Please help me choose 1 of these 3 diamonds!

[adondeeres]

I'm trying to decide between 3 very similar diamonds. Since I do not yet have a lot of experience evaluating H&A, IS, and ASET images, I was wondering if I could get some thoughts on these diamonds. The size, color, clarity and prices are pretty much identical. These are all ACA diamonds. What would help me greatly is an explanation (based upon 1 or more of the images below) of why 1 diamond might be preferred over the other two. I'm trying to learn all I can before I make a final decision.

Diamond 1:


Diamond 2:


Diamond 3:

 

[SimoneDi]

Are they all the same color, carat, clarity and cost? These are all ACAs, they are super ideal diamonds. I like 1 and 3 better because of the lack of crystal table inclusions. It appears that diamond 1 has some twinning wisps as inclusions, most likely that is an SI1 or SI2, but it will be eye-clean. I would go for whichever is cheaper between 1 and 3 assuming they have similar specs

 

[tyty333]

ACAs are cut to such strict standards that you are not going to see much variance.

They are all good asets, good idealscopes and good H&A. Honestly, I would need to see links to the diamonds themselves to be able to pick one.
I would need cost and a better view of the inclusions to make a decision. Can you provide us the links?

 

[adondeeres]

Sure!
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3634195.htm
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3203551.htm
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3198013.htm

 

[SimoneDi]

I like this one the most *I think* : https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3198013.htm

55% table! But it is the smallest of all.. although not by much.

 

[tyty333]

Ok, well the links didnt help me much either! Have you called WF and asked them to evaluate the 3 stones and walk/talk you through them?
Sometimes it takes someone who can see them with their eyes to really point out the slight variety in personality.

I'm sure WF would be happy to talk you through them.

 

[adondeeres]

Ok, well the links didnt help me much either! Have you called WF and asked them to evaluate the 3 stones and walk/talk you through them?
Sometimes it takes someone who can see them with their eyes to really point out the slight variety in personality.

I'm sure WF would be happy to talk you through them.

I didn't actually know that was an option,. I will have to look into it.

I'd like to choose the diamond that will sparkle and look the best. Are there any indications based upon these pictures that one will outperform the others?

 

[SimoneDi]

I didn't actually know that was an option,. I will have to look into it.

I'd like to choose the diamond that will sparkle and look the best. Are there any indications based upon these pictures that one will outperform the others?

Not really, they are all amazing performers. I second the opinion to call WF and ask for assistance in comparison.

 

[EvaEvans]

In my opinion, all three diamonds are bad choice! They have clouds or twinning wisps as inclusions, that always affect the sparkle, no matter how excellent is the cut.
For your budget, you can do a lot better!

 

[SimoneDi]

In my opinion, all three diamonds are bad choice! They have clouds or twinning wisps as inclusions, that always affect the sparkle, no matter how excellent is the cut.
For your budget, you can do a lot better!

The stones as SI1, not I2 clarity.. it is completely untrue that inclusions "always affect sparkle". Yes, it is possible that inclusions can affect transparency and therefore "sparkle", but not in this case.

 

[EvaEvans]

The stones as SI1, not I2 clarity.. it is completely untrue that inclusions "always affect sparkle". Yes, it is possible that inclusions can affect transparency and therefore "sparkle", but not in this case.

I have seen pretty good SI1 even SI2 clarity. However, SI1 clarity is NOT safe clarity, and inclusions should be examined very carefully.
Twinning wisp is a line of small cracks, cloud is a group of small pinpoints. These "small" but numerous inclusions definitely can affect the sparkle in a bad way.

 

[SimoneDi]

I have seen pretty good SI1 even SI2 clarity. However, SI1 clarity is NOT safe clarity, and inclusions should be examined very carefully.
Twinning wisp is a line of small cracks, cloud is a group of small pinpoints. These "small" but numerous inclusions definitely can affect the sparkle in a bad way.

And they wouldn't be call ACAs if they did. Once again, all of these are safe choices.

 

[EvaEvans]

And they wouldn't be call ACAs if they did. Once again, all of these are safe choices.

My opinion is different. I have seen in one recent thread here ACA with not so good performance.
Superior diamond cut cannot always save the bad diamond crystal.

 

[Snowdrop13]

My opinion is different. I have seen in one recent thread here ACA with not so good performance.
Superior diamond cut cannot always save the bad diamond crystal.

Can you link to that thread? I must have missed it.

 

[gm89uk]

My opinion is different. I have seen in one recent thread here ACA with not so good performance.
Superior diamond cut cannot always save the bad diamond crystal.

Yes please reference. Twinning wisps are fantastic inclusions on the whole, even at SI2 clarity. Localised clouds are also generally OK. Diffuse inclusions are the issue. I agree SI1 is not safe and must be vetted, but disagree with your assessment of these particular diamonds are bad choices. These are examples of good SI1 diamonds from the information provided. Ultimately a reputable vendor, such as WF, with the stones in hand can provide better opinions than me or you.

