Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES's!!!

[mhrastnik]

Hey guys,

I've probably spent a couple of weeks trying to educate myself about diamonds and to learn as much about diamonds as I can, but now I'm stuck and would really appreciate your help. I'm set on buying the diamond+setting at WF, but I can't decide which diamond to buy... I'm a college student, so I have a limited budget ($3200 for the diamond alone), but at the same time my HS sweetheart and I decided we want at least a VS2/H/AGS000/in-house round diamond. Oh, and the setting will be a classic 6-prong solitaire - which is probably important as my budget only allows me to buy a ~0.6-0.7ct stone.

Here's the short-list (I should apologize in advance as it's actually quite a long list - I've tried to eliminate more but I can't as I'm stuck). I should mention that we are indifferent when it comes to the color, as long as it's at least H - and so my objective is really to try and maximize weight/size. However, there are some things that bother me with bigger diamonds on my list. I understand that one has to make compromises when his budget is limited, so I would really appreciate some thoughts on my choices. Btw, I know there are other vendors besides WF out there, but I decided to go with WF (because of my good friend's stellar prior experience, plus my girlfriend already picked the setting) and so I really do not want to consider other options.

OK, here we go. All diamonds: VS2, ideal cut (AGS000), very good spread, negligible fluoro, pointed cullet. Also, all links either point to WF's site or to AGS reports, I just wanted to make things as easy for you as possible. I've also summarized the characteristics of all 12 stones in a table and indicated the things I'm worried about in yellow:



(Here's a bigger version: http://i.imgur.com/3IZ5e9c.png - not sure why the one I've uploaded is so small.)

Group 1 (~0.63ct)
1. 0.625ct, G, ACA, $2705, http://bit.ly/1iFUJ6Z (WF), http://bit.ly/1niOD0p (AGS)
2. 0.626ct, G, ACA, $2656, http://bit.ly/1niOhXJ, http://bit.ly/1hvKupy
3. 0.627ct, H, ACA, $2451, http://bit.ly/1oY73Z8, http://bit.ly/RebyzZ
4. 0.628ct, G, ACA, $2665, http://bit.ly/1gowk8Z, http://bit.ly/1elbd8A
5. 0.632ct, H, ACA, $2570, http://bit.ly/1ez95F9, http://bit.ly/1kiwLmp

Group 2 (>0.64ct and <0.7ct)
6. 0.641ct, G, ES, $2584, http://bit.ly/1lYsRlb, http://bit.ly/1sTHyaR
7. 0.642ct, F, ES, $2894, http://bit.ly/1kTEAgO, http://bit.ly/OW2oWJ
8. 0.651ct, F, ACA, $3089, http://bit.ly/RecHro, http://bit.ly/1idd3b6
9. 0.651ct, F, ACA, $3089, http://bit.ly/1lV0HVA, http://bit.ly/Red2tY
10. 0.661ct, G, ES, $2767, http://bit.ly/OW3bae, http://bit.ly/1niRmHh

Group 3 (>0.7ct)
11. 0.705ct, H, ES, $3067, http://bit.ly/1jB5ZVy, http://bit.ly/1hvMr5s
12. 0.718ct, H, ES, $3179, http://bit.ly/1gTKqen, http://bit.ly/1jB62k6

Now let me also say the following: philosophically, I'm wondering whether it makes sense to consider group 2... I don't know how these things work with women, but as a man I'd think of all these diamonds as either 0.6ct or 0.7ct. That is, I would soon forget that a diamond is 0.651ct (for example), and I'd probably refer to it as just 0.6ct... Same with 0.718ct diamond - I'd just refer to it as a 0.7ct one. If so, I'm basically looking at two groups of diamonds, those that are approx. 0.6ct and those around 0.7ct... Meaning a 0.651ct diamond would be pretty much the same as the 0.626ct one. I should mention that my girlfriend is not that picky when it comes to the caratage, but I would want the diamond to be as big as possible so that it won't be dominated by the 6-prong setting she's chosen.

