please help. is ags ideal worth a drop in color grade?

[cryptochrome]

I''m trying to decide between round brilliant diamonds for a platinum setting. holy crap this is stressful. the prices are close enough they won''t be a factor in my decision.

#1 0.807 ct H VS2 wf aca here
ideal cut (AGS)
. Depth/table %: 61.5 / 56.4
. Crown/pavilion Angle: 34.9 / 40.9
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 5.97-5.99X3.68
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish/symmetry: Ideal / ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

#2 0.818 ct H VS1 here
ideal cut (AGS)
. Depth/table %: 61.4 / 57.3
. Crown Angle: 34.8 / 40.8
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick Faceted
. Measurements: 5.99-6.02X3.69
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish/symmetry: Ideal / excellent
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible

#3 0.82 ct G VS1 here
excellent cut (GIA)
. Depth/table %: 62.2 / 57
. Girdle: M-STK
. Measurements: 5.98-6.02X3.73
. Polish/symmetry: Very Good / excellent
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

so #1 is wf ACA, but H color. it is VS2, but the center inclusion shows up in the idealscope and its reflections show up in the hearts image. #2 isn''t ACA, but the only reason for that seems to be the excellent symmetry; the IS looks just as good as #1 to my untrained eyes. #3 is GIA, but based on HCA, could be just as good as the other two, plus it''s G color. wf does not have #3 in stock, so IS, ASET, etc. images of that stone aren''t immediately available.

clarity of VS2 vs. VS1 is not a big deal to me, for a platinum setting, I want to make sure the color is white enough. on the other hand, the AGS ideal cut of #1 or #2 could outweigh any minor color difference. I''m probably leaning towards #2 right now.

what do the experts think?

 

[stone-cold11]

Both #1, #2 looks good to me.

#1 is probably eye-clean, but if you are worried about it, check with WF.

 

[Lorelei]

It depends on you, if you prefer a G colour then I would stick with that personally. The diamonds look very good.

 

[Dreamer_D]

It is a mind clean thing IMO, since you can''t really see the difference in color between G and H (it would be difficult even comparing both pavilion up on a white paper!) -- both will look perfectly white in WG. But if you prefer G to be *sure* of the whiteness, then get the G.

If you are not so set on a G, then I personally would go for the ACA. I have owned both an ideal by numbers and an ACA, and the ACA had just a little more oomph.

You can also ask your contact to tell you which diamond is more beautiful between the two in stock.

 

[iwannaprettyone]

You have received good advise and truly it is about preference. My stone is an H and I love it. Personally I would go for the ACA.

 

[Ellen]

They are all nice. #1 will be cheapest though, with a 5% PS discount vs. 2% on the others. H will not show any warmth at this size, so I''d go for that one. Just talk to WF and make sure the inclusions are no problem, which I''m betting they are not at VS2 (that is pretty tiny).

 

[cryptochrome]

thanks everyone for the input. I decided to go with the aca (stone #1), but hit a snag. while inspecting the stone prior to shipping it, wf noticed an indented natural near the girdle on the pavilion side. this inclusion is not listed on the AGS report. I''ve been told that it does not affect the VS2 rating or the structural integrity of the stone, and the stone is still an aca based on light performance, etc. if AGS didn''t notice it the first time, I doubt I would''ve ever noticed it. I''m under a severe time crunch, so sending it back to AGS to fix the report is not an option. I can either have them ship me the aca as is, with the not perfectly matching AGS report, or I can order stone #2 (0.818 ct H VS1, expert selection, not aca). they would ignore the price difference between the two.

how big a deal is it that the report is missing that inclusion? the quality of the 0.818 ct stone, while not an ACA, is extremely close to the aca based on the images IMHO. given that, is it better to go with stone #2, even though it doesn''t have the aca label?

 

[FancyDiamond]

What are the reasons why #2 cannot be regarded as an ACA? If light performance is the same as that for #1, then why not #2?

 

[treefrog]

#2 looks very, very close to a H&A to me. There just isn''t enough detail in the images to pick it out. On the IS, two of the arrow points seem to be just barely not centered in what I call the V''s. It is probably a very nice diamond and will probably look FAR better than the average diamond.

How much flexability is in the budget? If you truly want the assurance of knowing you have H&A cut precision, this one is just a touch more $$$. It scores a 1 on the Holloway Cut Advisor:
Click me!

Double check with the more experienced people here but I believe the measurements they like are there.

What you get with the H&A is a 30 day return policy (over 10 days I believe for #2 - the non H&A one) and the H&A viewer/toolkit. Multiply the price listed on their website times .95 to determine the Pricescope discount. That price is the "shipped" price and you''ll have it next day.

