Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

The age old Clarity vs Carat debate

D

DiamondSEEKER 1452

Rough_Rock
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
67
My partner and I are in New York currently hunting for the perfect diamond for an engagement ring. You all have been amazingly helpful and helped us pick out a very nice diamond. JA had a delay in sending it and in the meanwhile my partner wondered if it was stupid going to such a high clarity, if we could get more carat and still have an eye clean stone. All girls want as big as possible I guess!

JA were very nice and as our stone was still in their store they kindly allowed us to break the one viewing policy and see two more bigger stones to compare with the one we bought. We can switch to one of these if we want. But are they as nice? Is going down in clarity worth it for the extra carat weight?

It is the very final decision so we are trying to make sure we make the right one!

1.73 G VVS2 (One we originally selected)
- 1.7 on Holloway

1.73 G.jpg
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...-color-vvs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-2569843

1.90 G Si1
- Very hard to see the inclusions with naked eye, only one very slight white wisp if you look very close up
- A little larger visual appearance than 1.73
- $300 cheaper than 1.73 G VVS2
- 1.5 on Holloway
- 7% more top surface area than 1.73
1.90 G.jpg

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...g-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-1990451

2.02 G SI1
- Very hard to see most inclusions with naked eye. However, there is one darker inclusion on the face that is visible from certain angles
- 1.7 on Holloway but only very score on good light return
- More noticeable size difference (13% more top surface area)
- $2000 more than 1.73 G VVS2

2.02 G.jpg

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...g-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-2617026
 
I'd say yes to the 1.9 and no to the 2.02. Any dark visible inclusion would bother me, and there's a premium you pay for going over the 2ct mark; for a dark mark on the stone that's fairly easily seen, $2000 is hard to swallow for such a small difference in size.
 
Thanks heaps! So you'd pick the 1.9 over the 1.7?
 
Everyone is different. I personally would go for clarity over size, but I'm sure not everyone would agree. I don't mind an inclusion off to the side, but it would bug me to have one in the table. But that's the problem with mind-clean thinking.
Is there one that begs to be taken home because it seems the most beautiful? That would influence my decision as well if I were in your position.
Also, is there a size that is most compatible with your social circle?
just stuff to think about...
 
Thanks Jimmianne. Definitely things to think about - its such a hard decision!!

Paul from Beyond 4 Cs thinks the 1.9 & 2 carat doesn't have very good optical symmetry (patterning) based on the link to James Allen. Does anyone have any opinion on the idealscopes or cut of them?

I dont think the link to the 1.9 works in my post. If not, this is it: https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...g-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-1990451
 
Last edited:
I dont like the way the 1.9 looks...talking about the cut. The 2 carat looks to be a better cut than the
1.9 but has the darker inclusion. The one you currently have looks the best. Is the size worth it to
you and how do you feel about the inclusions?

Were you excited to see the bigger stones? Did you feel like the inclusions weren't too bad or is the
size trade off not worth it due to the inclusions?
 
Thanks a bunch tyty333, can I ask what you think is wrong with the cut of the 1.9, or what turns you off? All the info helps to make the best decision!!

Oh, always excited for a bigger stone but they weren't that much bigger so wanted to get the PS experts (you guys) opinion as to whether it was worth it to switch for one of them. The inclusions weren't terrible by any means but if you have good vision you can notice on the 2 carat a darker inclusion & on the 1.9 you have to really strain your eyes to see a white wisp. Would only be noticeable close up on both.
 
I can speak generally to how I prioritized the 4cs:

Cut
Carat
Clarity
Color

I ended up with a whiteflash ACA, 1.84 Ct, VS2, I color

I would have considered SI1 if it was the right one but they didn't have any in that range that would have been mind clean enough for me. I even rejected quite a few VS2s.

For you, I wouldn't go above 2 carat because you'll be paying for that leap. If it were me, I would compare the 1.9 and the stone you bought and just pick which looks better to your eye. The specs will drive you crazy and you have 2 good stones to choose from.
 
Thanks Tophat1. Yes, we have discussed it & agree with you. I think the 2 carat is out based on price, light leakage (can see it on idealscope) & the dark inclusion on face. It is down to the 1.7 & 1.9.

Some people think the 1.9 isn't cut particularly well. Is anyone able to explain why? Seems like it fits the specs?
 
For me, going down in clarity is fine as long as it is a clear inclusion that doesn't reflect around. But it's really a personal preference - both diamonds you showed with Si1 clarity would be more than fine with me but there are plenty of people who would not be able to tolerate those inclusions. I know I'm not really sensitive to inclusions though.

I like the 2 ct best.
 
HI:

Once you observe/find a central inclusion--your eye zeros in on it, every time. (speaking from experience and it "bothered me"). Only you know what you are comfortable with--in short, what Jimmianne eluded to.

cheers--Sharon
 
It's a hard one. Usually the PS community all go the same way but lots of differing opinions this time. Aside from clarity & carat, what do you all think, is the cut and all other aspects between the diamonds even, for instance light return etc? Then, we can just consider if we can handle the inclusion or not.
 