Anyway, as I said above every stone has something that bothers me a bit, so rather than go over all of them and describe what I think about each one and what might be the problem with each particular stone I thought it would make more sense to just list all of them and then we can discuss specific stones (and/or which "group" to choose). On the other hand, if it's easier for you we can also start by eliminating those that just aren't good enough - maybe that'll be easier to narrow it down to just two or three.

BTW, I have yet to call WF to determine which ones are eye clean all around (i.e. which ones have the least noticeable inclusions).

Thanks for all your feedback (and for reading this long post). I sometimes tend to overthink things, and this is probably one of those times! (but in my defense I should say that as a college student, I really do want to make sure I get the best deal for the amount of $$$ I can spend on this)

 

[AprilBaby]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

I would choose #2, 10 or 11, depends on what you are comfortable spending....

 

[mhrastnik]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

Thanks for your feedback! Actually, these diamonds are all within my budget, so it's really more a question of finding the "perfect" one (taking into account that none of them is actually perfect in every way)!

I'm actually a bit surprised you chose #10 and #11... #10 has that green part around 10 o'clock. Isn't that something I should be concerned about? Plus it looks really weird in the center?



#11 seems to have an inclusion right in the middle (see pic). I can see it both in the regular photo, in the ASET and in the IS pic. I know the diamond is eye clean, but then again this crystal is right in the middle of the diamond... And the "hearts" pic is also far from clean... Furthermore, the crown angle is 35.2 - I know this is within AGS0 specs, but I also read that for the superior optical perfomance of the diamond this angle should be between 34.3-34.9. And I suppose this is also the reason why the diamond scored only 2.0 on the HCA "test" (as it's cut steeper than what the HCA favors), correct?



As I said, I basically need someone reasonable to talk to... I'm probably overly paranoid and critical of every single thing I can think of, but well, it's the first time I'm buying a diamond (or an engagement ring, for that matter)! Thanks again!

 

[mhrastnik]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

I should mention that the thing that bothers me with the biggest one (i.e. the 0.718ct one) is the crown angle (not "optimally steep", i.e. not within the 34.3-34.9 range) and the table % (again: I know, it's within AGS0 specs, but I kinda think it would be nice if a diamond had the largest face surface possible, i.e. somewhere around 57% - as this is basically what people will see...). Or not?

 

[AprilBaby]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

I missed the green in # 10 , #11 I doubt you would see the inclusion. I happen to love ACA. All of them get 4.5 stars. Call WF and ask which on they would pick. They won't steer you wrong and may have one you missed!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

I'd choose this one (#12):

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3061811.htm

Easy...ideal cut, the largest. Nothing whatsoever wrong with any of the images. You would not be able to tell it from an ACA because it is sooo close.

I can't see any reason whatsoever to buy from category 1 if this stone is in your budget. Every bit of size matters in this size range. I think you are overanalyzing to a certain extent. You cannot see what you're seeing in magnified images in the actual stone.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

I should mention that the thing that bothers me with the biggest one (i.e. the 0.718ct one) is the crown angle (not "optimally steep", i.e. not within the 34.3-34.9 range) and the table % (again: I know, it's within AGS0 specs, but I kinda think it would be nice if a diamond had the largest face surface possible, i.e. somewhere around 57% - as this is basically what people will see...). Or not?

No, the table is the small round top surface in the center of the diamond. The diameter measurement is what you look at to see how large the stone faces up. Table size is irrelevant to how large the stone looks. This one (#12) has a great table size at just under 55.

 

[mhrastnik]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

Thanks AprilBaby and diamondseeker2006!

I will certainly give WF a call tomorrow... And yes, I am aware I am overanalyzing and overthinking all this, and that these diamonds are all top notch! (I know ACA's are a tiny little bit better than ES ones, but at the same time I am pretty sure we won't notice the difference - it's more of a mental thing)

BTW: diamondseeker2006, I was actually hoping you will chime in. My girlfriend chose the Vatche 113 setting, and from what I have learned in the past couple of days you're the expert on it

Honestly, what I am mostly worried about is that the diamond will appear super small in that setting as it's not a particularly huge stone. And the setting is not very thin (I mean, it looks fabulous, but all the photos I've seen were with 1+ct diamonds)... This is why I would like to maximize its size, especially since it is within my budget!

