Please help, on these RB!

[greenm75]

Ok, seriously looking for advice.
Down to 2 stones.

AGS # 104056646004
AGS 000, 0.931 Carat, F/VS2, from WF Expert selection. 54% table, 33.6 crown, 40.8 pav, 77 low girdle half, 61.4 depth, eye clean from sides too, hearts and arrows, ASET can be seen if put in AGS number, ps HCA 0.9

AGS # 104056259021
AGS 000, 1.007 Carat, H/VS2, from WF ACA. 57.6% table, 34.6 crown, 40.8 pav, 77 low girdle half, 60.9 depth, eye clean from sides too, hearts and arrows , ASET can be seen if put in AGS number, ps HCA 1.4

The 0.93 stone is $1000 less, indoor lighting typically looks "whiter" , outdoor cannot tell. Both sparkle amazingly, but most of my friends and colleagues 4:1 choose the 0.931 stone which is the Expert selection over the "A Cut Above"! Her ring size is 5 and she is not into a particular size, in fact she will think either one is too big. Please help, if you happen to plug in the AGS numbers and see the ASET and something glaring jumps out let me know. So conflicted, personally about the just under a carat vs. 1.0 carat and then how an ACA can be out performed by a expert selection...is it just marketing in the ACA?
my best
M

 

[yssie]

Ok, seriously looking for advice.
Down to 2 stones.

AGS # 104056646004
AGS 000, 0.931 Carat, F/VS2, from WF Expert selection. 54% table, 33.6 crown, 40.8 pav, 77 low girdle half, 61.4 depth, eye clean from sides too, hearts and arrows, ASET can be seen if put in AGS number, ps HCA 0.9

AGS # 104056259021
AGS 000, 1.007 Carat, H/VS2, from WF ACA. 57.6% table, 34.6 crown, 40.8 pav, 77 low girdle half, 60.9 depth, eye clean from sides too, hearts and arrows , ASET can be seen if put in AGS number, ps HCA 1.4

The 0.93 stone is $1000 less, indoor lighting typically looks "whiter" , outdoor cannot tell. Both sparkle amazingly, but most of my friends and colleagues 4:1 choose the 0.931 stone which is the Expert selection over the "A Cut Above"! Her ring size is 5 and she is not into a particular size, in fact she will think either one is too big. Please help, if you happen to plug in the AGS numbers and see the ASET and something glaring jumps out let me know. So conflicted, personally about the just under a carat vs. 1.0 carat and then how an ACA can be out performed by a expert selection...is it just marketing in the ACA?
my best
M

W/ these sorts of comparisons... "performance" is no longer objective - personal preference takes over. Were both stones spotlessly clean for the duration of your comparison, handled only with tweezers, etc? That's the first thing to confirm - diamonds are grease magnets and skin oils on the surface can drastically change how the stone looks and performs...

If they were, the stones are different colours, and have different proportions - they'll have slightly different looks and light return. The ACA target proportions are general crowd-pleasers - you aren't going to get an unattractive stone w/ those numbers, period. But you may be finding that your eyes
A) prefer a more colourless stone above other distinctions/differences, or
B) are sensitive to nuances in look and light return and happen to prefer a look/type of light return that requires proportions outside that general crowd-pleaser range
Nothing wrong with either of those things, if that's the case. I myself happen to prefer RBs with proportions that fall outside ACA requirements. There are other good reasons to buy a H&A stone - like wanting a H&A stone

I don't see them on the WF website - post all pics/photos and scans for both and we can tell you more.

 

[greenm75]

thanks Yssie,
I purchased these from WF and so that I could physically see them. the ASET can be seen if the AGS numbers are put in. Thanks for the input, really appreciate it.

 

[yssie]

Ah, I didn't know that! I'm going to link them here so others don't have to search, since you've already bought them:

ES http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2763621.htm
ACA http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2762661.htm

Both are gorgeous precision-cut stones. WF has many requirements for its ACA line - one is precision cutting that results in those hearts, but there are others - the stones must have proportions that fall into certain tight ranges (result of which is stones that all have a similar Look and "type" of light return), the stones must not have fluor - I think the cutoff is faint?... the proportions on the ES may have excluded it from the ACA line, but it's clearly a beauty.

Why not just call WF and ask?

 

[greenm75]

thank you for posting those pics, YSSIE!
I have these in my hands and quite frankly its a tossup! I was told by a WF rep that the ES narrowly missed the ACA secondary to its Crown Angle of 33.6, but didn't say what exactly the cut off was. She did say, " that it's a beautiful stone, and that I wouldn't notice any performance deduction in it, just size compared to the 1.007, H, VS2.
Maybe I'll just flip a coin.

 

[yssie]

thank you for posting those pics, YSSIE!
I have these in my hands and quite frankly its a tossup! I was told by a WF rep that the ES narrowly missed the ACA secondary to its Crown Angle of 33.6, but didn't say what exactly the cut off was. She did say, " that it's a beautiful stone, and that I wouldn't notice any performance deduction in it, just size compared to the 1.007, H, VS2.
Maybe I'll just flip a coin.

ACA requirements http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/the-4-cs-cut.htm