Opinion

[kbin]

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts! They have given me a lot of clarity.

I must add this entire process feels like buying a car without test driving it!

 

[MissGotRocks]

I must add this entire process feels like buying a car without test driving it!

Except if buying with Whiteflash, they have a money back guarantee if you don’t love the diamond. Are you closer to making a choice?

 

[sledge]

If you aren’t aware, WF has a retail space in Sugar Land, TX which is just outside Houston. They are located in Town Square which is a cool little spot on its own.

Getting to see multiple ACA’s and learn first hand about their stones, processes, etc is a worthwhile flight IMO. Kind of a small expense for a $30k diamond. Plus, Bryan and his team are top shelf.

Alternatively talk with the WF team. Unless they’ve changed policy, they would mail you a stone for evaluation. You pay ahead of time for the stone(s) and then when you return they are refunded.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Except you are sort of choosing from four identical make and models of car and trying to distinguish between them! For real, these will all look utterly identical.

 

[sledge]

Except you are sort of choosing from four identical make and models of car and trying to distinguish between them! For real, these will all look utterly identical.

Yes and no. If we had a good photo of all the diamonds face down like you would grade color we may be able to see minor shade differences.

Also, even though proportions look identical those are averaged & rounded. Some variation is present although hard to detect with the naked eye.

IMO, you see these differences best in the fire videos. Excluding the 1.82 F/VVS1 as it’s now sold and unavailable. We will double down on the 2.02 F/VS2 instead — which the stills look great but how much fire and the intensity (gauged by how it stretches to the edge of frame) is pretty awesome in video at normal speed. I would have the 2.02 on reserve personally.

Also the 1.72 is lovely. None are “bad” but these 2 really stand out IMO.

 

[freddyboston]

Except you are sort of choosing from four identical make and models of car and trying to distinguish between them! For real, these will all look utterly identical.

Might be helpful to ask them to put some lower color / clarity ACA's into the compare mix.. lot's of people end up doing trade in / upgrades so one thought would be to buy a near colorless ACA now at 50-60% of budget (hold/invest the rest $) and wait for the natural market pricing / tariff drama etc settle a bit....

benefit is instead of needing to spend 150% of orig $30k spend (credit) + $15k min more...you'd be looking at 16k (credit) + $8k min $

 

[kbin]

Might be helpful to ask them to put some lower color / clarity ACA's into the compare mix.. lot's of people end up doing trade in / upgrades so one thought would be to buy a near colorless ACA now at 50-60% of budget (hold/invest the rest $) and wait for the natural market pricing / tariff drama etc settle a bit....

benefit is instead of needing to spend 150% of orig $30k spend (credit) + $15k min more...you'd be looking at 16k (credit) + $8k min $

Thanks Freddyboston! I’ve always wanted a sparkly fiery stone so decided to do this for our 25th wedding anniversary.

 

[kbin]

Yes and no. If we had a good photo of all the diamonds face down like you would grade color we may be able to see minor shade differences.

Also, even though proportions look identical those are averaged & rounded. Some variation is present although hard to detect with the naked eye.

IMO, you see these differences best in the fire videos. Excluding the 1.82 F/VVS1 as it’s now sold and unavailable. We will double down on the 2.02 F/VS2 instead — which the stills look great but how much fire and the intensity (gauged by how it stretches to the edge of frame) is pretty awesome in video at normal speed. I would have the 2.02 on reserve personally.

Also the 1.72 is lovely. None are “bad” but these 2 really stand out IMO.

Wow! What makes the 2.02 so much more fiery than the 1.72 or 1.84? The lower halfs are pretty similar and crown too. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I maintain that nitpicking about these videos when they are all branded cuts may be a fun intellectual exercise but as someone with long history with diamonds I can basically guarantee that to the naked eye, average across lighting conditions, these will look indistinguishable. If you had some non-branded cuts in the mix or some very different color stones, maybe. But for OP it seems they have reached analysis paralysis and unless they enjoy these minutia they are not practically useful for choosing among functionally identical stones.

Even comparing fire videos is not a valid method as minute differences in angles can entirely change the photography.