DiamondSEEKER 1452 said:
It's a hard one. Usually the PS community all go the same way but lots of differing opinions this time. Aside from clarity & carat, what do you all think, is the cut and all other aspects between the diamonds even, for instance light return etc? Then, we can just consider if we can handle the inclusion or not.
Click to expand...



I don't think we all drink the same kool-aid. Unified on cut, perhaps, yes. But size over color and clarity, varied opinions for sure. I am probably the only person "here" who would buy a D IF diamond.
 
Is none of the above an option? I personally think VVS clarity is an overkill, but wouldn't be ok with any eye visible inclusion either. You can absolutely find a completely eye clean VS2 and possibly SI1. I have an SI1 stone that is completely eye-clean and the inclusions are extremely hard to find with a loupe (though I did have 2 independent appraisers tell me it was graded too harshly on clarity).
 
Personally I wouldn't get any of them. The 1.7 is a great diamond but I wouldn't be comfortable paying that much $ with a vendor that requires x2 for their upgrade policy or towards a clarity the eye cannot appreciate. I would look until a better deal comes round or purchase from a vendor with a better upgrade policy.

Cut size I think the 1.9 and 2 are ok, not the best, but I'm sure they're beautiful diamonds. The eye sores are what put me off
 
gm89uk said:
Personally I wouldn't get any of them. The 1.7 is a great diamond but I wouldn't be comfortable paying that much $ with a vendor that requires x2 for their upgrade policy or towards a clarity the eye cannot appreciate. I would look until a better deal comes round or purchase from a vendor with a better upgrade policy.

Cut size I think the 1.9 and 2 are ok, not the best, but I'm sure they're beautiful diamonds. The eye sores are what put me off
Click to expand...
So true, we hunted for a VS1 or VS2 that was well cut and to be honest, we only found them for around the same price as the VVS2, so we thought why not just get the VVS2
 
alene said:
Is none of the above an option? I personally think VVS clarity is an overkill, but wouldn't be ok with any eye visible inclusion either. You can absolutely find a completely eye clean VS2 and possibly SI1. I have an SI1 stone that is completely eye-clean and the inclusions are extremely hard to find with a loupe (though I did have 2 independent appraisers tell me it was graded too harshly on clarity).
Click to expand...
None of the above could be an option. However, we hunted for a VS1 or VS2 that was well cut and to be honest, we only found them for around the same price as the VVS2, so we thought why not just get the VVS2. The inclusion on the 1.9 is extremely hard to see right next to your face and to be fair I have 20/20 vision. It is also a white inclusion. The 1.9 is probably what we would go for IF they were both equally well cut. A lot of people on here are unsure about the cut of the 1.9 and the cut is the most important aspect of a diamond so that is worrying.
 
I thought I would upload some photos of the size difference so that you can all see and also anyone in the future wondering how much the size varies in this range.

20170420_144246 (1).jpg 20170420_150448.jpg
20170420_144238 (1).jpg
20170420_145244.jpg
20170420_144242.jpg
 
Can you appreciate difference in cut quality with your eyes?
 
I would NEVER sacrifice clarity for size! My favorite is the 1.73 G VVS2. I'll skip the other two options that have bad SI1 clarity with big crystals just under the table right in the center!
 
EvaEvans said:
I would NEVER sacrifice clarity for size! My favorite is the 1.73 G VVS2. I'll skip the other two options that have bad SI1 clarity with big crystals just under the table right in the center!
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for your input. Would you do that even if you cant see the inclusions?
 
If the stone was eye clean, I'd prefer a larger stone over paying for something I can't see. Not everyone is the same, though, and would prefer "mind clean" over eye clean.
 
EvaEvans said:
I would NEVER sacrifice clarity for size! My favorite is the 1.73 G VVS2. I'll skip the other two options that have bad SI1 clarity with big crystals just under the table right in the center!
Click to expand...
I think it's entirely reasonable to sacrifice clarity for size, as long as clarity is eyeclean by my definition. I wouldn't sacrifice CUT for size.

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R170-762194918?

A possible other contender if you're a fan of FICs (AGS0)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...arat-g-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-727015

Cheaper alternatives:
http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/9142043/1-90-carat-round-diamond-g-color-vs2-clarity
http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/8789516/1-72-carat-round-diamond-g-color-si1-clarity

idealscopes required
 
Last edited:
gm89uk said:
I think it's entirely reasonable to sacrifice clarity for size, as long as clarity is eyeclean by my definition. I wouldn't sacrifice CUT for size.

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R170-762194918?

A possible other contender if you're a fan of FICs (AGS0)
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...arat-g-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-727015

Cheaper alternatives:
http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/9142043/1-90-carat-round-diamond-g-color-vs2-clarity
http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/8789516/1-72-carat-round-diamond-g-color-si1-clarity

idealscopes required
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for these choices! I think why they are cheaper is because they either have florescence or are AGS certified. I know a lot of people have full confidence in AGS grading but a lot of jewellers have warned us against going for an AGS stone so we want to stick with a GIA stone.

Do you think with the ones we have, going for the 1.9 we are sacrificing cut for size? That's what we are very unsure about.
 
