Need advice on deciding between two diamonds

[Paulk]

I have narrowed my selection down to these two diamonds. The questions is would the 1.81 I VS1 be just as good as the 1.72 I VS1 H&A diamond for light performance, sparkle, brilliance, fire etc. There is a decent difference in price that I would love to know if it is warranted.


http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3260771.htm

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R181-DRM434

Opinion is appreciated.

 

[pfunk]

Whether the price premium is worth it depends largely on personal factors. For example, if you plan to upgrade in the future, the price premium is more warranted as whiteflash has a good upgrade policy. Also, WF ACA stones all go through a thorough inspection that may be important to you (enchanted diamonds are inspected too, but you'd have to ask them what that means exactly). If you are asking if the price premium is worth it from a visual standpoint, I would venture to say no. The diamond from enchanted has a wealth of info to show that it is going to perform well and will be very similar to the WF stone in terms of its "look".

Personally I would have a hard time spending the premium for a similar looking diamond, but I don't anticipate using an upgrade policy and I would be seeking a good appraiser for a thorough review of the stone after my purchase anyhow. All the money saved can pay for the appraisal and much more. Again, my personal opinion. You have to decide what is best for you.

 

[RockyRacoon]

I have narrowed my selection down to these two diamonds. The questions is would the 1.81 I VS1 be just as good as the 1.72 I VS1 H&A diamond for light performance, sparkle, brilliance, fire etc.

Short answer - No

The 1.72ct is a better cut stone.

You can see leakage in the Idealscope for the 1.81ct stone.

Whether the difference is important to you or not is a question only you can answer.

 

[tmorrow]

You can see leakage in the Idealscope for the 1.81ct stone.

I don't see more leakage in the BE stone than in the WF.
More optical assymetry yes, more table reflection yes, more leakage no.

 

[pfunk]

I have narrowed my selection down to these two diamonds. The questions is would the 1.81 I VS1 be just as good as the 1.72 I VS1 H&A diamond for light performance, sparkle, brilliance, fire etc.

Short answer - No

The 1.72ct is a better cut stone.

You can see leakage in the Idealscope for the 1.81ct stone.

Whether the difference is important to you or not is a question only you can answer.

Remember, Paulk, that "better" is a subjective term based on what Rocky thinks makes a diamond beautiful. Based on the context that Rocky provided here, we are led to assume that the amount of "leakage" is the sole determinant of what defines a well cut stone. Additionally, we are made to believe by such a post that leakage is a negative aspect that must detract from beauty. But, if you do a good amount of research here you will find that leakage depicted by the monoscopic view of the ASET scope may actually provide contrast and increase the perception of beauty in human stereoscopic vision. So depending on your tastes and YOUR perception of beauty, you may find the dreaded "leaky" stone to be more beautiful.

And in all honesty, that amount of "leakage" is likely hard to perceive. And finally, when you hear "leakage" used here it always has a negative connotation attached. Just remember that if set with the pavilion exposed, light will be entering the pavilion where the "leakage" is and can be returned through the crown to your eyes.

 

[RockyRacoon]

I have narrowed my selection down to these two diamonds. The questions is would the 1.81 I VS1 be just as good as the 1.72 I VS1 H&A diamond for light performance, sparkle, brilliance, fire etc.

Short answer - No

The 1.72ct is a better cut stone.

You can see leakage in the Idealscope for the 1.81ct stone.

Whether the difference is important to you or not is a question only you can answer.

Remember, Paulk, that "better" is a subjective term based on what Rocky thinks makes a diamond beautiful. Based on the context that Rocky provided here, we are led to assume that the amount of "leakage" is the sole determinant of what defines a well cut stone. Additionally, we are made to believe by such a post that leakage is a negative aspect that must detract from beauty. But, if you do a good amount of research here you will find that leakage depicted by the monoscopic view of the ASET scope may actually provide contrast and increase the perception of beauty in human stereoscopic vision. So depending on your tastes and YOUR perception of beauty, you may find the dreaded "leaky" stone to be more beautiful.

