Need help deciding on 1.7~1.9 carats stone

[watcher2021]

Need help deciding between a few diamonds. I prefer a bigger carat size but not when it means bad cut/worse looking stone. I am not sure which factors (table%, depth%, pavilion angle, crown angle, fluorescence, clarity) I can compromise on but still have a stone that looks great. And since I have plenty of time I do not want to get the least bad stone out of the ones I narrowed down to.

1) 1.8 carats, H color, VS1. Depth 62.3%, Table 59% (not under recommended 57%), crown angle 36.5deg (I read somewhere that better crown angle for a round cut is 34-35deg), pavilion angle 40.6deg, med fluorescence.
Is this a good stone overall or is it better to go down in size or color but have better cut parameters?

Riviera Pavé Diamond Engagement Ring in Platinum (1/6 ct. tw.) | Blue Nile

Classic elegance, this diamond engagement ring setting features pavé-set round brilliant diamonds mounted in enduring platinum.

www.bluenile.com

2) 1.8 carats, I color, VVS1, all the cut parameters seem to be optimal except crown angle 36.5deg. The preferred setting is paved solitaire 1/6 carat, H color stones.
Will this difference in color between center stone and paved stones be noticeable and make the ring look worse?
Is it worth going down in color grade to get slightly better cut parameters?

Riviera Pavé Diamond Engagement Ring in Platinum (1/6 ct. tw.) | Blue Nile

Classic elegance, this diamond engagement ring setting features pavé-set round brilliant diamonds mounted in enduring platinum.

www.bluenile.com

3) 1.9 carats, I color, VVS1
Depth 62.4%, table 59%, crown 35.5deg, pavilion deg 41, medium fluorescence. I would prefer to go up in size and was wondering if the bigger table will greatly affect how the stone looks.

Riviera Pavé Diamond Engagement Ring in Platinum (1/6 ct. tw.) | Blue Nile

Classic elegance, this diamond engagement ring setting features pavé-set round brilliant diamonds mounted in enduring platinum.

www.bluenile.com

4) 1.7 carats, H color, most cut parameters seem in optimal range except for crown deg which is 35.5deg. It does not have a picture, but based on numbers it seems like a good compromise for getting better cut parameters and keeping H color for while lowering carat size. Is it going to look much better to justify going down in size?

Riviera Pavé Diamond Engagement Ring in Platinum (1/6 ct. tw.) | Blue Nile

Classic elegance, this diamond engagement ring setting features pavé-set round brilliant diamonds mounted in enduring platinum.

www.bluenile.com

I realize that I have very limited knowledge to determine via internet what is going to look good. I want something around 1.8 H color or 1.8-1.9 I color, but not at the expense of it being a bad stone.
Below is a picture of a 1.5 carat ring that my wife tried on at costco (was just under 12K), which she absolutely loved, but unfortunately it was gone when she wanted to view it again and she does not know the specifications for the stone. We are looking for something similar but a bit bigger in size.

I appreciate all the advice and input. Thank you!!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Why not drop down in clarity and get a colorless diamond?
F VS2 is a sweet spot - especially with some fluoro

 

[sledge]

In regards to proportions, it's not just about a SINGLE value, but rather the combination of ALL the proportions working in relation to one another. Add in the fact that GIA averages the values and then rounds them and it becomes a bit of a guessing game.

If you haven't discovered it yet, the HCA can be an easy way to determine if you are in the ballpark or not. The HCA is an approximation tool not a final definition, but it really helps a bunch when you are shopping for stones and don't quite understand how all these proportions work in relation to one another.

1. Holy chunky monkey arrows -- love that aspect! While outside ideal parameters this is indeed an interesting stone & appealing to me but they aren't everyone's cup of tea. And as you can see with the HCA, it isn't producing the best available performance. So ultimately, I would suggest you reject & keep looking.






2. Reject. This is a steep/deep stone. The 36.5 crown is too steep & does not pair well with the steep 41 pavilion.




3. Reject. Similar deal as #2, except 35.5 crown paired with a 41 pavilion. You would want an inverse relationship. So a 35.5/40.6 may work. Or perhaps a 34/41. But you need to offset the crown-pavilion.



4. Possible contender. 56 table, 62.3 depth, 35.5 crown, 40.6 pavilion & 75 LGF. My concern is looking at pavilion depth, it's reported as 42.5%. Mathematically a "perfect" 40.6 is 42.8 and change, and would get rounded to 43%. This indirectly tells me the actual average & rounded pavilion angles are averaging lower as that depth is reported as 42.5 instead of 43. The concern would be slipping below 40.45 on actuals as you will start to see increased obstruction. And you'd want longer LGF's (80+) to help counter balance that if you have pavilions creeping 40.45 or less.

 

[sledge]

The other thing to consider when evaluating stones is that the various proportions can push the weight around differently in each stone.

Typically steep-deep stones push more of the weight in the vertical plane, so that the diameter of the stone (aka "spread") looks smaller as it's taller, or skinnier, than an ideal cut stone with complimentary proportions. Just as a shallow stone can push that weight into the horizontal plan to make it look fatter, or have a larger spread than normal for it's carat weight.

While pushing the weight has an optical effect on the spread, the more important factor is that it affects the cut.




I noticed you are targeting $14-16k for a stone. This is one option that is a super ideal diamond. That means it has ideal proportions and H&A symmetry. Additionally it comes not only with a lab report, but advanced images to confirm its truly a performer and leaves no doubt about its cut performance.

WF ACA 1.716 I-VS2 @ $14,399 wire

Diamond | 1.716 ct I VS2 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4345119

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 1.716 carat I color VS2 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4345119

www.whiteflash.com

Proportions are dreamy. And notice the spread is about 7.72mm average? Technically less carat weight but same or slightly larger diameter than poorly cut 1.80ct stones (options 1 & 2 above). And while option 4 above shows promise, this stone actually sizes a little bigger despite being just fractions of a carat larger.

 

[DejaWiz]

The other thing to consider when evaluating stones is that the various proportions can push the weight around differently in each stone.

Typically steep-deep stones push more of the weight in the vertical plane, so that the diameter of the stone (aka "spread") looks smaller as it's taller, or skinnier, than an ideal cut stone with complimentary proportions. Just as a shallow stone can push that weight into the horizontal plan to make it look fatter, or have a larger spread than normal for it's carat weight.

While pushing the weight has an optical effect on the spread, the more important factor is that it affects the cut.




I noticed you are targeting $14-16k for a stone. This is one option that is a super ideal diamond. That means it has ideal proportions and H&A symmetry. Additionally it comes not only with a lab report, but advanced images to confirm its truly a performer and leaves no doubt about its cut performance.

WF ACA 1.716 I-VS2 @ $14,399 wire

Diamond | 1.716 ct I VS2 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4345119

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 1.716 carat I color VS2 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4345119

www.whiteflash.com

Proportions are dreamy. And notice the spread is about 7.72mm average? Technically less carat weight but same or slightly larger diameter than poorly cut 1.80ct stones (options 1 & 2 above). And while option 4 above shows promise, this stone actually sizes a little bigger despite being just fractions of a carat larger.

This. All of it.

WF ACA can be an absolute bargain, especially when compared to the more expensive big brand retailers that run mostly on name recognition while pushing/selling diamonds with looser specs leading to less light performance.

 

[lovedogs]

Option 1 is close to a transitional cut with those huge arrows. I agree w @sledge that 4 is your best option of the ones you gave, but I personally prefer the one he linked

 

[musicloveranthony]

Oh the chunky LHF on that first one make me drool!!