Reserved one! Any feedback much appreciated!

[stook1]

Hello,
I have reserved a diamond at Whiteflash and would GREATLY appreciate any feedback! Very exciting. It is this one:

http://whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-155626.htm#

It seemed like this one was perhaps a better value than the ACA stones on the Whiteflash site. I was originally looking at diamonds in the 1.7-2.0 carat range, but my to-be Fiance is only a size 3.25 and I''m thinking this will be plenty big looking on her finger.

There are several Cut Above diamonds within about $2k or less of this stone that also looked great. I am not that concerned with the J color and it just seemed like this stone offered the best value with very comparable performance to the Cut Above stones. Any feedback would be GREATLY appreciated.

thanks! Stook.

 

[Lorelei]

Its a winner, great pick congratulations!

 

[stook1]

There is one other one that I am considering as well. Any feedback that could be offered would be helpful. Both stones have a similar score in the Cut Advisor. This one, though, is an I-SI2. Obviously not as clean as the smaller stone from Whiteflash but it faces up about 5% bigger, it is close in cost, and I color instead of J.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=939540

thx!

 

[jentega]

there is a another one here.

blahblah-link

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/26/2007 11:27:37 AM
Author: stook1
There is one other one that I am considering as well. Any feedback that could be offered would be helpful. Both stones have a similar score in the Cut Advisor. This one, though, is an I-SI2. Obviously not as clean as the smaller stone from Whiteflash but it faces up about 5% bigger, it is close in cost, and I color instead of J.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=939540

thx!

I prefer the WF diamond and it's cut proportions, the JA looks good, but there is a largeish white inclusion on the edge at about 9 o'clock in the mag pic. Check carefully that it is eyeclean if you want to pursue it and if the inclusion is prongable. The folk at JA will be honest as you know.

 

[stook1]

Does anyone have any feedback on ****? I did a search and there is very little information about them. I AM local to them, but still...

 

[Lorelei]

Never heard of them. Have you any more thoughts concerning the WF and JA diamonds?

 

[stook1]

Yes I do... I spoke with Jim at JA about this stone yesterday. His first reaction was that the inclusion might be visible and would be just in front of the prong but nonetheless obscured by the prong since it was so close. Then he looked again and thought that it would be covered by the prong. Sounds borderline to me.

I am also leaning towards the WF stone. For my own education, what is it about the cut that makes the WF diamond better than the JA diamond? I'd love to learn. It seemed to me that they were pretty comparable in that regard.

Also, for anyone interested, I just called ****. My superficial inclination is that they are NOT as good a vendor as WF or JA. It is difficult to make heads or tales of their online inventory. The guy I spoke to started telling me about a stone he had in stock. I asked for the crown and pavilion angles. He went to get the cert and then told me that it just sold. Certainly possible - just didn't have the same comfort level as I've had talking with the people at GOG, WF, and JA. He is calling me back in a couple hours when his next shipment arrives, so I'll withhold absolute judgement till then.

Edited to remove banned company name.

 

[Lorelei]

Both the WF and JA diamond are very finely crafted, but in this instance the WF is my winner based on it's appearance as far as I can see and it's proportions in most instances. Both are great vendors, it is just out of these two particular diamonds that the WF comes out on top for me. Compare the proportions of each and you will get a feel for it. Also have you read the advanced tutorial, this covers everything you need to know.

 

[stook1]

Thank you Lorelei! I mentioned these two options to the good people at GoodOldGold and they have come up with another interesting option. I will post the details once I have them. It is a Tolkowsky (sp?) H&A, J colored but has medium florescence.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/26/2007 1:59:08 PM
Author: stook1
Thank you Lorelei! I mentioned these two options to the good people at GoodOldGold and they have come up with another interesting option. I will post the details once I have them. It is a Tolkowsky (sp?) H&A, J colored but has medium florescence.

Well worth a look as another possibly great contender GOG is another highly respected and trustworthy vendor.

 

[kcoursolle]

Out of the two posted so far, I''d go for the WF stone. It''s really well cut and much more eye-clean than the JA stone. The jamesalllen stone is also well cut, but that inclusions might bug someone. There will be small and barely noticeable differences in color between the two. Both companies are great (I''ve done business with both), and goodoldgold is great too if they find something for you.

 

[stook1]

I thought I'd post some more detail on the Good Old Gold options. Here are the details:

Tolkowsky H&A
1.51 J SI1
GIA graded
7.26 x 7.32 x 4.6
excellent polish
excellent symmetry
Medium Blue flourescence
depth: 63.1
table: 55
crown angle: 35
pavilion angle: 41
This one gets a 2.4 on HCA (IIRC).

H&A
1.596 J VS2
AGS graded - cut grade 0
7.55 x 7.56 x 4.62
Ideal polish
Ideal symmetry
depth: 61.2
table: 55.6
crown angle: 34.1
pavilion angle: 40.9
This one gets a 1.2 on HCA

Thanks again! Choices are getting seriously confusing.

Also, I asked JA to verify that the SI2 stone listed earlier would be eye clean. They've said it will be 99% eye clean when mounted. It is apparently not eye clean bare due to the large inclusion.

 

[JulieN]

links, please

 

[Ellen]

Hi stook,

Do you have IS images for them? I don't see them listed, assume they're new.

Without seeing them, I like the second ones angles much better. But knowing the type/quality of stones they get in, the first could be great too. Plus it has med. fluorescence which would help.

Pics would help!

 

[stook1]

I wish that I could provide pics and or links but these are not posted on their site and not in-house.

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 4/26/2007 5:44:42 PM
Author: stook1
I thought I''d post some more detail on the Good Old Gold options. Here are the details:

Tolkowsky H&A
1.51 J SI1
GIA graded
7.26 x 7.32 x 4.6
excellent polish
excellent symmetry
Medium Blue flourescence
depth: 63.1
table: 55
crown angle: 35
pavilion angle: 41
This one gets a 2.4 on HCA (IIRC).

H&A
1.596 J VS2
AGS graded - cut grade 0
7.55 x 7.56 x 4.62
Ideal polish
Ideal symmetry
depth: 61.2
table: 55.6
crown angle: 34.1
pavilion angle: 40.9
This one gets a 1.2 on HCA

Thanks again! Choices are getting seriously confusing.

Also, I asked JA to verify that the SI2 stone listed earlier would be eye clean. They''ve said it will be 99% eye clean when mounted. It is apparently not eye clean bare due to the large inclusion.

Well...out of these two, I think the first is too deep. It''s facing up much smaller than the second stone. The second stone has nice specs, but an IS image would help decide if it''s a winner. I tend to stick to in-house stones because it makes the search easier and often upgrade policies are limited to in-house stones, you might want to check out GOG''s policy on this.

 

[Lorelei]

Don''t like the depth on the first, 63 is pushing it in my opinion. More info on the second diamond would be good.