Also, can someone please shed some light on the crown angle - and why only 34.3-34.7 is considered optimal? (I read a couple of blog posts on niceice.com where the author -who appears to be very knowledgeable- claims he would never go below 34.2 or above 35)...

Thanks a lot, I have learned so much here on PS!!!

UPDATE: She needs a size 6 ring (to put things in perspective size-wise).

 

[Roqsteady]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

First off let me say that the HCA is a great tool, especially when sifting through GIA diamonds on a huge online database to narrow down your choices. However when dealing with AGS rated diamonds, and specifically diamonds on PS recommended vendors like WF, GOG, BG, VC, HPD, etc., it pretty much becomes irrelevant and here is why. The HCA attempts to predict light performance when you have nothing else to go off of except the cert. With AGS diamonds it includes a light performance rating, which tells you what the HCA is trying to predict. So if you have a light performance grade of 0, there's no need to run the HCA anymore (an HCA 1.0 is not better than an HCA 1.5, that's) Furthermore, all these reputed vendors provide images under scopes so you can actually see the diamonds performance under ASETs and Idealscopes, so now the HCA has definitely become a moot point. Sorry I've just seen alot of people when comparing diamonds comparing their HCA when the IdealScopes/ASETs are available and it boggles my mind why they're comparing HCAs instead of the scope images.

In general the pavillion angle is the most important for great light return - the 40.6-40.9 (some may go slightly over) is ideal to minimize light leakage. The crown angle determines what TYPE of light return you're looking for - white light (brilliance) or colored light (fire). Generally the steeper the angle, the more fire, and the shallower the angle the more brilliance the diamond will show. Also, a steeper crown angle would be best matched with a shallower pavillion angle, and a shallower crown angle is better matched with a deeper pavillion angle to maintain good light return (mathematically this makes sense if you think about trying to maintain the angle at which light will enter the diamond).

Todd Gray of NiceIce's preferences of 34.3-34.9 are right in the middle of the range which provide a balance of brilliance and dispersion, because that is his preference, and it's pretty safe to be in the middle of the AGS 0 range. However I've seen many on WF's ES go up to even a 36 crown angle. These diamonds are probably more fiery and show more colored than white light, but that does not mean you, or even your girlfriend would not prefer it over a diamond that's supposedly in the "ideal" range of 34.3-34.9, assuming they both have good light return. To be honest, you probably aren't going to see too much of a difference unless you look really hard between a 34 and 35 range. It might be more apparent once you compare a 33 vs 35, and definitely more noticeable if you were looking at say a 32 vs 36.

Long story short, I wouldn't give any pause to a 35.2 crown angle as long as the IS/ASET/Hearts images look good.

 

[mhrastnik]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

Thank you so much for your explanation, Roqsteady - I really appreciate it!

One last thing though: would you also not give any pause to a 34 crown angle (assuming that IS/ASET/Hearts images look good)? I am seriously considering diamond #12, which looks great to me and which I can still afford... I sports a 34.0/40.9 angle combination.

Thanks again!!!

 

[Roqsteady]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

I haven't seen a ton of 34 degree crown angle diamonds to compare, but looking at the scopes it looks beautiful - completely red, no white or even fading into white. The H&A pattern is not as precise as the others however, which indicates the indexing of the facets isn't aligned quite as perfectly, so by some people's standards (including NiceIce) it wouldn't be considered a "true" H&A. Again I'm not expert, but most long-term PSers here would agree that the H&A pattern is less of a dealbreaker than a poor IS or ASET image. This stone in particular will be gorgeous regardless IMO, and again I'd second the opinion that you should ask WF to compare it to other diamonds with different crown angles or more precise H&A patterning to see if there is a visual difference.

 

[mhrastnik]

Re: Please help me pick between these round WF ACA's and ES'

Thanks! Fantastic! Will get in touch with WF in the morning, and will then report back!