Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Skipping Tiffany, help me choose between these 3 ACA'S

happilymarried

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
45
Some of you may remember me posting about finding a better stone at Tiffany. Some suggested looking elsewhere. Well, I have known all along that if I went with anyone else, it would be whiteflash. I have been going back and forth with tiffany for a long while and recently thought tiffany was the way to go. I had thought my wife was really attached to the tiffany name, but I have found out, not as much as I thought. I have found out that she would like bigger versus their name. Basically she loves tiffany but loves bigger diamonds more than smaller tiffanys haha. So, I am looking at a diamond over 1.5 ct and decided on whiteflash 100%.

What do you think of these 3?

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3521171,3137125,3634978

ACA 1.55 SI1
ACA 1.59 VS2
Expert Sel. 1.74 SI1
I have decided that I am very happy with I color. I have learned that all 3 of these are going to look very very close in size.

Becca at whiteflash recommends the 1.59 but thought they were all great choices. The 1.59 is VS2 which is better than the other SI1's.

The 1.57 is priced quite a bit better. It is SI1, versus VS2. Probably the best thing that I can see with this choice is the price.

The 1.74 I am close to eliminating. I dont know if I would see the size difference. The ct. size is basically why it's in my final 3. It is not an ACA.

So enough of me rambling. What are your opinions on which is the best? Thanks so much again for all your help.
 

m-2-b

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
3,683
I prefer the 1.52 I VS-2 ACA versus the others. I have purchased several ACA's in the past, including a 4.5ct ACA in their Tiffany reproduction setting. I am confident that your wife will love owning one herself!
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,808
I think you WOULD see the size difference actually. Especially between the smallest and the largest. If you google d i a m d b.com you can enter the size and see a visual of the difference.

That being said, I like the 1.595, but could be persuaded to the 1.7 pretty easily.
 

pfunk

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
770
1.55 gets my vote. As long as it is eye clean to YOUR standards (distances you specify and from the side if you desire) then it would get my vote. I'd also be asking for a color comparison (the I color band is wide and stones can vary quite a bit). The 1.59 is cleaner and cut consistency may be a little better but in real life I think you'll be hard pressed to see much of a difference, if any. Size difference vs 1.59 will be too hard for the eye to see, IMO.

Some will complain that the 1.55 SI1 has a table inclusion. Again, if it is eye clean to your standards that wouldn't bother me. For nearly $2,000 saved I see the best value in the 1.55 SI1.

You WOULD see the size difference going up to the 1.74, so then it becomes a question of whether it is worth the extra money. You'd see it with the stones side by side, but once mounted and not next to another stone, the size difference wouldn't be as noticeable. Either size is substantial.
 

RockBrat

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
116
My opinion is to take 1 off the list. There actually is quite a difference between the dimensions of these three stones and if you saw them side by side you'd probably notice it. :) I notice a difference in just .03 mm. Number 3 will face up substantially larger than number 1 and for that plus the better clarity, you get much more bang for your buck. I'd choose between 2 and 3. Again I think number 2 will face up substantially larger than number 3 but I sure do love that VS2 clarity. I think both would be very pretty stones but they will look completely different. I would have a hard time choosing between 2 and 3 for myself.
 

RockBrat

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
116
In furtherance of my post, I just looked at the certs. I think that indented natural on number 1 could be an issue.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,808
happilymarried|1457458797|4001599 said:
I guess you can see a slight difference between the smallest and biggest. I had only compared the bigger ones together. Thanks!

http://[no affiliate links]/compare/1.55ct-round-7.38x7.42x4.59-vs-1.74ct-round-7.7x7.73x4.76/
Huge difference no, but still a difference. The ES is still AGS0, still better than 90% of what people out there have. HOWEVER it is not an ACA - if that is what she wants.

