Please help me find my round brilliant so I can get engaged!

[remi]

My priorities are carat size and light performance. I don't mind cutting costs with clarity and color as long as it doesn't make a noticeable difference to the naked eye/lay person.

Price: Goal of $23k or less, but honestly I want to be as close to $20k as possible since this was my original budget.

Diamond: Round brilliant solitaire

Carat: 2.3 or higher (firm cutoff). 2.28 or 2.29 migght be okay, but overall I'd like to go as high in carat as my budget can find.

Clarity: VS2 or eye clean SI1. I'm okay as long as the inclusions are not noticeable to a lay person. I do like the potential savings of an eye clean SI1.

Color: I or higher. My SO has seen an I and is happy with it. But I still need to go to a store to see if a J or K will still be okay with her as another way to cut costs. I'm okay with fluorescence.

Cut: I've been looking at the WF ACAs. I'd also strongly consider their ES and PS diamonds, again as another way to cut costs. I'm very open to BGD, CBD/HP diamonds and other vendors (like JA, Bluenile, Ritani) as long as their light performance is somewhat in the ballpark of the WF ES/PS line. In other words, it would be great if I could get a superideal, but if there is something close to one I would consider that as well.

I realize my budget makes it tough to achieve my carat/performance goals so I'm hoping the PS community can lend some assistance. Thank you to anyone in advance who has some time to help with my diamond!

 

[remi]

Any feedback on the diamond I currently have my eye on?

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4066986.htm

It's a WF ACA 2.308 I SI1 within my budget (closer to 20k) meeting my 4C's goal. Will the SI1 inclusions will be an issue?

Do you guys recommend any contenders? Again I'm open to BGD, HP/CBI, JA, Ritani, Bluenile etc, but I am just not as familiar with their brand/quality.

 

[Morenita21]

Just wanted to mention that carat size isn’t all that matters in size. Make sure to look at the dimensions of the stone. For instance, a 2ct stone make actually be larger than let’s say a 2.3ct stone due to the way it was cut. Keep that in mind. Good luck!

 

[lovedogs]

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3959046.htm?source=pricescope

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068027.htm?source=pricescope

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068025.htm?source=pricescope

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4066986.htm?source=pricescope

I prefer Wf to JA, but there are some JA options.

https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/l...t-i-color-vs1-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-615

IF J color is ok:

https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/l...color-vs2-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-6133879

 

[lovedogs]

Tried looking at CBI/HP diamonds but didn't see anything in your size/budget combo. SI1 clarity is no problem, especially if WF (who has their stones in house) says it's eye clean.

 

[tyty333]

Just wanted to mention that carat size isn’t all that matters in size. Make sure to look at the dimensions of the stone. For instance, a 2ct stone make actually be larger than let’s say a 2.3ct stone due to the way it was cut. Keep that in mind. Good luck!

When sticking to well-cut stone you should never see the situation described above.

Fancy cut stones like ovals, pears, and marquise can vary broadly at the same carat weight.

 

[lovedogs]

When sticking to well-cut stone you should never see the situation described above.

Fancy cut stones like ovals, pears, and marquise can vary broadly at the same carat weight.

Exactly. Especially not ones in the ideal ranges, or super ideal that OP is considering

 

[SimoneDi]

@remi If you think that your SO would like to upgrade in the near/notso near future, I woudl stick to WF/CBI. If,however, this will be a one and done diamond, then yoour money is likely going to go further if you purchase a GIA stone.

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

@remi If you think that your SO would like to upgrade in the near/notso near future, I woudl stick to WF/CBI. If,however, this will be a one and done diamond, then yoour money is likely going to go further if you purchase a GIA stone.

@SimoneDi - May I ask what you mean with your last sentence about a GIA stone? Thank you.

 

[SimoneDi]

@SimoneDi - May I ask what you mean with your last sentence about a GIA stone? Thank you.

Most super ideals are AGS grades because AGS produces their platinum diamond quality report, which makes total sense because it is the only lab to evaluate diamond cut based on performance (aset) not solely on numbers.

Nonetheless, there are some gorgeous GIA grades diamonds out there that we can help you source which are close to super ideal and the average consumer will likely not discern the difference in performance. But if an upgrade is a likely future scenario, I would stick to a vendor with a generous upgrade policy.

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

Thanks, @SimoneDi. Are GIA stones generally a little cheaper than AGS stones? I looked at several GIA stones on WF’s virtual selection which seems to be cheaper. Unfortunately, virtual selection diamonds are not included in their upgrade policy.

