options aplenty- 1 ct AVC in RG VanC

[apacherose]

Hi, I'm hoping to have some help analyzing my options on this choice. I know it is a lot, but please help me sort through- I'm anxious about choosing, anxious about sharing.... kind of working myself into a tizzy on what was heretofore just a fun fun thing.

Backstory... nevermind- too long, lol. Summing it up as succinctly as I can, when I was looking for a setting for my AVR Van Craeynest was unable to make one, they had stopped production. I tried even 'fitting' my diamond into what they had in stock, to no avail. Greenwich jewelry put their VanC on sale and I bought a RG band and ER. The ER is for a 1 ct round, but it seems a 1 ct cushion is okay. I had planned on buying Arkieb's gorgeous gorgeous .99K AVC and calling it a day. I loved Aelionarpa's J in the delicate VanC band. Well, it turned out my dear husband is a bit too color sensitive for a K. So we had the rings sent to GOG and are looking for the right AVC to put in there. There are a lot of 1 carat options at about the same pricepoint.

David is helping me and liked this 1.02 G VS2 the best: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11494/


I put it on hold and also got a photo of the ring with this 1.0 E VS2, which David said he favored over the 1.0 F VS2.

I figured after seeing the photos I would agree with David and get the G and yay. But actually the E took a prettier picture for me. I hope the pictures post so you can see. I kinda like the contrast of the E with the RG. The E is smaller... my husband said it looked darker to him... and one of its VS inclusions is on the table...

Goal: pick the prettiest stone. taking setting into account, obviously.

So, I will try to list the options with my thoughts so far, I'm hoping you will correct me if I am making false assumptions and help me see things I did not think of:

1.051 D Si1- 6.05 x 6.13 -46%table/23.6%crown depth
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11737/
This might be my new front runner. I dismissed it initially because D Si1 seems incongruent and I don't place a premium on 'D' color per se...
positives: 1.size is relatively bigger and ideal for the setting (essentially same as G)... 2.it is 'poofy' with a small table and high crown 3.its primary inclusion seems to be really off to the side in a corner which might be totally under a prong. 4. pretty in her picture. negative: 1.Si inclusion.

1.0 E VS2 5.73 x 5.94 ---53% table 18.3%crown depth
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/12183/
positives- 1. color 2. on sale 3. David said he preferred this one to the F. negatives- 1. DH thinks it looks darker in terms of light performance 2. I think I might prefer smaller tables... more 'poofy'.3. one of its VS inclusions is on the table 4. just a smidge smaller than a couple others. it is like 2-3 square mms if the diamond were flat if I am thinking about it right.

1.0 F VS2 5.72 x 5.95----48.8% table
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/12186/
positives: 1.pretty to me 2. on sale 3. no inclusions on the table (I don't think) negative- smidge smaller than G- same size as E

1.10 H VS1 6.06 X 6.13 ---- 50% table 21.8% crown depth
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/12409/
positives 1. wow- this diamond looks pretty in her pictures. wows me. 2. size is nice- same as 1.05 D and 1.02 G essentially. 3. higher clarity, though the VS 1 seems to be on the table, which is a negative. other negative: wacky price? compared to others. it is fine if this it 'the one' I guess, just seems weird.

I think above are the contenders? I dismissed another 1.02 G as it was an Si, and then there is this one below which has a nice high clarity and different shape; I think they could make it work in the setting if I really wanted:

1.0 ct H VVS2 - 5.60 x 6.13 slightly elongated but I think they could make it go in the setting if I really wanted
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11352/
positives- 1. high clarity 2. shape might be pretty? not sure as I had thought I should stay square.

 

[arkieb1]

I hope you don't mind me commenting since I have been along for part of your search, I think it depends what you are after, the G in that setting faces up bigger, can you notice that, that is probably why it is being recommended to you, but I see your point as well, the crisp white E contrasts more as a pop against the RG, all of these stones are beautifully cut and if they tell you they are 100% eye clean they will be so it's a matter now of deciding what you want - a bit more face up size or that stark colour contrast which you have identified and also if your eye prefers more of a prefect square shape or more of an elongated cushion shape.

 

[Gypsy]

I'd buy the G that David recommended. But have him make you a video of the top three contenders and pick from that. GOG will happily do that for you. I like the E least.

 

[apacherose]

Thank you so much for your replies, Gypsy and Arkieb. I think a video is a great idea. I honestly think I will be over the moon happy with any of these- I am feeling insecure and I'm just overwhelmed by all the selection. I just want it to be a sparkly thing of beauty to enjoy that my husband is proud of as well. He likes the G but he will like any of these and wants me to choose. I feel pressured to make the best choice for me but now it seems like weighing minutia and I am becoming less clear in my vision whereas at first I was definitive (with the .99K). Thank you both again.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I like the G the best. G is white and the stone has a nice cushion shape. I wouldn't give the color a second thought. I color or higher is going to be white enough in an AVC, and I would really not choose colorless for an antique cut stone, personally, especially with rose gold. That is great you were able to get a VCraeynest set!

