Please help me decide - Round brilliant diamond

[MeddlingKids]

Hi all,

I have located the following three diamonds on an online vendor's site and hoped you could help me decide. The diamond stats are below along with the associated images. Thanks in advance!

Diamond A:

Carats: 1.78
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Fluorescence: Negligible
Dimensions: 7.75 x 7.77 x 4.80 mm
Depth: 61.8%
Table: 56.2%
Crown: 34.6 degrees
Pavillion: 40.7 degrees
Inclusions: Crystal, needle, feather (on table)






Diamond B:

Carats: 1.76
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Dimensions: 7.70 x 7.78 x 4.78 mm
Depth: 61.8%
Table: 57.2%
Crown: 34.8 degrees
Pavillion: 40.9 degrees
Inclusions: Crystal, cloud, feather (on table)






Diamond C:

Carats: 1.71
Color: F
Clarity: VS1
Dimensions: 7.59 x 7.62 x 4.77 mm
Depth: 62.7%
Table: 55.0%
Crown: 35 degrees
Pavillion: 40.8 degrees
Inclusions: Cloud, crystal, feather, needle, pinpoint

 

[solgen]

They're all great so I'd probably pick A just based off face up size.

 

[telephone89]

They're all great so I'd probably pick A just based off face up size.

I agree with this - you can't go wrong with any though!

 

[MeddlingKids]

Thanks for the feedback! Diamond C is about $2k less than the first two; it doesn't sound like there's enough of a difference in size to spend that much more for either A or B, right?

 

[MeddlingKids]

Is it worthwhile to pay $2k more for option A (versus option C)?

Option A (AGS 000; WF ACA):
Slightly worse clarity
Negligible fluorescence
Larger face-up size (by 16mm)
$2k more expensive

Option C (GIA; WF ES):
Deeper (62.7%) with smaller table (55%)
Better clarity
No fluorescence
Smaller face-up size
Cheaper by $2k

 

[OoohShiny]

Have you run them through the HCA to see what scores they get?

They probably both get under 2, though!


C's smaller table will give more 'fire', as I understand it, but I'm not sure about the depth - the ASET shows it is good so I don't think you need to worry too much about it.

The fatter arrows will also give some broad flashes of colour and slightly less scintillation, if I have it right, so all in all, what with the fact the 0.16mm size difference will be barely noticeable (if at all), I'd be very tempted by C, especially if it's $2k cheaper!

 

[MeddlingKids]

Yes, I ran both through the HCA tool. Diamond A (the WF ACA) scores a 1.1 and Diamond B (the WF ES) scores a 1.7.

 

[solgen]

For the $2k difference I probably would go with C and then be able to put the extra towards the setting. Like I said earlier they are all great. So you can pick based on price, face up size, table size, arrow thickness, etc. Whichever parameter you use is up to you and you'll wind up with a great diamond regardless.

 

[OoohShiny]

Yes, I ran both through the HCA tool. Diamond A (the WF ACA) scores a 1.1 and Diamond B (the WF ES) scores a 1.7.

I presume that's a typo and you mean Diamond C?


Both will be great - HCA is a rejection tool instead of a selection tool, any score under two is going to mean the stone is worth considering, as I understand it

 

[MeddlingKids]

Yes, I meant to say diamond C. Any concerns about diamond C's depth? If not, I will likely go in that direction rather than with the AGS OOO (diamond A).

 

[solgen]

The depth causes it to face up smaller but does not seem to have any detrimental effect on light performance.

 

[OoohShiny]

I'm a bit of a clarity-obsessed weirdo so the VS1 of C would be calling strongly to me - even some VS2s seem to have inclusions that bug me when I look at them on screen!


(Athough do not forget that a screen is wayyyyyyy larger than the stone will be in real life, so as long as a VS2 inclusion isn't black and in the middle of the table, they will usually be absolutely fine! )