 

[kbin]

I maintain that nitpicking about these videos when they are all branded cuts may be a fun intellectual exercise but as someone with long history with diamonds I can basically guarantee that to the naked eye, average across lighting conditions, these will look indistinguishable. If you had some non-branded cuts in the mix or some very different color stones, maybe. But for OP it seems they have reached analysis paralysis and unless they enjoy these minutia they are not practically useful for choosing among functionally identical stones.

Even comparing fire videos is not a valid method as minute differences in angles can entirely change the photography

Thank you for the word of caution/reason. I hope I wasn’t being nitpicky. I just like to dive deep when I’m trying to understand something. It helps me feel confident and enjoy the choice even more.

 

[0-0-0]

Wow! What makes the 2.02 so much more fiery than the 1.72 or 1.84? The lower halfs are pretty similar and crown too. Any thoughts on that?

Could simply be the bigger size. Bigger virtual facets have more potential for bigger flashes and more visible fire. An increase of more than 0.2 mm in diameter is definitely a visible size difference in any case.

 

[freddyboston]

Thanks Freddyboston! I’ve always wanted a sparkly fiery stone so decided to do this for our 25th wedding anniversary.

25 years !!! congrats ! In that case i'd be looking at either of the already suggested WF ACA 2ct's+

Diamond comparison | Compare Diamonds to choose and buy the best one

Whiteflash gives you an excellent opportunity to compare diamonds to make a great deal. With diamond’s parameters provided, you can compare any detail.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[chamois]

25 years !!! congrats ! In that case i'd be looking at either of the already suggested WF ACA 2ct's+

Diamond comparison | Compare Diamonds to choose and buy the best one

Whiteflash gives you an excellent opportunity to compare diamonds to make a great deal. With diamond’s parameters provided, you can compare any detail.

www.whiteflash.com

Personally, of all the ones listed above these two would be my top choice too. If it were me, I would get WF to do a side by side video. The 2.03 looks a tiny bit larger in the above image that Freddyboston posted. Looking at the fire from both stones my eyes are seeing a tad bit more from the 2.03. I also wonder where the F & G (close to each other, or a high F, nearer an E, or closer to a G, and the G closer to a H) are on their colour scale? I do favour the smaller table on the 2.03 (that is me though ).

Good luck!

 

[freddyboston]

if you like fire that G 2.03 really knocks it out of the park with that 55 table 15.5 crown 35/40.8 and 80% lowers....

 

[chamois]

if you like fire that G 2.03 really knocks it out of the park with that 55 table 15.5 crown 35/40.8 and 80% lowers....

Couldn’t agree more!

The VS1 is nice to have as well!

 

[sledge]

Thank you for the word of caution/reason. I hope I wasn’t being nitpicky. I just like to dive deep when I’m trying to understand something. It helps me feel confident and enjoy the choice even more.

Pretty sure those comments were directed at me, not you. I don’t disagree that we are talking minute differences that will be very difficult to see with the naked eye.

I’ve said it a few times, you have selected great stones with no real bad choices. Good luck with what you choose, I will stop muddying the waters for you and others.

Could simply be the bigger size. Bigger virtual facets have more potential for bigger flashes and more visible fire. An increase of more than 0.2 mm in diameter is definitely a visible size difference in any case.

Excellent point!

Personally, of all the ones listed above these two would be my top choice too. If it were me, I would get WF to do a side by side video. The 2.03 looks a tiny bit larger in the above image that Freddyboston posted.

Agree that pic looks like the 2.03 is larger. However, looking at dims we are comparing 8.10mm to 8.14mm. That’s 4/100ths of a mm variance. Makes me think the photography for each stone was zoomed slightly different as I don’t think we would see that with the naked eye.

if you like fire that G 2.03 really knocks it out of the park with that 55 table 15.5 crown 35/40.8 and 80% lowers....

GIA rounds to 5% increments so 80’s will capture averaged 78-82 actual values. Looking at the hearts image these look like 78’s to me but I get you were talking GIA speak.

Not terribly surprising as I think the vast majority of H&A stones are 76-78. I tend to lean towards 76 as I like fatter arrows, which also produce bolder flashes of rainbow light. But I’ve come to terms that select combos & star values work better with 78’s+ in some scenarios. Amazing how the minor facets can have big impacts.

