Please help me choose e-ring center stone...

[number2]

I think I have narrowed it down to three...Which do you think is the best or which one should I stay away from?...Any input would be extremely helpful to me...After choosing a stone, popping the question will seem like a breeze...

#1 http://whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2045521.htm
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 0.99
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Depth: 60.2
Table: 57
Crown Angle: 35
Crown %: 15.1
Pavilion Angle: 40.7
Pavilion %: 42.9
Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 6.48-6.51X3.91


#2 http://whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1911777.htm#
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 1.000
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
Depth: 60.5
Table: 56
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.4
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43.1
Girdle: Thin to Medium-Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.50-6.52X3.94

#3 http://whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1163792.htm
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 1.01
Color: H
Clarity: VS1
Depth: 60.5
Table: 55
Girdle: Thin Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 6.53-6.57X3.96

 

[Daniel B]

* A quick glance tells me this: I would eliminate #1 right off the bat b/c of the good in polish and vg in symmetry while the other have ex in both categories. The third stone has a thin girdle all the way around while the second goes up to medium. all of the IS pix look nice, and the specs are pretty similar, too. The only thing that comes to mind now is the clarity. Is the second stone an eye clean SI2? If it is I would go with that because the color is the same as the third, and 600 bucks cheaper (not to mention a thicker girdle). Hope this helps.

 

[Regular Guy]

#2,

Any of the three, nice choices from what I can see.

Actually, I'd be partial a bit to #1, liking the G color, and thinking the polish may be over my head, and symmetry...I'd really want WF to help me interpret the benefit of the better symmetry on the other two, as against the color. I might ask them to speculate on why .99 vs 1 or .95, etc. Also, why didn't they polish better...or is it likely this was "out of house," still not explaining this. It would have been nice to pick up a bigger discount with it under 1.0, but you can't win them all, and besides, surely the better color for lower price is partly there because of the under 1 size. Also, I like the 1.1 HCA and 4 xs. The IS picture on this one (and second one) are...can I say dreamy?

Questions get raised by me, too. I wonder why WF doesn't just roll out all options as either: a) ACA, b) expert selection or c) generic diamond (and not in house). I understand some are in process, but why not just label them consistently as all three.

Option last checks out for proportions, but oddly doesn't reveal them without going into their sarin file. Wonder why.

These questions are matter of curiosity for me. Any of the three would be lovely. A sense that VS1 may be paying a bit more than needed could turn into a feeling another day that that's the way to go, but based on the IS for options 1 & 2, and cost differential, I might focus on those two, first.

Good hunting. I don't suppose your name is lifted from the Prisoner?

 

[belle]

looks like you found some new inventory

you better skip quick!
i like them all

if pressed, i would choose #3. it''s a nice package

 

[Kaleigh]

Tough choice, I also like #3, but #2 is nice too.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/28/2005 2:44:02 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Option last checks out for proportions, but oddly doesn''t reveal them without going into their sarin file. Wonder why.

Thanks for noting that Ira. The Sarin had not been completed when we listed the diamond. It''s updated now. Sometimes you''ll see a diamond missing a photo or IS or grading report too. These things are sometimes in catch-up mode with revolving stock. We are anxious to get new inventory listed ASAP for the benefit of shoppers, so if an item or two is missing from the listing just contact us.

Date: 11/28/2005 2:44:02 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Questions get raised by me, too. I wonder why WF doesn''t just roll out all options as either: a) ACA, b) expert selection or c) generic diamond (and not in house). I understand some are in process, but why not just label them consistently as all three.

The answer is because PS is just one portal by which we get traffic. New internet diamond shoppers on their first jaunt to a website like ours don''t know what the ''virtual list'' is, and have no idea that many vendors don''t actually carry their inventory in house. On a quick glance we feel "ACA or Expert Selection" versus "generic diamond" would be more confusing than "In stock" and "Contact us for availability," which are simple to understand (here is an article with the differences in online vendor diamond sourcing for those new to the online process).

For your benefit "In stock" (in purple) is always "In stock" at WF. "Contact us for availability" means the diamond is at one of the suppliers many vendors source from. I did a quick graphic so you will know, at a glance, what = what.

 

[MissAva]

I like number three myself, but none of them strike me as a bad choice.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 11/28/2005 3:34:31 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 11/28/2005 2:44:02 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Questions get raised by me, too. I wonder why WF doesn''t just roll out all options as either: a) ACA, b) expert selection or c) generic diamond (and not in house). I understand some are in process, but why not just label them consistently as all three.

The answer is because PS is just one portal by which we get traffic. New internet diamond shoppers on their first jaunt to a website like ours don''t know what the ''virtual list'' is, and have no idea that many vendors don''t actually carry their inventory in house. On a quick glance we feel ''ACA or Expert Selection'' versus ''generic diamond'' would be more confusing than ''In stock'' and ''Contact us for availability,'' which are simple to understand (here is an article with the differences in online vendor diamond sourcing for those new to the online process).

For your benefit ''In stock'' (in purple) is always ''In stock'' at WF. ''Contact us for availability'' means the diamond is at one of the suppliers many vendors source from. I did a quick graphic so you will know, at a glance, what = what.

You may be answering and I missing it, but I think it''s neither this nor that, yet.

The writer''s first option is labelled in-house, but it is not also labelled expert selection. I''m guessing the info is a) associated with your dataflows, and even more, b) that these guys are not original with WF''s "studios," but acquired elsewheres and kept. With that IS, I thought not, but maybe so.