2016-03-08_10-47-54.png
 

pfunk

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
770
telephone89|1457459372|4001607 said:
happilymarried|1457458797|4001599 said:
I guess you can see a slight difference between the smallest and biggest. I had only compared the bigger ones together. Thanks!

http://[no affiliate links]/compare/1.55ct-round-7.38x7.42x4.59-vs-1.74ct-round-7.7x7.73x4.76/
Huge difference no, but still a difference. The ES is still AGS0, still better than 90% of what people out there have. HOWEVER it is not an ACA - if that is what she wants.
I can definitely see that difference. The difference between the 1.55 and 1.59 is much harder for me to see, but side by side I think I can still make it out. Total face up area difference is only 3%.
screen_shot_2016-03-08_at_11.png
 

ringo865

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
2,369
I am SO glad you talked to your Fiancée (to be). You will get at least as nice (prolly nicer) stone with WF, but much larger than you could have gotten at Tiffany for the $$. Even the gigantic 1.7 is likely a nicer stone fhan they'd have. Good choice going with WF.

I'll let others opine on which is the better stone. Me, I'd pick the big one ;-)
 

happilymarried

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
45
Thanks for all the help so far. It's a really hard decision, especially when you throw in the variable of the smallest being 1800 cheaper than the middle option.

I would especially be interested in hearing about those of you who are experts at reading the numbers. Are they all going to be similar performers light wise? Is there anything that points you in one direction performance wise?
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
telephone89|1457459372|4001607 said:
happilymarried|1457458797|4001599 said:
I guess you can see a slight difference between the smallest and biggest. I had only compared the bigger ones together. Thanks!

http://[no affiliate links]/compare/1.55ct-round-7.38x7.42x4.59-vs-1.74ct-round-7.7x7.73x4.76/
Huge difference no, but still a difference. The ES is still AGS0, still better than 90% of what people out there have. HOWEVER it is not an ACA - if that is what she wants.
I'd get the larger one as well... Like telephone mentioned, it's still an AGS0! Your fiancé will be thrilled! :love:
 

RockBrat

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
116
It's really hard to tell without seeing them but based on the numbers, they are all within the Tolkowsky cut range but 2 is very different than 1 and 3. Stones 1 and 3 will essentially, the majority of the time, have a low level of pastel rainbow colored streaks in it. They won't be over the entire diamond but just here or there. Almost like if an Opal were silver but still had its pink and blue colorations. However the indented natural on stone 1 could impede the light and you may notice a silver leaky area right around it with no rainbow colors that may be transparent or look like a mirror without a reflection. Stone 2 will be brighter and have more white light to it. The best comparison I can think of is a low wattage lightbulb vs a high wattage lightbulb. Higher wattage is brighter but they're both close to the same color and they both produce light. It will most likely look whiter and brighter and less silver than stones 1 and 3 but you might not have as many pale pink or blue streaks as the other two.

Also, if they all had the exact same dimensions, number 2 would appear the largest just based on how the brighter white light is reflected. So not only do you get the larger size, it will actually appear even larger than it is.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,630
I've probably had more WF stones than anyone else here, and I was able to visit WF in person in February and try on their fabulous stones!

First, let me say, thank GOODNESS you found out that she didn't care all that much about the blue box!!!! :appl: Whew!!!

Eliminate #1 because it doesn't have any advantages.

Next, the 1.7 stone is going to be visibly larger than the others. It is AGS Ideal cut. It is probably better cut than any of the stones you saw at Tiffany. If she cares about size, then get THIS ONE!!!!!!

For those of us here who are diamond nuts and obsessive about perfection (like me), we might prefer the 1.59 since it is an ACA and VS2. Your wife likely is not going to know what ACA means and probably would not be able to see a single difference in the two stones aside from the 1.7 being LARGER!!! Her friends won't know either, but they'll recognize the SIZE!

This is an easy decision. Since you were willing to sacrifice cut quality to get a brand name, in this case, knowing now that she'd rather have a larger stone, get the 1.7 which is AGS Ideal cut and one of the top cut stones anywhere. Just verify two things with your sales person...that it is a mid or high I color, and that it is totally eyeclean from all directions (which it appears to be in the video).

Put that diamond on hold quick!!!
 

happilymarried

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
45
I have to head out the door right now, but wanted to share some info from Becca at whiteflash. I emailed her asking about the inclusiions etc..