For me, some of these stones are the perfect example of good safe SI1 stones.

 

[flyingpig]

They have clouds or twinning wisps as inclusions, that always affect the sparkle, no matter how excellent is the cut

This is a bold statement. I guess it is technically true. Any inclusion can change the light path with in a diamond, and negatively affect the sparkle. That's in theory, or if you have a special equipment that can measure the sparkle with high accuracy and precision. But can such negative effect always be detected by human eyes?

I hope you can back it up with visual aids and articles.

 

[EvaEvans]

This is a bold statement. I guess it is technically true. Any inclusion can change the light path with in a diamond, and negatively affect the sparkle. That's in theory, or if you have a special equipment that can measure the sparkle with high accuracy and precision. But can such negative effect always be detected by human eyes?

If someone is a newbie is better to stay in a safe zone of clarity, instead to invest over $20K in a diamond with potentially bad performance. These 3 particular diamonds don't have good SI clarity, based on the prime inclusions. Twinning wisps and clouds are excellent for making diamond "eye clean", but they are like hidden rocks under the water. If buyer wants SI clarity, he has to be very cautious about the kind of inclusions and where they are situated.
Sparkle of the diamond crystal cannot be measured by technical equipment, only human eye can judge. I can add - experienced human eye that have seen a lot of diamonds to compare with.

 

[EvaEvans]

Twinning wisps are fantastic inclusions on the whole, even at SI2 clarity. Localised clouds are also generally OK. Diffuse inclusions are the issue. I agree SI1 is not safe and must be vetted, but disagree with your assessment of these particular diamonds are bad choices. These are examples of good SI1 diamonds from the information provided. Ultimately a reputable vendor, such as WF, with the stones in hand can provide better opinions than me or you.

Any vendor is subjective. That is why I always do my homework by myself.
As I already wrote it, twinning wisps and clouds are good for making a diamond "eye clean", but they are potentially risky to affect the sparkle, leading to fogginess or "crushed ice" effect.

 

[EvaEvans]

Can you link to that thread? I must have missed it.

I have to dig for hours to find that thread, but let me tell you what was the case, and may be someone with find it:
It was a question which diamond from two options we would choose based on pictures only.
All answers was leading towards one of the diamond, so at the end the information which diamond is which was revealed, and many people were surprised that the "not so desirable" diamond was H color ACA, but performing duller and more yellow than the other diamond.
So, without comparison the ACA diamond could be good, even excellent for someone, but we all were judging based on the comparison with the other diamond.
That is way I said, not everybody can catch decreased sparkle, possibly affected by inclusions, unless there isn't comparison or a lot of experience. For example, labs grade diamond color always with COMPARISON with sample set of colors.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

EvaEvans does have a point about twinning wisps and other potentially light scattering inclusions in the Si range. They can potentially result in diminished light performance even if cut quality is exceptional. As such, buying a stone that has not been thoroughly vetted for this and other issues can introduce another element of uncertainty in the purchase.

A CUT ABOVE diamonds are specifically vetted for any clarity features that might diminish transparency, crispness and sparkle.

In general, professional vetting is a significant benefit of shopping for in-stock diamonds as opposed to virtual inventory.

 

[december-fire]

I have to dig for hours to find that thread, but let me tell you what was the case, and may be someone with find it:
It was a question which diamond from two options we would choose based on pictures only.
All answers was leading towards one of the diamond, so at the end the information which diamond is which was revealed, and many people were surprised that the "not so desirable" diamond was H color ACA, but performing duller and more yellow than the other diamond.
So, without comparison the ACA diamond could be good, even excellent for someone, but we all were judging based on the comparison with the other diamond.
That is way I said, not everybody can catch decreased sparkle, possibly affected by inclusions, unless there isn't comparison or a lot of experience. For example, labs grade diamond color always with COMPARISON with sample set of colors.

Is this the thread to which you're referring?

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/thoughts-on-these-two-diamonds.232411/#post-4194470

 

[december-fire]

EvaEvans does have a point about twinning wisps and other potentially light scattering inclusions in the Si range. They can potentially result in diminished light performance even if cut quality is exceptional. As such, buying a stone that has not been thoroughly vetted for this and other issues can introduce another element of uncertainty in the purchase.

A CUT ABOVE diamonds are specifically vetted for any clarity features that might diminish transparency, crispness and sparkle.

In general, professional vetting is a significant benefit of shopping for in-stock diamonds as opposed to virtual inventory.

Gracious and professional, as always.

WF and the other highly-recommended vendors have my trust.
You have seen countless diamonds, have the diamonds in front of you, and would not put your brand or company reputation at risk by branding a diamond that isn't beautiful.