I’m sorry to hijack your post, @remi.

 

[SimoneDi]

Thanks, @SimoneDi. Are GIA stones generally a little cheaper than AGS stones? I looked at several GIA stones on WF’s virtual selection which seems to be cheaper. Unfortunately, virtual selection diamonds are not included in their upgrade policy.

I’m sorry to hijack your post, @remi.

I wouldn’t call GIA “cheaper”, but there is a premium associated with super ideal stones. There are multiple components that lead to that;
- a bit more rough is lost to produce perfect H&A stones with balanced cut proportions
- the vendors that sell branded “super-ideal” stones usually also provide generous upgrade and trade-back programs, which is not customary for drop-shippers
- vendors that sell super-ideal stones own the stones in house and pre-select their inventory, which usually eliminated milky stones, grey/brown hued stones, etc.

There are a lot of advantage for one to buy a “super ideal” stones but awesome diamonds without the label also exist. Upgrades, I think, are the trickiest part, which is why I emphasised on it earlier

P.S. Applogies for the derail @remi

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

I wouldn’t call GIA “cheaper”, but there is a premium associated with super ideal stones. There are multiple components that lead to that;
- a bit more rough is lost to produce perfect H&A stones with balanced cut proportions
- the vendors that sell branded “super-ideal” stones usually also provide generous upgrade and trade-back programs, which is not customary for drop-shippers
- vendors that sell super-ideal stones own the stones in house and pre-select their inventory, which usually eliminated milky stones, grey/brown hued stones, etc.

There are a lot of advantage for one to buy a “super ideal” stones but awesome diamonds without the label also exist. Upgrades, I think, are the trickiest part, which is why I emphasised on it earlier

P.S. Applogies for the derail @remi

@SimoneDi - thank you so much for the explanation.
@remi- best of luck with your search. You are definitely in great hands here. Lots of experts.

 

[sledge]

Just wanted to mention that carat size isn’t all that matters in size. Make sure to look at the dimensions of the stone. For instance, a 2ct stone make actually be larger than let’s say a 2.3ct stone due to the way it was cut. Keep that in mind. Good luck!

When sticking to well-cut stone you should never see the situation described above.

Fancy cut stones like ovals, pears, and marquise can vary broadly at the same carat weight.

Exactly. Especially not ones in the ideal ranges, or super ideal that OP is considering

For those reading along I just wanted to clarify these statements a bit more.

There is truth that the diamond proportions (table, depth, crown angle, pavilion angle, etc) play into the overall dimensions. For instance a 60/60 style stone where the depth & table are near 60% each may offer a little more spread for the same carat weight as a modern ideal cut stone. Just as a poorly cut modern ideal cut with with steep crown & steep pavilion and too much depth (known as "steep & deep") will provide a stone with spread that is less than normal for its carat weight.

While those are kind of the extremes, you can see it to a smaller effect even in well cut stones. For instance the stone I bought my fiancee has a larger table and shallower pavilion and just a smidge over 60% depth. It has a little more spread for it's carat weight than is normal.

This brings me to my next point, you shouldn't see a 2 carat stone equal or be larger than a 2.3 carat stone as that is too drastic of a jump. When I mentioned earlier my fiancee's stone was large for it's carat weight I will explain more. It's 0.867ct and measures approx 6.20mm round. It's a BGD ideal cut stone. To get something similar in spread, it normally takes about 0.90-0.92 carats in an ideal cut and these larger stones will typically have a smaller table, steeper crown & a little more overall depth.

So yes, actual diamond proportions do affect overall spread/size of the stone and I believe this was the point that @Morenita21 was trying to make. Unfortunately, stating 2cts may be equal or larger than 2.3ct is the flaw in this logic. In reality, the carat weights would be closer -- maybe a 2.285ct would equal the same size of a 2.3ct.

Of course, all this raises another valid point -- IMO, it's much smarter to shop by dimensional data than by carat weight. The logic is simple. Diamond proportions do affect spread, plus weight is retained in the depth which we don't see. It's the reason that a 1ct stone isn't really 2x as large as a 0.5ct stone. Yes, it weights 2x the amount but the dimensional spread is not 2x the size.

The formula for calculating approximate carat weight of a round diamond is:

• Length (L) x Width (W) x Depth (D) x 0.0061 = Approx Carat Weight

For light to reflect properly with angles the larger the stone the more depth, which means more carat weight is "lost" in depth.

