Opinion on Which Whiteflash Stone to Choose

[Mem6319]

I'm looking for a Whiteflash ACA stone that meets the following criteria.

Carat: At least 1.3
Color: At least I
Clarity: At least SI1 and eye-clean
Budget: ~$10K

I'm deciding between the following three stones (though I'm open to other options) and was looking for some opinions. If the 1.32 stone is truly eye-clean, is there any reason to worry about the inclusions that I'm seeing on the certificate for that stone? If not, that stone appears to be the best value since they're all fairly similar in size.

1.32 Stone
1.347 Stone
1.376 Stone

 

[Big Fat Facets]

I'm looking for a Whiteflash ACA stone that meets the following criteria.

Carat: At least 1.3
Color: At least I
Clarity: At least SI1 and eye-clean
Budget: ~$10K

I'm deciding between the following three stones (though I'm open to other options) and was looking for some opinions. If the 1.32 stone is truly eye-clean, is there any reason to worry about the inclusions that I'm seeing on the certificate for that stone? If not, that stone appears to be the best value since they're all fairly similar in size.

1.32 Stone
1.347 Stone
1.376 Stone

Hi!
I'd go for stone 1.376 or 1.347 with a slight advantage to 1.347 but quite close.
iI'd leave 1.32 alone.
Im still quite the newbie.
im sure the more seasoned and experienced will weigh in for you!
Good Luck!!

 

[lovedogs]

I trust wf when they say a stone is eye clean . But not everyone defines eye clean the same way. I believe the wf definition is 8-12 inches away, face up. So if your definition is different, keep that in mind. I wouldn't hesitate about the 1.32, WF doesn't designate stones as ACAs that have issues.

But for peace of mind you could ask them to take IRL pics of all 3 and let your own eyes decide.

 

[bmfang]

At 7mm in diameter, it’s probably quite unlikely that you’d notice it, but you may suffer from “mind clean” issues with the 1.32. The 1.347 looks clean under the table and the one inclusion I notice in the magnified image could easily be pronged over.

So for me, the 1.347 is the winner.

 

[RunningwithScissors]

If it were me, I'd go for the VS2 1.376. I'm not a diamond expert. It is just my personal view that if this is going to be a ring that I'm selecting for myself to wear for many years to come (or if I were choosing a diamond for a lady I loved) I'd want the highest color/clarity/size combo I could afford within my budget. Personally, having one beautiful, high quality ring is very important to me. Other material things in life I care about much less. For example, a Porche would be wasted on me, I am very happy with our Subaru. But I need a high color, high clarity diamond to be content with an engagement ring (or with a major ring I've purchased for myself.)

 

[tyty333]

You could ask WF for a video of the 1.32 next to the 1.34 at normal viewing distance...say 10 inches.

It is mostly a mind-clean issue. I'm not one to spend extra on something that you cant see but there are those who prefer VS level or higher for
engagement rings.

 

[marcy]

I don't think you can go wrong with any of these diamonds and I would trust WF's opinion. Having them make a video for you is a good idea. I personally would go with the VS2 diamond only because if I see an inclusion; I can't unsee it. It wouldn't bother me in anything other than my ering.