Request opinion on 1.25 Ideal Cut Diamond

[prakharg5]

Thanks everyone for the wealth of information you continue to contribute here on the forum. I have learnt a lot by reading the various threads here and have been able to shortlist a few diamonds that I really like!

All the diamonds here are in the recommended ranges of table, depth, crown and pavilion parameters. I would really appreciate your opinion and views on the ~1.25 ct diamonds here -

1) 1.242, G, VS1, ACA, $9.7K
James Allen - Link
This is within my budget but I am worried about the light performance.





2) 1.242, G, VS2, ACA, $10.3K
Whiteflash - Link
It looks pretty good but I am worried about the inclusions on the table



3) 1.275, G, VS2, ACA $10.7K
Whiteflash - Link
Quite a few inclusions here



4) 1.278, G, VS2, ACA $10.7K
Whiteflash - Link
Probably the cleanest among all the diamonds here



5) 1.281, G, VS2, ACA $10.7K
Whiteflash - Link
Inclusions on the table




Her ring size is 4.25 and we are getting a pave setting that will have 8 diamonds in total (each ~0.03 ct). My original budget was $9.5K for the diamond so these all exceed it by a bit.

For some reason, all idealscope images on WF look very similar and almost perfect while JA seems to have some amount of light leakage. I initially preferred James Allen as I live in NY and can always go to their store for resizing, polishing etc but I am now open to both.

I know these diamonds are very similar but I need help figuring out the one that offers me the most value since that is something i am struggling with as first time buyer. Any help / feedback / opinions will be highly appreciated!

 

[SimoneDi]

Do you have the JA on hold? The certificate comes back with ACA branding. If an upgrade policy is important, I would go with WF, otherwise, if this will be one and done diamond, then I would go with JA because the stone is gorgeous and 1k cheaper. Btw you can also ask JA for their “advantage pricing”.

 

[prakharg5]

Thanks SimoneDi! Yes, I do have the JA diamond on hold and the fact that is $1000 cheaper makes me lean towards it. What do you think of the light performance of JA diamond vs other WF diamonds listed above?

Your point about Upgrade policy is fair, I don't plan to upgrade for the next 10 years at least and when I do, I would go for something significant while will be close to 2x the current amount (something that JA allows)!

Also, thanks for the "advantage pricing" reminder, will be leveraging as soon as I make the decision!

 

[TreeScientist]

Do you have the JA on hold? The certificate comes back with ACA branding. If an upgrade policy is important, I would go with WF, otherwise, if this will be one and done diamond, then I would go with JA because the stone is gorgeous and 1k cheaper. Btw you can also ask JA for their “advantage pricing”.

Second this. The JA stone is beautiful, and to me would be a no-brainer here, as it is significantly cheaper than the WF offerings and just as good. Very interesting that a WF stone (ACA branded) is in James Allen's inventory. I wonder how that came about.

Anyway, great choice and I hope you're happy with it! (Looks like you reserved the JA diamond already)

 

[prakharg5]

Thanks TreeScientist! Yes, I was also surprised to find an ACA diamond on JA site. I looked up the stone of AGS site and the certificate there doesn't say ACA. While I will check this with JA team, does that change your recommendation and how do I go about verifying its authenticity?

The diamonds are very similar and therefore, I was leaning towards saving some money by going for JA diamond. Are there any other tools besides the images here that will help me compare their light performance?

 

[rockysalamander]

If you want verification that the stone is an ACA, contact WF. They can verify it is is one of theirs or not. If you don't go for that JA sold ACA (why?), have a look at these to stay in your budget.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3916986.htm
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...rat-h-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-4297769
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...rat-h-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-4344157 {love these numbers...that tiny table and chubby arrows}
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...rat-h-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-4403960 {performance on this is fantastic Look at that AGS light performance}

Edited to add. JA is not always good about meeting delivery deadline during peak periods (like now). So, add some time to any estimates they give you. If you are on a hard deadline, then I'd go with WF. They will be more realistic and meet their estimates. WF has their stones in house. I'm not sure if the JA sold WF is in house or now.

 

[prakharg5]

Thanks for your comments, rockysalamander! I checked with WF about the ACA diamond on JA and they said that they returned it to their supplier as it didn't pass their standards.

The diamonds you have shared are damn good, especially the last one - it's gorgeous! But I have made peace with this ~10K range now for my peace of mind over next decade at least

Thanks for sharing the note on potential delays with JA deliveries. Among the 4 WF diamonds, do you prefer any one in particular?

 

[TreeScientist]

Damn, that 1.18 H VS1 on JA posted by @rockysalamander is gorgeous! I have no clue why that one is not listed in their True Hearts line. If you're OK with an H (which, in an ideal cut diamond, I don't think you would see a difference between a G and an H) then I would go with that one for sure.

Otherwise, the 1.24 F VS1 is still an excellent stone. Keep in mind that, just because it didn't meet the standards for an ACA, doesn't mean it wouldn't still be a great performer. WF demands perfection for their ACAs, which is fantastic as when you buy an ACA, you know you're getting the very best cut. But whether you would be able to tell a difference between an ACA an an almost super ideal in real life remains to be determined... A little bit of pink in the IdealScope image would hardly make a difference in its actual light performance.

 

[gm89uk]

Damn, that 1.18 H VS1 on JA posted by @rockysalamander is gorgeous! I have no clue why that one is not listed in their True Hearts line.

It's quite common for TH quality stones to be missed by JA. They do eventually find them and brand them, but that also bumps the price up. If you hold it at a price before they realise, they usually honour it. I've seen several stones I was watching 'upgrade' to TH after a few months of being on the inventory.

I think something similar happened to @flyingpig.

 

[tanalasta]

The first stone, for all extents is fine. There is perhaps a very mild reduction in light return, an insignificant crystal at 2'olock and I'm not sure about the facet at 4 o'clock that may have dropped it from ACA. But it's a "near" ACA stone.

2 and 3 are both nice stones. I'm not sure what you meant about 4 being clean? There's several VS2 crystals that are very easy to spot. I can't say I love the VS2 in 5 either from the inclusion plot but at the end of the day, they're relatively eye clean!

Our own diamond was VS2 and had a small cluster of black inclusions on the periphery as well as a few small crystals under the table. You can't seem them with the naked eye.

I quite like the second stone from RockySalander. And the first one you listed was also ok

 

[ichibanichiban]

The H VS1 stones don’t have a comment indicating a girdle inscription with the certificate ID?

 

[rockysalamander]

The H VS1 stones don’t have a comment indicating a girdle inscription with the certificate ID?

The vendor has to pay extra to have the diamond inscribed. But, you can request they send it back to AGS to be inscribed at your cost. That will get the official inscription with the right font. I think it takes about a week (vendor-AGS-vendor) and might be up to $100. It would take this precaution, personally, on a VS1 stone as there are not a lot of inclusions to map for ID purposes.

 

[SimoneDi]

I still much prefer the 1.24ct F VS2 “didn’t make ACA” stone over the H one that is not laser inscribed. It is much whiter in my opinion and I like its overall make better. I see some graining that is not shown on the report of the 1.18 H VS1 stone. It could be the video, but when you move the diamond, you can see it. While I don’t consider that a problem, I see it as something that is not present in the 1.24 F VS2 and one more reason not to choose that stone. I also don’t like the added hassle of inscribing the stone.

 

[gm89uk]

There is no concern in light return in the JA idealscope, it is a side effect of different imaging technique. All the other ACA stones would look similar under that set up.