 

[Tourmaline]

I like the 1.10 H VS1.

 

[apacherose]

Thank you Tourmaline and Diamondseeker for your replies.

I do love the shape of the G. Honestly my only hangup is the tiny crystal on the front. I have been blessed with very good eyesight... David can see it if he tries reaaally hard, but bets I won't be able to.

The 'top 3' were the D, 1.1H, and the G. David says he does like the D as it is eyeclean and set in the white head on the RG it really pops. Initially when we spoke the D was out because me and my hawkeyes were saying no Si's.

I'm going to stay up late tonight (I'm overseas) and talk to David in the morning (for him). Thanks for your replies and input.

 

[arkieb1]

Did you ask them to make a video to see which one you like the best? I actually agree with Tourmaline, if you can stand the colour of the H I'd go with the largest one personally, but that is just me

 

[apacherose]

Haha Arkieb! I like size, too

I did get a 'top three' video- it was sooo helpful. (tx for the advice Gypsy) I got a side by side of 1.05 D and 1.02 G, then 1.02 G and 1.10 H, just daylight and profiles. I loved the 1.05 D I could tell nothing much about color on the video, but I was less concerned with color, any of them would have been fine, just size, facets, profiles. I chose the G over the H every time, and also the D over the G. It's just gorgeous. Well, they all are, but now I have a preference. Yay. The D is 6.05 X 6.13 and the H is 6.06 X 6.13. Both larger than the G, but the G is prettier than the H and the D is prettier than the G. I love the cushiony profile!

David's choice is the 1.05 D as well. He said he could tell the size difference and side by side he preferred the D. He also said the 'crispiness' (his word, lol, I love it) of the D in the white head on the rose gold was attractive. Can I just say how patient and amazing David has been with me. I enjoyed working with him on this so much.

Diamondseeker- I want to tell you that I am so honored that you replied to my post, and I completely value your opinion and that you have impeccable taste. I completely get what you are saying about not going colorless in these old cuts and I know my original vision was for a much creamier antique-y stone. But anyway this path has led me to love a different diamond that I never thought I would ever choose. I told David this ring is 'vintage incognito', lol.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You are so sweet to say that, but I am just one of many here who love these stones! I actually really only ruled out the D because of the clarity. So what is David saying about how eyeclean it is?

 

[apacherose]

He says it is eye clean!

It has a feather on the corner and he says it blends in with the facets and you can't even see it. And you could prong it, as well, if you wanted. I think I can see it in the macro he took, but for me it does not at all detract from the beauty of the diamond. I am so happy. It is also more 'mind clean' for me than the VS2 with a tiny thing that I probably couldn't see but that was on the table. And, looking at the clarity plot on the 1.05 D that one and only facet blending feather is it. The only mark they even put on the report, so it is a clear clear diamond. I just love it.

I have special regard for you on these diamonds, Diamondseeker. You have taken so much time and shared so many photos and thoughts I feel I have benefitted so much. I bought an AVR that I loved. Then after talking to a jeweler and my mother and sister I really second guessed myself and returned it- it had not shipped yet. But I was so unhappy about it I couldn't sleep and my husband helped me just be at peace with what I loved and so I bought it again. Then I was up late on the computer and found this entire thread where you were analyzing what I think is the diamond I had just bought! Through all of your photos and analysis it just helped me feel so happy and secure in my decision and I have such peace of mind about it. Thank you - your sharing helped me and you didn't even know it.

 

[apacherose]

Still wrestling with this choice- down to two options:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11737/
The 1.05 D SI1, which is eyeclean, David says he is extremely harsh at calling eyeclean and this is 100%. I am thrilled with this diamond, which comes in at 9K. It is lovely in the video.

DH and I were put off to learn that a feather (sounds fine) is a crack (yikes). Well, after discussing with the patient and kind David, who looked at this baby under magnification and reassured us about the nature of the inclusion, I am happy once more with the crispy 1.05 D SI1 .

My husband, though, looked at the list of diamonds and pulled this into contention:
1.23 G VVS2
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11497/
It is 4K more than the D- I cringe at the extra money. I hadn't intended to spend so much going into this; my husband says it is not really about the money, that we want to have these rings for a lifetime of enjoyment and to hand down. (we have 5 kids, 3 girls) So, yes, not about the money... but I think I am perfectly happy with the D. Is the size and clarity worth it? David did confirm this could fit into the setting.

David still preferred the D, in value and he likes the color in the ring. I like size, but don't know I will enjoy 18 more points thaaat much???

I can tell DH likes the idea of a nice white diamond with no cracks in it. I am actually thrilled at my husband's participation in this- it is so out of character-he typically shops only for cars and electronics- he really likes rose gold and VanCraeynest. But it is ultimately my call and if I am fine with the D he is fine, too.

This is it for big jewelry purchases for me for 7 years (this is like our 15th celebration gift early since we liked the VanCraeynest set so much and did not know if we would be able to get one in the future)

Anyways, thanks in advance for any thoughts you have on these two diamonds.