Lastly, I might add it takes about 0.20mm (approx 1/128th of an inch) between L&W dimensions for the normal human eye to detect a size difference. And then it's minimal and likely not detectable unless placed side by side. Definitely not a "wow, it's so much bigger than the other one" type moment.

 

[Morenita21]

For those reading along I just wanted to clarify these statements a bit more.

There is truth that the diamond proportions (table, depth, crown angle, pavilion angle, etc) play into the overall dimensions. For instance a 60/60 style stone where the depth & table are near 60% each may offer a little more spread for the same carat weight as a modern ideal cut stone. Just as a poorly cut modern ideal cut with with steep crown & steep pavilion and too much depth (known as "steep & deep") will provide a stone with spread that is less than normal for its carat weight.

While those are kind of the extremes, you can see it to a smaller effect even in well cut stones. For instance the stone I bought my fiancee has a larger table and shallower pavilion and just a smidge over 60% depth. It has a little more spread for it's carat weight than is normal.

This brings me to my next point, you shouldn't see a 2 carat stone equal or be larger than a 2.3 carat stone as that is too drastic of a jump. When I mentioned earlier my fiancee's stone was large for it's carat weight I will explain more. It's 0.867ct and measures approx 6.20mm round. It's a BGD ideal cut stone. To get something similar in spread, it normally takes about 0.90-0.92 carats in an ideal cut and these larger stones will typically have a smaller table, steeper crown & a little more overall depth.

So yes, actual diamond proportions do affect overall spread/size of the stone and I believe this was the point that @Morenita21 was trying to make. Unfortunately, stating 2cts may be equal or larger than 2.3ct is the flaw in this logic. In reality, the carat weights would be closer -- maybe a 2.285ct would equal the same size of a 2.3ct.

Of course, all this raises another valid point -- IMO, it's much smarter to shop by dimensional data than by carat weight. The logic is simple. Diamond proportions do affect spread, plus weight is retained in the depth which we don't see. It's the reason that a 1ct stone isn't really 2x as large as a 0.5ct stone. Yes, it weights 2x the amount but the dimensional spread is not 2x the size.

The formula for calculating approximate carat weight of a round diamond is:

• Length (L) x Width (W) x Depth (D) x 0.0061 = Approx Carat Weight

For light to reflect properly with angles the larger the stone the more depth, which means more carat weight is "lost" in depth.

Lastly, I might add it takes about 0.20mm (approx 1/128th of an inch) between L&W dimensions for the normal human eye to detect a size difference. And then it's minimal and likely not detectable unless placed side by side. Definitely not a "wow, it's so much bigger than the other one" type moment.

Yes, my measurements were dramatic, but that was my point.

 

[remi]

Thanks to everyone who has responded, your comments are greatly appreciated!

I'm still leaning towards this WF ACA because it fits all the criteria I'm looking for (2.3, I, eye clean SI1, close to $20k).

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4066986.htm

Can anyone please share their thoughts on this diamond? Is it a good choice? Do you anticipate any issues with the inclusions (given it is an SI1) or any other features of the diamond? Are there other diamonds out there that might be a better option? I've tried my best to educate myself on diamonds, but I know there's still an immense amount of knowledge out there and I'm barely scratching the surface so any insight is greatly appreciated!

 

[remi]

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3959046.htm?source=pricescope

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068027.htm?source=pricescope

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068025.htm?source=pricescope

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4066986.htm?source=pricescope

I prefer Wf to JA, but there are some JA options.

https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/l...t-i-color-vs1-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-615

IF J color is ok:

https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/l...color-vs2-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-6133879

@lovedogs, thank you for these recommendations! I took a look and the 2.528 and 2.338 WF ACAs are obviously beautiful, but just a bit too high above my price range =/. I'm strongly considering the 2.308 ACA WF (https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4066986.htm?source=pricescope) as I mentioned above. I realize it is an ACA which makes it top notch, but I've seen PS experts turn down some ACAs over others based on certain characteristics and I was hoping this diamond was not one of those before I decide to pull the trigger. I was also intrigued by the JA 2.50 J you mentioned. How do you feel that one compares to the 2.308 ACA?

@sledge thank you for your incredibly thorough response as well! I've learned so much from just your posts alone while reading through different PS threads. Do you have any thoughts on the 2.308 ACA?

I also asked WF to send additional images of the diamond which I can try to post on pricescope if WF is able to provide them.

 

[lovedogs]

I'll pretty much always recommend WF over JA. ACAs are top notch, and wf is great. With only .2-.3mm difference in size, I'd go with WF 100%.