Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Please help me decide between these 3 stones

N

noreaga

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
43
Hi everyone! I figured i would start up a new thread to simply post stones that I have started narrowing down to (my old thread was more focused on learning about the basics of diamonds). Here goes nothing:

1. http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2794490.htm
2. http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2724957.htm
3. http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2782648.htm
4. http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2696779.htm

Getting excited !!! :love:
 
I'd go with either of the premium select stones. They are great diamonds! My daughter's engagement ring came from WF and is PS.
 
Thank you! I am leaning towards #1, but how does that compare to #3 ?
 
They are clearly both great stones that only miss ideal because of getting "excellent" on polish...and excellent is...excellent!

I would ask them to pull both stones and be sure they are equally eyeclean from top and sides. If one is more clean than the other then that might sway me. But the 1.2 ct stone is simply going to appear a little larger, and that is the big draw for that one. It would be a tough choice for me because I prefer G-H color, but on the other hand, I'd rather have a 1.2 diamond over 1.05. Do you think your girlfriend will prefer greater size over color?
 
It's a good question. She's a very simple girl, and I know that even a 1 ct will seem big for her, but i want to get her the best I can. As for the I colour, I went for it because I don't think she is extremely sensitive to colour, and for the life of me I cannot really tell the difference between an H and an I.

I've asked them to compare both stones and get back to me, so let's see what they have to say! I'll also post the glamour shots of both when they get them to me.

To switch gears slightly, any thoughts on how a 1/1.2 ct would look in this Vatche Caroline setting: http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/caroline-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-251.htm
 
 
Diamond in the first link has been updated with glamour shot :)

I also had a chance to speak with WF's gemologist, and he mentioned that he preferred the 1.2 ct stone as well. The only caveat he added was that the colour may be a concern if my fiance to be is colour sensitive ... and I don't really know if she is !
 
Ugh, that makes it hard because most girls have never really looked at diamonds before getting engaged. I is the borderline color, to me, because I can see the tint in a J. One really good thing about the Vatche Caroline setting is the basket partially obscures the side view where you'd most see any tint.
 
noreaga|1340143840|3219659 said:
What do you guys think about this one: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2724957.htm

It's up a color notch, is a smaller stone and scores better on HCA (1.5)
Click to expand...

(Scores better on the HCA than what? But you don't need to use HCA at all on AGS stones because they are graded for light perfomance.)

This one gets ideal on light performance, so I don't see an advantage of the 1.02 stone over this one.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2782648.htm
 
Thanks for the reply. Sorry, I meant that the latest stone I posted performs better on the HCA than the stone at the start of this thread (the 1.20 ct at http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2794490.htm).

Gah, I can't decide whether the step up to the H color is worth a bump down to a smaller stone. Although her fingers are fairly slender (guessing a 4.5 ring size) .... decisions, decisions :(
 
noreaga|1340144559|3219675 said:
Thanks for the reply. Sorry, I meant that the latest stone I posted performs better on the HCA than the stone at the start of this thread (the 1.20 ct at http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2794490.htm).

Gah, I can't decide whether the step up to the H color is worth a bump down to a smaller stone. Although her fingers are fairly slender (guessing a 4.5 ring size) .... decisions, decisions :(
Click to expand...

Okay, I didn't bother to even put the numbers into the HCA since the I 1.2 stone gets ideal for light performance. The HCA is irrelevant so all your are deciding between is color, clarity, and size.

Let me ask you something. Do any of her close friends or sisters have e-rings yet? If so, do you have any idea of the size they have?
 
Yeah, they do and that's the first thing I thought of when attempting to make my decision. Unfortunately I never inquired about their ring's metrics and so am pretty clueless about them ...

I am leaning towards the 1.2 ct because, as you've mentioned, it has been graded for excellent light performance, and the gemologist mentioned that the only thing that prevented it from moving a step above is that the polish is excellent instead of ideal. However, the fact that there is light leakage from around the edge of the diamond is a little worrying (when compared to the 1.05 ct that you posted, for example)
 
noreaga|1340144559|3219675 said:
Thanks for the reply. Sorry, I meant that the latest stone I posted performs better on the HCA than the stone at the start of this thread (the 1.20 ct at http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2794490.htm).

Gah, I can't decide whether the step up to the H color is worth a bump down to a smaller stone. Although her fingers are fairly slender (guessing a 4.5 ring size) .... decisions, decisions :(
Click to expand...

I would much rather have the bigger 'I' color stone than a smaller H. Hands down! Most women love size. ;)) 'I' is still considered near colorless and is very white to most people.
 
noreaga|1340149413|3219719 said:
Yeah, they do and that's the first thing I thought of when attempting to make my decision. Unfortunately I never inquired about their ring's metrics and so am pretty clueless about them ...

I am leaning towards the 1.2 ct because, as you've mentioned, it has been graded for excellent light performance, and the gemologist mentioned that the only thing that prevented it from moving a step above is that the polish is excellent instead of ideal. However, the fact that there is light leakage from around the edge of the diamond is a little worrying (when compared to the 1.05 ct that you posted, for example)
Click to expand...

Well, a couple of people here disagree with me, but I do think it is helpful to know what her closest friends and family wear when a guy is deciding on a surprise e-ring. You'd probably want to avoid buying her one smaller than all her friends/family, but as long as you stay within your budget, it would help to know whether a 1 ct. H or 1.2 ct. I color would be more desirable. But since you don't know what they have, we can't use that strategy!

I'd go with the 1.20 I color if you go with the Vatche Caroline because the diamond is going to face up white due to the ideal cut, and you won't see so much of the side view because of the basket setting.
 
Honestly, I would go with 1.20 from whiteflash. They have a better trade in policy if you ever decide to do so. Most people would be extremely happy to recieve an ideal cut I colored stone. If she happens to be one of the people it bothers you can always return it and include her in the process.
 
Thanks, farmer gal! Good point on the trade-in policy, that could definitely play an important role in the future! I've also enjoyed speaking with WF's reps, with JA being 'just OK' in my books so far.
 
I did buy from JA and sometimes I regret that I did because if I ever decide to trade in I have to spend double the amount I originally did, where as WF, BGD, GOG I believe all have a trade in with no set amount required.
 
I think the inclusions would bother me more on the JA stone, but you still have to verify the degree of eyecleaness on the WF stone, too.
 
The gemologist at WF told me on the phone yesterday that the 1.2ct stone is absolutely eye-clean and that there aren't any inclusions that I need to worry about. it's certified as eye clean on their website as well, which appears to mean that an individual with 20/20 vision can't see any inclusions from 10 inches away.
 
Well, that sounds good. Again, I think I color is fine in a setting like the Vatche Caroline. Have you decided about the setting?
 
Still debating on the setting. I do also like this one: http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/classic-tiffany-style-knife-edge-solitaire-engagement-ring-713.htm

It seems nice, simple and has a classic look to it. The lower price point also doesn't hurt ! :)

EDIT: I came across this old thread at [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/wf-tiffany-vs-superbcert-tiffany.62213/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/wf-tiffany-vs-superbcert-tiffany.62213/[/URL] and discusses some changes that member elaineh made to the WF setting. They turned out really well and she seems extremely happy !
 
I think the 1.2 in that Tiffany style setting would be very classic and pretty! :love:
 
I agree; I think I'm going to go with wf's reproduction ! My salesperson did mention that they have some room to play with as far as what level to set the stone at as I me tones that I didn't want it very high; what do you guys think as far as what level it should be set at ? Should the cutlet be visible at all?
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top