Newbie seeking advice on images

[DonA]

Hi there,

I am new to this site but have read through many posts in the past and I am now (almost) ready to purchase the diamond.
I’m pretty confident that I know what I want in terms of specifications but I’m still a bit unsure about how to decide on a diamond based on its images (i.e., ASET, etc.).

Would you be able to say from the three pictures below which one you’d prefer and why? If you could also point to the flaws in each of them, that would be great.

I appreciate any help I can get!
Thanks

 

[tyty333]

Wow, you're making it hard! They both look good...is there any other way you can decide? Cost, size, color, clarity?

From those images, I dont think you could go wrong with either but I'll vote left stone...mind could be easily changed though
if I knew some of that other info I just posted above.

 

[can24]

I agree with left stone, but that's a newbie giving an opinion to the newbie. Darkness under the table and slight "off" on the optical symmetry on the right stone (and the lack of those flaws on the left stone) are my reasons.

 

[flyingpig]

The first stone has arguably and very marginally better light return. But I much prefer the overall appearance and profile of the second stone (small table).

The final selection depends on other factors such as the other 3cs and price.

I assume it is WF vs BGD??

 

[SimoneDi]

Well, the two stones are not centered identically, which is why it seems that the right stone does not have the same optical precision.
The left stone is ACA, the right stone is BGD, in real life, they will both be amazing. I would say go by price. BGD is running a special until tomorrow- 8% off diamonds. If that helps the price, I would go with that stone. Else, if you think that you will upgrade in the near future, it is easier to do it with WF. I have had multiple BGD stones and have always been super happy. Both choices are great!

 

[SimoneDi]

The first stone has arguably and very marginally better light return. But I much prefer the overall appearance and profile of the second stone (small table).

The final selection depends on other factors such as the other 3cs and price.

I assume it is WF vs BGD??

100% agree!

 

[gm89uk]

The BGD has slightly more obstruction due to the higher crown/higher pavilion of traditional ideal proportions. I'd assume it's roughly >34.8 and 40.8/40.9. The ACA has a lower crown. Both are great, go on price, carat other specs and upgrade policy suitable for you, but with no other info I also prefer the look of the right hand diamond. This is subjective and there is no right answer, both are super ideal, some will prefer the left.

 

[MissGotRocks]

The first stone has arguably and very marginally better light return. But I much prefer the overall appearance and profile of the second stone (small table).

The final selection depends on other factors such as the other 3cs and price.

I assume it is WF vs BGD??

And do you also think that a smaller table needs a higher crown - or does that make a big difference? Just interested to know what you think!

 

[bmfang]

The images look like a WF v BGD contest.

 

[flyingpig]

And do you also think that a smaller table needs a higher crown - or does that make a big difference? Just interested to know what you think!

Yes, I personally like a high crown (35) and smaller table (54~56) combo.
1. high crown and small table means the stone is relatively top heavy. More stone sit above prongs; it can appear more substantial. Many talk about spread. But this aspect is also important to me.
2. such combo gives "tighter" looking appearance, instead of "spready" and "relaxed" appearance
3. The bigger the table, the bigger the glare, which I do not enjoy
4. As the table gets bigger, the table reflection also gets bigger and starts to dominate, which can make the overall appearance one dimensional.

The difference between say 58/34 and 55/35 is easily noticeable to naked eyes.
Having that said, it may be nit-picking for most people, especially when we are talking about stones with super ideal proportions and light performance.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Yes, I personally like a high crown (35) and smaller table (54~56) combo.
1. high crown and small table means the stone is relatively top heavy. More stone sit above prongs; it can appear more substantial
2. such combo gives "tighter" looking appearance, instead of "spready" and "relaxed" appearance
3. The bigger the table, the bigger the glare, which I do not enjoy
4. As the table gets bigger, the table reflection also gets bigger and starts to dominate, which can make the overall appearance one dimensional.

The difference between say 58/34 and 55/35 is easily noticeable to naked eyes.
Having that said, it may be nit-picking for most people, especially when we are talking about stones with super ideal proportions and light performance.

Thanks for your thoughts - always appreciated. I would definitely agree with the bolded above but what would you think about a 55/34.2? It would almost seem like one would cancel out the benefit of the other?