Treefrog

 

[cryptochrome]

so just to be clear, you guys do not recommend sticking with the 0.807 ct ACA, on account of the incorrect report? would this ever create an issue with insuring the ring?

I''m not sure exactly why stone #2 is not ACA, maybe because its symmetry is only excellent instead of ideal. I don''t know that its light performance is exactly the same as stone #1, but there doesn''t seem to be much difference between the images to my very untrained eyes. treefrog, I could maybe swing the 0.8 ct ACA, but I''m worried I''d just be paying more money for the ACA cachet.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/24/2009 8:58:06 PM
Author: FancyDiamond
What are the reasons why #2 cannot be regarded as an ACA? If light performance is the same as that for #1, then why not #2?

2 has excellent symmetry, all ACA's have ideal.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/24/2009 3:54:40 PM
Author: cryptochrome
thanks everyone for the input. I decided to go with the aca (stone #1), but hit a snag. while inspecting the stone prior to shipping it, wf noticed an indented natural near the girdle on the pavilion side. this inclusion is not listed on the AGS report. I''ve been told that it does not affect the VS2 rating or the structural integrity of the stone, and the stone is still an aca based on light performance, etc. if AGS didn''t notice it the first time, I doubt I would''ve ever noticed it. I''m under a severe time crunch, so sending it back to AGS to fix the report is not an option. I can either have them ship me the aca as is, with the not perfectly matching AGS report, or I can order stone #2 (0.818 ct H VS1, expert selection, not aca). they would ignore the price difference between the two.

how big a deal is it that the report is missing that inclusion? the quality of the 0.818 ct stone, while not an ACA, is extremely close to the aca based on the images IMHO. given that, is it better to go with stone #2, even though it doesn''t have the aca label?

To me it would be a big deal, I would want that natural noted.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 7/24/2009 8:58:06 PM
Author: FancyDiamond
What are the reasons why #2 cannot be regarded as an ACA? If light performance is the same as that for #1, then why not #2?

Not enough information. ACA are H&A stone, so unless a Hearts image is presented, you cannot tell if it is a H&A from the IS/ASET images alone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/25/2009 7:58:16 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 7/24/2009 8:58:06 PM
Author: FancyDiamond
What are the reasons why #2 cannot be regarded as an ACA? If light performance is the same as that for #1, then why not #2?

Not enough information. ACA are H&A stone, so unless a Hearts image is presented, you cannot tell if it is a H&A from the IS/ASET images alone.

SC #2 has excellent excellent symmetry so won''t be an ACA.

 

[stone-cold11]

Even with Ideal optical symm?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/25/2009 8:22:02 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Even with Ideal optical symm?

Yes, and if the lab graded symmetry is graded Ex I don't think it meets the standards to be an ACA as it has to score ideal in all respects and for both polish and symmetry, or at least thats how it always was.

Gah - I meant to post excellent symmetry once not excellent excellent symmetry above!

 

[vespergirl]

Yes - you won''t see any color in an H that''s under a carat.

 

[FancyDiamond]

Date: 7/25/2009 8:27:54 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/25/2009 8:22:02 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Even with Ideal optical symm?

Yes, and if the lab graded symmetry is graded Ex I don''t think it meets the standards to be an ACA as it has to score ideal in all respects and for both polish and symmetry, or at least thats how it always was.

Gah - I meant to post excellent symmetry once not excellent excellent symmetry above!

I am so glad that I asked the question. Both Stone-cold11''s and Lorelei''s answers have shed more light that help me appreciate ACA stones more than ever.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/25/2009 11:33:37 AM
Author: FancyDiamond

Date: 7/25/2009 8:27:54 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/25/2009 8:22:02 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Even with Ideal optical symm?

Yes, and if the lab graded symmetry is graded Ex I don''t think it meets the standards to be an ACA as it has to score ideal in all respects and for both polish and symmetry, or at least thats how it always was.

Gah - I meant to post excellent symmetry once not excellent excellent symmetry above!

I am so glad that I asked the question. Both Stone-cold11''s and Lorelei''s answers have shed more light that help me appreciate ACA stones more than ever.

Glad to help, an ACA will have ideal for both polish and symmetry, excellent in either will disqualify it from getting the ACA brand designation.

 

[glitterata]

Just by looking, you will probably not be able to tell the difference between the ACA and the ES in cut. So if you''re choosing the ACA for the idea of cut perfection, that''s fine. But if you''re choosing it because you think it will look prettier, it probably won''t.