And in all honesty, that amount of "leakage" is likely hard to perceive. And finally, when you hear "leakage" used here it always has a negative connotation attached. Just remember that if set with the pavilion exposed, light will be entering the pavilion where the "leakage" is and can be returned through the crown to your eyes.

And remember, Paulk, pfunk has never seen a superideal stone, so all of his comments about the topic are theoretical.

 

[pfunk]

I have narrowed my selection down to these two diamonds. The questions is would the 1.81 I VS1 be just as good as the 1.72 I VS1 H&A diamond for light performance, sparkle, brilliance, fire etc.

Short answer - No

The 1.72ct is a better cut stone.

You can see leakage in the Idealscope for the 1.81ct stone.

Whether the difference is important to you or not is a question only you can answer.

Remember, Paulk, that "better" is a subjective term based on what Rocky thinks makes a diamond beautiful. Based on the context that Rocky provided here, we are led to assume that the amount of "leakage" is the sole determinant of what defines a well cut stone. Additionally, we are made to believe by such a post that leakage is a negative aspect that must detract from beauty. But, if you do a good amount of research here you will find that leakage depicted by the monoscopic view of the ASET scope may actually provide contrast and increase the perception of beauty in human stereoscopic vision. So depending on your tastes and YOUR perception of beauty, you may find the dreaded "leaky" stone to be more beautiful.

And in all honesty, that amount of "leakage" is likely hard to perceive. And finally, when you hear "leakage" used here it always has a negative connotation attached. Just remember that if set with the pavilion exposed, light will be entering the pavilion where the "leakage" is and can be returned through the crown to your eyes.

And remember, Paulk, pfunk has never seen a superideal stone, so all of his comments about the topic are theoretical.

Rather than take the thread down a worm hole as you seem to want it to go, why don't you try to articulate to the OP where the visual defects are in the images. Then explain how such a defect might be seen in real life.

As the OP specifically asked, what might the differences be in regards to "light performance, sparkle, brilliance, fire etc". After you explain what you'd expect the differences to be in those aspects, based on the images provided, the OP may be better informed to decide whether differences in performance are worth nearly $3,000 more. In other words, is there going to be a visual difference of 20% to justify the 20% premium. Rather than just saying "This one is cut better", try to put it into perspective. You started with what you called the "short answer". I imagine the OP may be better served if you share the "long answer" regarding the differences in cut quality and the visual differences that result from it.

OP, as you can see from the images, both diamonds have very, very good performance. Both are without a doubt in my mind beautiful stones. They may have slightly different flavors looking at the numbers. The whiteflash stone (shorter LGF's) may have a tendency towards slightly larger flashes. The enchanted diamond (longer LGF's) might have a tendency towards more smaller flashes, though these differences will be subtle. Here is another great GOG video that speaks to the differences in LGF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9FtRj_IG9Y

 

[pfunk]

Another comparison video that you may find useful...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk5W7dAniaA

 

[diamondseeker2006]

This is all personal preference. I prefer superideals, personally. I like having the best cut. I also like trade-in policies. I like that WF has been around longer and has hundreds of positive references. I have WF ACA's for my stud earrings and they are gorgeous.

Both stones are nice. It just depends on whether size is your most important objective or whether the best cut is.

 

[Paulk]

I appreciate all the comments. Do you think the 1.72ct H&A super ideal cut would show (face up) "bigger" in comparison to a non H&A cut of equal or bigger size (say 1.8-2ct). I guess I'm still trying to figure out if the premium is worth it.

 

[pfunk]

No. It will not. If the diameter is smaller and the non h&a has a great idealscope like the one posted, the h&a is not going to look bigger. It certainly won't look bigger than a 2 carat. It would be visibly smaller.

 

[KobiD]

This discussion again. It really boils down to your own definition of value, and your expectations of the stone.

How much will you scrutineer it? Will you be louping it, viewing it in h&a viewers, and trying to capture its precision through photography? If you answer no to all of these, then it'll be hard to justify/quantify the value in the WF stone.

The other is far from a poorly cut stone, the IS and ASET look good. Its not at the same level of perfection as the WF, but even under close inspection you won't find huge differences without knitpicking or seeking out the flaws. From afar, there would be even less in it.