my wife's engagement ring. I feel like her diamond is small and I'm able to purchase something a little bit bigger but I need your help!

I am stuck between these three diamonds on the BGD website:

1) http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.317-h-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104081959007

2) http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.387-h-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104083953036

3) http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.425-h-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104083953006

My wife is extremely detail oriented and super picky. I need an eye clean diamond which BGD assures me all three of these SHOULD be. I am trying to find a good balance between all the C's of the diamonds to pick a good sized diamond for my wife.

She has told me that she does not like the color of the diamond to be any lower than H and the inclusions in the diamonds lower than a VS2 bother me. I am leaning more towards the third one or the second one; however, in the amount of brillance, I feel like the first one is the shiniest out of them all while looking at them on the website only but is that because there are less inclusions to block the brilliance of the first diamond?

The inclusions on the second and third diamonds scare me a little bit but the ASET/Idealscope image on the first diamond bother me as well... I also noticed that I can clearly see the inclusions in the pictures of the second and third diamonds but I don't think I can see them with the naked eye, is that correct?

My wife's current diamond is smaller but she stares at it A LOT. We hunted months for that particular one. And I would ask my wife, but I want it to be a surprise.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you so much.

 

[EvaEvans]

I wouldn't buy VS2 especially when the inclusions are under the diamond table.
From your three options I would pick up your first choice of VS1.

 

[bb137]

I wouldn't buy VS2 especially when the inclusions are under the diamond table.
From your three options I would pick up your first choice of VS1.

Thanks for your reply! Ah, I didn't even think about the location of the inclusions.
If you were to pick between the first diamond in my original post and this one: http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.358-i-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104083953033
which one would be better? The color goes down to an I color instead of a H color but there are less inclusions in this one...

Thanks in advance!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There's normally not a thing wrong with VS2!!! Just verify eye-cleanness with BG, but I don't think they'd put a non eyeclean stone in their signature line. The obvious choice is the 1.42 (the third one). It is a rare size just under 1.5 and very desirable because you avoid the price jump at 1.5. Plus, it certainly looks clean to me in the video. All of those diamonds will be beautiful. So go for the largest while prices are low!!!

Please put that 1.42 stone on hold. I really worry about great stones being taken by lurkers!

 

[spon88]

Hi,

I tend to agree with diamondseeker - all should be lovely stones but the 1.425 looks like good value to me. I went through a similar process with BGD in the last month and recently received the ring - a beautiful 1.54 ct H VS1. But VS2 should be fine - and it looks like a good price too as you still get a good size but avoid the 1.5 ct break. I'd still ask them for the ASET and Idealscope images which I don't see on the website at the moment?

Some of the BGD videos are a bit deceptive in that I think the video lighting might be a little bit variable. This might give the impression that some stones are brighter than others but I suspect this is not the case in real life. Our stone looked a little bit duller than some on the video but it wasn't - at the end of the day you have the tight AGS grading backing up the "signature" specs from BGD. I would be very surprised if there was anything sub-standard in that range.

H colour (UK spelling!) was fine for us - faced up very white and no discernible tint from the side unless you look very closely. So might make you feel a bit better? We had our set in a simple "Novela Patientia" setting to accentuate the centre stone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuc_8WcVt3c

Good luck with it!

 

[bb137]

There's normally not a thing wrong with VS2!!! Just verify eye-cleanness with BG, but I don't think they'd put a non eyeclean stone in their signature line. The obvious choice is the 1.42 (the third one). It is a rare size just under 1.5 and very desirable because you avoid the price jump at 1.5. Plus, it certainly looks clean to me in the video. All of those diamonds will be beautiful. So go for the largest while prices are low!!!

Please put that 1.42 stone on hold. I really worry about great stones being taken by lurkers!

Hi diamondseeker! Thank you for your response. There's another very similar diamond to the one I posted and it has less inclusions. It is just a tad bit more in carat weight; in this case, how badly would the inclusions affect the brillance/sparkle of the diamond?

And thank you for the warning! I wondered about the lurkers taking diamonds but I deemed it a necessary risk to get the highly valued opinions of PS-ers.

 

[bb137]

Hi,

I tend to agree with diamondseeker - all should be lovely stones but the 1.425 looks like good value to me. I went through a similar process with BGD in the last month and recently received the ring - a beautiful 1.54 ct H VS1. But VS2 should be fine - and it looks like a good price too as you still get a good size but avoid the 1.5 ct break. I'd still ask them for the ASET and Idealscope images which I don't see on the website at the moment?