Don''t worry though, John, if this is the case...mum''s the word; I won''t tell a soul.

 

[MissAva]

I think he means that some may be generic diamonds but still be there at WF?

 

[number2]

Woah! RegularGuy...I am even more confused right now...
I am not sure what you are talking about...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/28/2005 4:09:04 PM
Author: Regular Guy

You may be answering and I missing it, but I think it's neither this nor that, yet.

The writer's first option is labelled in-house, but it is not also labelled expert selection. I'm guessing the info is a) associated with your dataflows, and even more, b) that these guys are not original with WF's 'studios,' but acquired elsewheres and kept. With that IS, I thought not, but maybe so.

Say Ira, if you have waited another 60-some days we could have celebrated the anniversary of your question.

Let me try it as a math formula...

Brian Gavin = Expert.
Any diamond chosen for our in-house inventory = Selection.

Brian Gavin + Any diamond chosen for our in-house inventory = Expert Selection.

As for 'virtual diamonds' (what RG calls generic): If we bring a diamond from a supplier in for someone for our analysis and it is not sold we don't keep that diamond - it goes back to the supplier (perhaps that is where the hangup is?). Those virtual diamonds are not like a kitten we have to adopt or something.

So - The only diamonds kept in our vault apart from Expert Selection are the select rounds that have passed the tests to become 'A Cut Above.'

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 11/28/2005 4:09:04 PM
Author: Regular Guy
You may be answering and I missing it, but I think it''s neither this nor that, yet.

The writer''s first option is labelled in-house, but it is not also labelled expert selection. I''m guessing the info is a) associated with your dataflows, .........

Ira.....it appears as simple as this: Expert Selection diamonds are identified as such (usually) in two places: by the cherries on the IS image, and by the "Expert Selection" designation on the photo of the actual diamond.

If you look at selection #1, the cherries are there on the IS photo.....this is an ES stone. However, since a photo of the actual diamond hasn''t been generated yet, you don''t see the words "Expert Selection" yet.

No sub-plot, I''d imagine, and no nefarious intent. More likely a backlog issue. This is their busiest time of year, and stones move fast.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 11/28/2005 4:31:55 PM
Author: number2
Woah! RegularGuy...I am even more confused right now...

#2, don''t let RG confuse you......he means well, but he just can''t bring himself to express something simply.

Of the 3 diamonds you listed, I prefer in this order...#3, #2, #1.

 

[Mara]

oh i had to click to see the angles on that page for #3...my choice is #3 with #2 as a close second.

 

[number2]

So it seems like #3 is a favorite...Honestly tell me if you think that is a great stone or if I could find better if I looked harder.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 11/28/2005 10:10:40 PM
Author: number2
So it seems like #3 is a favorite...Honestly tell me if you think that is a great stone or if I could find better if I looked harder.

I think you''d be hard pressed to find many "better" stones than that.

There''s always more than one beautiful diamond, of course.....but the type of stone you''re asking about is a *NO* apologies stone.....it''s not as though there''s a far superior stone quality you''re missing. This one is (and actually, all of them are.....) top of the line.

 

[fire&ice]

All seem nice. I like the value that #1 presents & it''s a G. It''s nearly 700 cheaper. But, I don''t think you can go wrong.

 

[solange]

Umless you are realy discerning, I do not think you will see the difference between good, very good and excellent polish and symmetry and you do pay extra for excellent in both categories., I agree with Fire &Ice that #1 represents good value. It is a G and less costly and I think the better color will be more noticable than the good and very good polish and symmetry.
If you are in doubt, why not call Brian and ask him which stone looks best to him.

 

[number2]

OK so after speaking with Lesley from WF this afternoon I decided to put a hold on #2... So its #2 for Number2...

I just wanted to run it by everyone here first because your opinions definitely matter to me (considering most people here know more about diamonds than the average person).

The only slight concern I have is on the AGS report, do you think there are too many inclusions on the table? It is a VS2 and Lesley assured me its eye clean. And the only inclusion you can see in the zoom is on the arrow at 9 o''clock...

I think I just have butterflies...

 

[Shay37]

Date: 11/29/2005 3:01:40 PM
Author: number2
OK so after speaking with Lesley from WF this afternoon I decided to put a hold on #2... So its #2 for Number2...

I just wanted to run it by everyone here first because your opinions definitely matter to me (considering most people here know more about diamonds than the average person).

The only slight concern I have is on the AGS report, do you think there are too many inclusions on the table? It is a VS2 and Lesley assured me its eye clean. And the only inclusion you can see in the zoom is on the arrow at 9 o''clock...

I think I just have butterflies...

My diamond from WF is an SI1. The inclusions are under the table except for one. Darn thing is almost loupe clean.

If Lesley said it''s eye clean, it is. that''s a pretty safe bet in a VS2 this size anyway. It''s a beautiful choice.

shay

 

[belle]

congratulations #2!

hehehehhe...i like #2 for #2..i thought about that when i was picking.

it looks GREAT

don't worry at all about the inclusions. ags is very strict in their grading. with a vs stone, you will not see anything! yes, the plot may look messy but you can be sure that the stone will be very eye-clean.

 

[number2]

Thanks..I just wanted to make sure!

I will be posting pictures of the e-ring when it is finished...

Thanks to all! Especially Lesley and John at WF!