Photos of 2.03 G/VS2 hearts image and other AGS stone (1.071 E/VS1) for reference.

Diamond | 1.071 ct E VS1 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4553541

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 1.071 carat E color VS1 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4553541

www.whiteflash.com

Couldn’t agree more!

The VS1 is nice to have as well!

Agree on VS1.

 

[kbin]

You guys were all right — the 2.03 G VS1 is absolutely beautiful!!!! Here is a picture from WF comparing it with the 1.84 F VVS1. I like the fire slightly better than the 1.84 I selected, but it’s big for my 5.5/5.75 finger. Confused here — any wise words? Would the fire/sparkle factor be visibly less in the 1.84? Sure, I won’t have a second stone to compare to in the future, but just wondering if it’ll be noticeably less?

 

[freddyboston]

it's not too big - get the 2ct.....otherwise you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon.....

 

[chamois]

I have a 3.78 stone and got used to it very quickly.

My eyes don’t detect any colour difference between the F & G on my monitor.

Ask your sales associate for their opinion too on any of your concerns.

 

[sledge]

it's not too big - get the 2ct.....otherwise you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon.....

100% agree.

The 2.03 isn’t “OMG, look at that honker” bigger. It is about 0.20mm.

Detectable to the naked eye, yes. But to put in a different perspective, this is about 1/128”. Most rulers or tape measures go down to 1/16” — this is about 1/8th of 1/16”, or 0.0078”.

My money says live with it a month and you don’t even remember the size difference between it and the 1.84. You will remember the magic fire dance it does.

My eyes don’t detect any colour difference between the F & G on my monitor.

Ask your sales associate for their opinion too on any of your concerns.

Good suggestion.

FYI, most people struggle to see 1 shade of color difference. Especially in a FACE UP position. ACA’s are cut for beauty & max light return. They will look bright as the ASET’s prove. Unless the wearer has extraordinary vision, you will need to put the stones FACE DOWN with pavilions up so you can use the body of the stone to see the color. This is also how GIA does it when they grade.

Even in the proper face down position, an F & G may still look very similar. There are ranges of color within a color grade so a low F (closer to G) may look like a high G (closer to F). As you move to D that range is smaller, just as you move down it grows a little larger. But often we say high, medium or low to gain an approximation.

Becca @ WF and I was just discussing this the other day in regards to AGS and GIA grading. Some folks say AGS was softer on color grades. I think a lot of that has to do with human analysis and ranges.

The other variable not talked about is that as we age our vision tends to worsen. What we see at 30 may be different at 40, 50, 60, etc.

Getting a stone the wearer loves is most important regardless what grade the report says.

 

[MissGotRocks]

@sledge is absolutely correct - the difference in size is not huge by any stretch and would not be a factor for me or many others. Go for the 2.03 because you will eventually regret not going for it. They are both beautiful diamonds, but hitting that two carat mark is very special!

 

[kbin]

Hi all, I went with the 2.03 G VS1. Thank you all so much for your help and thoughtful advice—I truly appreciated every bit of it. A special thanks to Becca at WF, who was absolutely wonderful and incredibly patient, giving me the space and time to make up my mind. I’m very grateful for her help!

 

[MissGotRocks]

Hi all, I went with the 2.03 G VS1. Thank you all so much for your help and thoughtful advice—I truly appreciated every bit of it. A special thanks to Becca at WF, who was absolutely wonderful and incredibly patient, giving me the space and time to make up my mind. I’m very grateful for her help!

Excellent! Please come back with pictures once the ring is finished. So very happy for you - Whiteflash and Becca are both wonderful!

 

[sledge]

Love it! Congrats on the new stone. Can’t wait to see pics!

Becca is helping us with something right now as well. More details to come later.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Love it! Congrats on the new stone. Can’t wait to see pics!

Becca is helping us with something right now as well. More details to come later.

Becca is so wonderful to work with - can't wait to see what you guys choose!!

 

[TXwidow]

I was just wondering why (and when you would talk more about this)

Becca @ WF and I was just discussing this the other day in regards to AGS and GIA grading. Some folks say AGS was softer on color grades. I think a lot of that has to do with human analysis and range

Becca is helping us with something right now as well. More details to come later.