I would personally take an AGS000 stone over a GIAXXX. Although it is entirely up to you, I think you have been poorly advised. If you look at all the premium super ideal cut brands, HPD, GOG, BG, WF, all use AGS to certify that their diamonds have ideal light optics.

Jewellers that extensively warned against AGS stones do not have evidence to back it up, or are ignorant on the matter.

I'm not sure which part of the world you're from but as far as I'm concerned, the only difference in AGS vs GIA is their cut analysis. AGS will take a model of the diamond and simulate LOTS of light rays going through it from different angles, to determine if there is excellent contrast, brightness, light return etc from the diamond. This is superior to an ASET/idealscope analysis which only reveals information about light return. While there are people here who will argue why would AGS dictate what makes a beautiful diamond, generally AGS0.

At the very least I would do more research and make an informed decision regarding ruling out AGS labs, you are hundreds upon hundreds of topics and wealth of research at your disposal here, which is more powerful than the words of some individuals. Especially if it comes to significant financial saving (as you've realised, well cut stones in your size requirement G colour, at reasonable price are not the most common!)

The 1.9 is not as well cut as the 1.7, but it is still well cut! There is some optical asymmetry in the 1.9C and probably more visible imperfections in the hearts and arrows. You can see the half pavilion mains in the 1.9C are slightly off at 10oclock and 6oclock positions. These are small nuisances which are difficult to see, particularly in something so small. There is still great light return. If it is not noticeable to your naked eye, after thorough examination in different lighting environments then it may be you won't notice a difference, and I bet the average consumer probably wouldn't. It may be only after some experience with diamonds, the nuisances between a really top end ideal cut, and an otherwise well cut diamond can be appreciated. I just think the advice you've had regarding the crystal inclusion under the table is legitimate, and if you are wondering ?should I put up with this now, it will only get worse with time.

Were it not for the inclusion, I'd have no problem recommending the 1.9C vs the 1.7C to you based on cut alone and value for money.
 
Last edited:
For me definitely the 2 ct. It looks eye clean to me, but mentally a big difference between being in the 2 ct zone. I can also see the size difference from your photos.
 
On my computer the middle picture is showing up about life size and I can tell you rn I can't see any inclusions.
SomethingNew said:
For me definitely the 2 ct. It looks eye clean to me, but mentally a big difference between being in the 2 ct zone. I can also see the size difference from your photos.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for me the 2 ct size is a mental "yesss" that "absolutely eye-clean" simply isn't. And I too can see the size difference. I'm not a size queen (when it comes to diamonds anyway :saint:) but 2 ct is about the perfect size imo.
 
gm89uk said:
I would personally take an AGS000 stone over a GIAXXX. Although it is entirely up to you, I think you have been poorly advised. If you look at all the premium super ideal cut brands, HPD, GOG, BG, WF, all use AGS to certify that their diamonds have ideal light optics.

Jewellers that extensively warned against AGS stones do not have evidence to back it up, or are ignorant on the matter.

I'm not sure which part of the world you're from but as far as I'm concerned, the only difference in AGS vs GIA is their cut analysis. AGS will take a model of the diamond and simulate LOTS of light rays going through it from different angles, to determine if there is excellent contrast, brightness, light return etc from the diamond. This is superior to an ASET/idealscope analysis which only reveals information about light return. While there are people here who will argue why would AGS dictate what makes a beautiful diamond, generally AGS0.

At the very least I would do more research and make an informed decision regarding ruling out AGS labs, you are hundreds upon hundreds of topics and wealth of research at your disposal here, which is more powerful than the words of some individuals. Especially if it comes to significant financial saving (as you've realised, well cut stones in your size requirement G colour, at reasonable price are not the most common!)

The 1.9 is not as well cut as the 1.7, but it is still well cut! There is some optical asymmetry in the 1.9C and probably more visible imperfections in the hearts and arrows. You can see the half pavilion mains in the 1.9C are slightly off at 10oclock and 6oclock positions. These are small nuisances which are difficult to see, particularly in something so small. There is still great light return. If it is not noticeable to your naked eye, after thorough examination in different lighting environments then it may be you won't notice a difference, and I bet the average consumer probably wouldn't. It may be only after some experience with diamonds, the nuisances between a really top end ideal cut, and an otherwise well cut diamond can be appreciated. I just think the advice you've had regarding the crystal inclusion under the table is legitimate, and if you are wondering ?should I put up with this now, it will only get worse with time.

Were it not for the inclusion, I'd have no problem recommending the 1.9C vs the 1.7C to you based on cut alone and value for money.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much. This really helped explain it to us a lot especially re why the 1.9 isn't as well cut as the 1.7, we were kind of scratching our heads.
 
Most jewellers don't carry AGS diamonds. They carry GIA stones. That's why they don't approve AGS.
Many mall jewellers don't carry either GIA or AGS. That's why they don't approve both.
Many B&M stores talk s$#% about online vendors, because they are a threat.
I met sales persons/managers who are GIA graduate, working for a chain company who does internal grading. They talk S$%$ about GIA.

Businesses promote their own brands and whatever brands they carry. It is as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top