"I’ve pulled these 3 stones and looked at them for you. On the two SI diamonds I was able to find the inclusions from as close as 6 inches. This is just about as close as most people can focus so that may not be anything that bothers you. But if you’re going the full eye clean look from all angles then the VS2 would still be my choice.

I would consider all of these true I colors, so they’re all just in the middle of the spectrum with none of them leaning more towards the J range.

These are all very beautiful diamonds for sure so it will be like splitting a hair in 3 in the end. There really is no bad choice to be made."
 

happilymarried

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
45
1.55 left, 1.59 right:



smallest to largest from left to right:



Not sure if those photos from whiteflash help!

_36623.jpg

_36624.jpg
 

RockBrat

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
116
Ultimately, happilymarried, you get to make the decision. But I would go with the largest one. My second choice would be the vs2.
 

marcy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
23,768
All 3 look like beautiful diamonds. IMO I would go for the VS2. If Becca could spot the inclusions at about 6" I think I'd pass on the Si diamonds - once I spot an inclusion in sunlight I am always trying to find it. BTW I let Brittany at WF pick my diamond when I narrowed it down to 3 and I am not sorry with the ACA I ended up with.

Decisions, decisions . . . :appl:

ETA I just watched the video of the VS2 and it's gorgeous.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,630
Well, I am not sure I can even focus at 6 inches, but I guess it would most depend on whether your wife would value size or higher clarity more. I did personally want VS and didn't consider SI1 for the stone I wear as an e-ring. But many people do go with SI1 to get a larger size. Her preference would have to take precedence over anyone else's.
 

happilymarried

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
45
I have to say if it weren't for finding this site, I would be buying a much lousier stone for sure. Even if I stuck with Tiffany I wouldn't have known how to find a better pick there!

I read through, and thanks to everyone who replied. Thanks to pintobean for the box suggestions too.

I am still trying to decide! I went through and it looks like 5 votes for the big one, 3 votes for the 1.59 and 1 vote for the smallest.

I do have one other question. I know whiteflash confirmed that they would all be great, similar performers. When I look at the idealscope image of the 1.7, it looks different from the rest. The center is more greyish while the others are red. The 1.7 image also has white around the outside. The Aset image looks a little different too, like there were different colors used. Are the images for that diamond an older style or something?

Also, the 1.74 is 1.9 hca. Excellent light return and very good on the other 3. The 2 smaller options are 1 and 1.2, all ex. except spread very good on both. Should I take this into consideration at all?
 

RockBrat

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
116
happilymarried|1457503347|4001937 said:
I do have one other question. I know whiteflash confirmed that they would all be great, similar performers. When I look at the idealscope image of the 1.7, it looks different from the rest. The center is more greyish while the others are red. The 1.7 image also has white around the outside. The Aset image looks a little different too, like there were different colors used. Are the images for that diamond an older style or something?
No, the images on the 1.7 are not older. It's exactly what I already posted to you above in this thread. It has much different angles and will look different than the other 2. I explained the difference, white light vs. rainbow light.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,630
happilymarried|1457503347|4001937 said:
I have to say if it weren't for finding this site, I would be buying a much lousier stone for sure. Even if I stuck with Tiffany I wouldn't have known how to find a better pick there!

I read through, and thanks to everyone who replied. Thanks to pintobean for the box suggestions too.

I am still trying to decide! I went through and it looks like 5 votes for the big one, 3 votes for the 1.59 and 1 vote for the smallest.

I do have one other question. I know whiteflash confirmed that they would all be great, similar performers. When I look at the idealscope image of the 1.7, it looks different from the rest. The center is more greyish while the others are red. The 1.7 image also has white around the outside. The Aset image looks a little different too, like there were different colors used. Are the images for that diamond an older style or something?