 

[flyingpig]

Thanks for your thoughts - always appreciated. I would definitely agree with the bolded above but what would you think about a 55/34.2? It would almost seem like one would cancel out the benefit of the other?

Of course, it will be more difficult to tell difference between 55/34.2 (or Even 56/34) and 55/35, although I have never done side-a by-side comparison of stones with such combos. But the difference between 58/35 and 55/35 is still noticeable mainly because of the table reflection.
WF allows upto 58 table, but there is not a single ACA with 58 table in their database. All are 57 or less. So in reality, it is really nit picking when you shop from WF ACA or BGD Signature/black.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Of course, it will be more difficult to tell difference between 55/34.2 and 55/35, although I have never done side-a by-side comparison of stones with such combos. But the difference between 58/35 and 55/34 is still noticeable mainly because of the table reflection.
WF allows upto 58 table, but there is not a single ACA with 58 table in their database. All are 57 or less. So in reality, it is really nit picking when you shop from WF ACA or BGD Signature/black.

Yes, I suppose so. I find it interesting though that both of the signature lines do have variances in the specs of the stones. I guess it is always taken for granted that the WF ACA or BGD Signature ideal cut stones will have excellent optics. I have a WF ACA which is a beautifully cut stone but it has specs that are in a more moderate range. I always wonder about some of the others and how they would appear or if there would be a different 'flavor' to them. Thanks again for your time and thoughts!

 

[Dancing Fire]

My dream specs would be ...55% table, 15.5% CH, 34.7 CA, 40.7 Pavil, 77% LGF, 42.9 Pavil depth, 61.8% total depth..= TIC...

Or, 61.9% depth, 54% table, 35.7° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle = FIC..

 

[tanalasta]

Splitting hairs. I prefer the pictures on the left. They just "appeal" more to me on first impression. Lovely symmetry. Can't at a glance see obvious inclusions affecting the light return.

When you bring it down to real life size, the numbers are just numbers. You know it'll look good! Is there a price scope discount at whiteflash still?

 

[DonA]

Thanks a lot for all your messages, this is really helpful! Particularly your posts about the degrees and table size are interesting to read as I’m not very knowledge about these finer details. As some of you eagle-eyed folk have noted, this is WF vs. BGD. I’m having a really hard time deciding between the two.

That is, not just when it comes to the two stones I’ve posted here but the vendors in general. If you have any advice in terms of how to decide between them or have preference yourself for a particular reason, please feel free to share your thoughts!

As for the two stones posted, they are otherwise near identical in terms of colour, clarity, and carat (BGD is slightly more expensive but not by much).

For the images I had a couple more questions:

1. In the right hearts image, there are white spots above the hearts at 8 and 5 o’clock (and one at the edge at 2 o’clock). Are these types of spots anything to be concerned about?

2. The inner circle on the left ASET image seems to be fairly light in colour in comparison to the one on the right, and the shade of green is inconsistent (i.e., red at 6 o’clock, slight green hue at 7 & 8 o’clock, and deep green in most of the remainder of the circle). How would that be noticeable when looking at the stone? Would a more consistent hue be preferable?

I must admit, I’m in need of further reading when it comes to judging images so thanks for the advice! If anybody knows of a good source where I can read up on cut proportions and how they affect light performance, that would also be great!
Lastly, I know some of you have mentioned that they like the overall appearance of the right stone, is that only because it has a smaller table or are there other factors here? As someone mentioned, the right stone has more obstruction, would that not make the left one a better choice?

Thanks!

 

[DonA]

Yes, I suppose so. I find it interesting though that both of the signature lines do have variances in the specs of the stones. I guess it is always taken for granted that the WF ACA or BGD Signature ideal cut stones will have excellent optics. I have a WF ACA which is a beautifully cut stone but it has specs that are in a more moderate range. I always wonder about some of the others and how they would appear or if there would be a different 'flavor' to them. Thanks again for your time and thoughts!

Could you elaborate on that for me, please? It sounds as though you would have liked better specs for your WF ACA.

 

[DonA]

My dream specs would be ...55% table, 15.5% CH, 34.7 CA, 40.7 Pavil, 77% LGF, 42.9 Pavil depth, 61.8% total depth..= TIC...