Some of the BGD videos are a bit deceptive in that I think the video lighting might be a little bit variable. This might give the impression that some stones are brighter than others but I suspect this is not the case in real life. Our stone looked a little bit duller than some on the video but it wasn't - at the end of the day you have the tight AGS grading backing up the "signature" specs from BGD. I would be very surprised if there was anything sub-standard in that range.

H colour (UK spelling!) was fine for us - faced up very white and no discernible tint from the side unless you look very closely. So might make you feel a bit better? We had our set in a simple "Novela Patientia" setting to accentuate the centre stone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuc_8WcVt3c

Good luck with it!

My wife's current diamond is also from BG and she loves it! I'm purchasing from them again because they were so great and helpful the first time and I was really pleased with the diamond. Thanks for the video, your ring is super beautiful!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There's normally not a thing wrong with VS2!!! Just verify eye-cleanness with BG, but I don't think they'd put a non eyeclean stone in their signature line. The obvious choice is the 1.42 (the third one). It is a rare size just under 1.5 and very desirable because you avoid the price jump at 1.5. Plus, it certainly looks clean to me in the video. All of those diamonds will be beautiful. So go for the largest while prices are low!!!

Please put that 1.42 stone on hold. I really worry about great stones being taken by lurkers!

Hi diamondseeker! Thank you for your response. There's another very similar diamond to the one I posted and it has less inclusions. It is just a tad bit more in carat weight; in this case, how badly would the inclusions affect the brillance/sparkle of the diamond?

And thank you for the warning! I wondered about the lurkers taking diamonds but I deemed it a necessary risk to get the highly valued opinions of PS-ers.

The number of inclusions is not the issue in a VS2. It is the kinds of inclusions that matters. AGS is strict on clarity grading, so it is extremely unlikely that you'd have any issues at all. I absolutely would not rule out that 1.42 unless BG says there is a problem. I would not go below H color.

 

[bb137]

There's normally not a thing wrong with VS2!!! Just verify eye-cleanness with BG, but I don't think they'd put a non eyeclean stone in their signature line. The obvious choice is the 1.42 (the third one). It is a rare size just under 1.5 and very desirable because you avoid the price jump at 1.5. Plus, it certainly looks clean to me in the video. All of those diamonds will be beautiful. So go for the largest while prices are low!!!

Please put that 1.42 stone on hold. I really worry about great stones being taken by lurkers!

Hi diamondseeker! Thank you for your response. There's another very similar diamond to the one I posted and it has less inclusions. It is just a tad bit more in carat weight; in this case, how badly would the inclusions affect the brillance/sparkle of the diamond?

And thank you for the warning! I wondered about the lurkers taking diamonds but I deemed it a necessary risk to get the highly valued opinions of PS-ers.

The number of inclusions is not the issue in a VS2. It is the kinds of inclusions that matters. AGS is strict on clarity grading, so it is extremely unlikely that you'd have any issues at all. I absolutely would not rule out that 1.42 unless BG says there is a problem. I would not go below H color.

Ok, I see... Between the one I posted originally and this one: http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.437-g-vs1round-diamond-ags-104083953025

would there be a major difference? Is it worth paying about $100 more for just a little bit more carat weight and less inclusions overall( the original diamond has crystals, needles, and clouds but this one only has crystals and clouds as well as no additional clouds that aren't shown)?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, I looked up the other one. Have BG pull the two stones. They are a perfect match for large studs! So they will appear identical. Just ask which one is cleanest. It is possible the 1.42 is cleanest, but you cannot judge that from a piece of paper. Have them look with a loupe. The extra $100 is only worth it if the stone is cleaner. But I am not sure that will be the case.

 

[bb137]

Okay, I looked up the other one. Have BG pull the two stones. They are a perfect match for large studs! So they will appear identical. Just ask which one is cleanest. It is possible the 1.42 is cleanest, but you cannot judge that from a piece of paper. Have them look with a loupe.

I will do just that, thanks so much for all of your help!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You're welcome! See what I added about the cost in my last post. I envy you having such great options!! If you only knew how rare it is to have the choice of multiple top cut stones in the 1.40's!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, last comment for now. I'd also try to get them to go down a little on price. See this comparable diamond:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3596857.htm