Also, the 1.74 is 1.9 hca. Excellent light return and very good on the other 3. The 2 smaller options are 1 and 1.2, all ex. except spread very good on both. Should I take this into consideration at all?
A lower HCA score means nothing at all. A 1.1 is not better than 1.9. The HCA is a screening tool for GIA Ex cut diamonds to help us find diamonds that fall into the ideal cut range. These stones are already graded as AGS Ideal cut, so the HCA isn't even used on them. All WF ACA and ES stones should fall in the less than 2.0 range on the HCA, so you don't use it for these stones.

All of the images are superior. No one is going to be able to tell the difference in these three stones other than the size. The first stone should be eliminated. You are basically choosing larger size with SI1 clarity over smaller with VS2 and mentally knowing that it is ACA. Visually you are only going to see the size difference. I'd order the 1.7 and if she has xray vision and can see inclusions, then you have 30 days to exchange it for a different stone.
 

pfunk

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
770
I personally wouldn't rule out number 1 and say it doesn't have any advantages. It is cut to very similar proportions as the 1.59 and as you can see the size difference is VERY hard to even see. It's eye clean and the visual look is going to be similar because it is cut to the same proportions. Certainly the $ difference needs to be considered as well as other aspects. Having said that, if you want the eye cleanliness from all distances/angles, then the VS may be worth the money to you. But from a visual standpoint I wouldn't rule it out.
 

ringo865

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
2,369
^plus one on the bigger. ;-)
 

farrahlyn

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,170
if she wants size, go for the 1.7, it's a beautiful stone! Personally i'm totally fine with an SI1 stone (mine is) and the extra bit of size that can come along with it. If you get it and the inclusions in it really bug you then you can return it, right?
 

Sagefemme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Messages
291
I'm just so relieved that happilymarried really thought about (and investigated) what his wife really wants, and has been able to throw the blue box out! That's a good husband in my book.

One thing about inclusions and eye clean and all that: I don't know what age group happilymarried and his wife are in, but if 45 or older I have some sad news: NONE of us can see ANYTHING at 6 inch range! This means we need to carry reading glasses around with us, but we are more likely to be very happy with a BIGGER diamond that may be more included. If it hasn't happened to you yet it will! I say get the 1.7 and see how it performs in your house, outside, work, Lowe's, best friend's house, etc. Spend time with in in all lighting environments and send it back if it doesn't make your heart go pitter-patter.

Also, have any of the experts here scoured the Expert Selections for other larger stones that might be worth considering? Is the 1.7 the only one that fits the bill?
 

RockBrat

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
116
Sagefemme|1457536472|4002039 said:
Also, have any of the experts here scoured the Expert Selections for other larger stones that might be worth considering? Is the 1.7 the only one that fits the bill?
Are you asking for yourself? If so, you should start a new thread with your criteria. I know of one that I'm sure is an absolute stunner and good price but it does not score less than 2 on the hca so a lot of people I think would overlook it.

Happilymarried, let use know what you choose. This is exciting.
 

RockBrat

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
116
pfunk|1457532149|4002000 said:
I personally wouldn't rule out number 1 and say it doesn't have any advantages. It is cut to very similar proportions as the 1.59 and as you can see the size difference is VERY hard to even see. It's eye clean and the visual look is going to be similar because it is cut to the same proportions. Certainly the $ difference needs to be considered as well as other aspects. Having said that, if you want the eye cleanliness from all distances/angles, then the VS may be worth the money to you. But from a visual standpoint I wouldn't rule it out.
Everyone's eyes are different but I actually see a large difference in the face-up size between the 1.55 and 1.59. One should consider the mm dimensions of the stones, as similar carat weights mean nothing. There is a .13 mm difference. If you put that into prespective, considering there is .19 mm difference between the 1.59 and 1.74, you actually maximize your face up value more between the 1.55 and 1.59. You gain .13 mm face up for .04 ctw. Between the 1.59 and 1.74, you gain .19 mm face up value for .15 ctw. The way the diamonds are falling tilted on the hand is deceiving.

The price savings of that stone is the advantage but considering that it has an indented natural in an undesireable spot and seems to have smaller mm dimensions than it should, that's where the savings is coming from. It is a good stone though for someone who wants to be in that price range, but the face up size value is not there.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top