Or, 61.9% depth, 54% table, 35.7° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle = FIC..

Could you tell me what FIC and TIC means? And why those specs?

 

[MissGotRocks]

Could you elaborate on that for me, please? It sounds as though you would have liked better specs for your WF ACA.

No I love the specs for my stone! Table 56, crown 34.5, pavilion 40.8. A middle of the road group of numbers which provides a good balance for me.
Check with both vendors about upgrade policies. That info could possibly break your tie!

 

[tyty333]

FIC - Firey Ideal cut
BIC - Brilliant Ideal cut
TIC - Tolkowsky Ideal cut
Get more info on it here...
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-crown-and-pavilion

Cut and pasting took me into another font size I cant get out of but anyhow...another thing you
may or may not need to consider is if you ever think you might want to upgrade. For WF you just
have to pick out a stone that cost a dollar more than your original stone. For BGD, you have to
upgrade 2 things out of size, color, and clarity from your original stone.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Could you tell me what FIC and TIC means? And why those specs?

I think he prefers these numbers as he is looking for more fire than brilliance. Just a personal preference. A stone that falls into the FIC area would provide that whereas a stone in the TIC area would give you more of a balance of brilliance (white light) and fire.

 

[SimoneDi]

Also, side comment - is the BGD stone still more expensive with the discount that they are running right now? (8% off)

 

[Dancing Fire]

No I love the specs for my stone! Table 56, crown 34.5, pavilion 40.8. A middle of the road group of numbers which provides a good balance for me.

Identical to my wife's stone... except her's is the skinny arrow type with 80% LGF.

 

[flyingpig]

OP, the inner circle is called table reflectin and the color intensity and color do not matter. The intensity may vary depending on the back light intensity and the color can be either green or red or both.

Some greens around the edges mean these areas are drawing and reflecting light from low angles. Theorically, these areas can appear darker since strong light comes from high angles (ceiling light/sky). But in realityb you are unlikely observe this. Having that said, i do wish there were a bit less green.

 

[DonA]

No I love the specs for my stone! Table 56, crown 34.5, pavilion 40.8. A middle of the road group of numbers which provides a good balance for me.
Check with both vendors about upgrade policies. That info could possibly break your tie!

Sorry, I misread your comment In terms of upgrade policies, I think they're great to have but for that particular ring we would not want to change it in the future.

I think he prefers these numbers as he is looking for more fire than brilliance. Just a personal preference. A stone that falls into the FIC area would provide that whereas a stone in the TIC area would give you more of a balance of brilliance (white light) and fire.

Thanks for clarifying that! Could you also tell me what CH and LGF stands for?

 

[DonA]

FIC - Firey Ideal cut
BIC - Brilliant Ideal cut
TIC - Tolkowsky Ideal cut
Get more info on it here...
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-crown-and-pavilion

Cut and pasting took me into another font size I cant get out of but anyhow...another thing you
may or may not need to consider is if you ever think you might want to upgrade. For WF you just
have to pick out a stone that cost a dollar more than your original stone. For BGD, you have to
upgrade 2 things out of size, color, and clarity from your original stone.

Thanks for the info, I'll have a read through that. I do recall seeing a couple of videos that compared more brilliant/firey stones but I wasn't aware of the proportions for each.

 

[DonA]

Also, side comment - is the BGD stone still more expensive with the discount that they are running right now? (8% off)

I've decided to hold off for now as I want to get a better understanding of the proportion and images first but thanks for pointing that out to me!

 

[DonA]

OP, the inner circle is called table reflectin and the color intensity and color do not matter. The intensity may vary depending on the back light intensity and the color can be either green or red or both.

Some greens around the edges mean these areas are drawing and reflecting light from low angles. Theorically, these areas can appear darker since strong light comes from high angles (ceiling light/sky). But in realityb you are unlikely observe this. Having that said, i do wish there were a bit less green.

Ah, I see! I thought the middle circle (i.e., between the inner and outer circle) was the table. Is there anything else you prefer about the right stone other than the smaller table size?
Also, would you be able to comment on the white spots above the hearts?
Thanks