The last two

[cluelessguy]

So, I thought I had made my mind up and I was ready to call WF and order but then I thought I''d check James Allen before I ordered and now I can''t decide again

What do you all think?
Here''s the original one I''d decided on from WF:
.74ct G SI1
Table:57.5
Depth:61.3
Crown:34.8
Pav:40.8
5.81-5.84x3.57
AGS0

The new one from JA:
.77ct G VS1
Table:54.0
Depth:61.6
Crown:35.0
Pav:40.8
5.89-5.92x3.64
Cut: EX
Pol/Sym: VG/VG

With PriceScope Discounts these are virtually the same in price. The one from JA appeals to me because it is larger and a step up in clarity. However, the WF one is an AGS0 so it has a bit better cut/pol/sym.

what do you all think? I swear this is the last time I''ll post one of these

 

[Ellen]

To nit pick, I''d still go with the WF diamond.

 

[KristyDarling]

Personally, I'd go with the JA. The numbers on it are STILL great....I highly doubt you'd detect the difference in performance between the two, it's that tiny of a difference. And for the slight bump up in clarity, it's worth it, in my opinion.

 

[cluelessguy]

Thanks both. Kristy that''s what I thought too, but Ellen I''d be intersted in hearing why you think the WF would be better.

 

[devientdrow]

I agree i''d go with the James Allen. When I was picking my diamond I had an AGS000 on hold at a local B&M, the one I looked at that JA had had "ideal" proportions but was GIA Very Good. I chose the one that was bigger and cheaper at JA because MY eyes could not tell the difference in cut between the two. If there was a difference in cut that was vivisble I really couldn''t see. Both stones sparkled like crazy and looked good through the loupe,microscope and Ideal scope. So I got the bigger one! Now i''m saying this was me, maybe someone else could of noticed. It all depends. I''m sure there are those folks out there that could of noticed a difference. But you''d ask if I were you what would I do, and i''d go with the JA.

 

[Mara]

WF...

I'm a numbers whore and I don't like the 35 crown angle on the JA. It's just a personal preference for me. And the difference in size is negligible and I also don't care about clarity. I also prefer EX/ID and not VG on polish and symm.

In the end both stones are almost spot on similar, it just depends on what ends up being your priorities. It's splitting hairs but you asked.

Have you seen images, light return scope pictures, pictures of the stone? I'd be interested to see how symmetry compares. I am a big fan of visual symmetry.

 

[Lorelei]

I think go with your gut, either will be beautiful performers, if you prefer the higher clarity then shoot for that one. However I don't think you can go wrong with either - two great diamonds and two great vendors. I would prefer the WF, but the diamond isn't for me!

Let us know what you decide

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/24/2006 12:57:43 PM
Author: cluelessguy
Thanks both. Kristy that''s what I thought too, but Ellen I''d be intersted in hearing why you think the WF would be better.

OK, but remember, this is nit picking, I''m sure they''d both be beautiful. I just like everything about the WF stone better, assuming it''s eye clean. And the difference in size will not even be noticable.

 

[cluelessguy]

Thanks for the help everyone. I sent an email to JA asking for an ideal scope image. I''ll post it here when the send it.

 

[Regular Guy]

It's close, but in this case, I'd go with the WF.

At first, I was going to say it's a tougher call, with knowns and unknowns. Without needing to get too subtle about them, you nail them in your post:

Date: 8/24/2006 12:41:59 PM
Author:cluelessguy

The one from JA appeals to me because it is larger and a step up in clarity. However, the WF one is an AGS0 so it has a bit better cut/pol/sym.

I might have only nit picked you for your conclusion. Forget about what DenverAppraiser might have meant here, the VS1 and SI 1 differences are knowns, but what's unknown (for sure) until you ask is if the WF option is eye clean. I'd ask. As you say, that the polish & symmetry are vg and not ideal are knowns, can be mitigated, but what's unknown is if this is why they were sent to GIA vs AGS. Of some importance, is that the AGS option received AGS0, also meaning an expert looked at it and gave it that marker for optical performance. Still, the GIA option is slightly bigger.

But, you didn't mention the WF option was an ACA. That turned it for me. That means it not only passes AGS for optimum choice, but also WF. Associatedly, it is H&A, also not mentioned.

Because it's an ACA, it's more likely to be eye clean than otherwise, but I'd still check. If not, re-consider going with JA.

Both are 1.6 on the HCA. Both would be lovely, probably. Unfortunately, I doubt an idealscope will help except to possibly confirm a problem in this case, though it might help to confirm it's lovely, too.

 

[Mara]

ditto ira, i didn''t know that the WF stone was an ACA. brian is sooo picky about his brand, so that stone has got to be a stunner. plus it makes sense then that the ACA is a little bit more for a smaller size and SI1. it''s a branded stone.

 

[Rod]

The fact the stone is WF, ACA, would completely sway me to purchase the WF stone. Nothing wrong with the JA stone mind you, but when you look at WF ACA''s, you recognize how impeccably selected they are.

Good luck with whichever of these beauties you choose!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/24/2006 2:29:41 PM
Author: Rod
The fact the stone is WF, ACA, would completely sway me to purchase the WF stone. Nothing wrong with the JA stone mind you, but when you look at WF ACA''s, you recognize how impeccably selected they are.

Good luck with whichever of these beauties you choose!

*small highjack*

Rod, not sure you frequent the Show Me The Ring section, but I posted my upgrades. I know you wanted to see the studs.

*end threadjack*

 

[Rod]

Date: 8/24/2006 2:42:51 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/24/2006 2:29:41 PM
Author: Rod
The fact the stone is WF, ACA, would completely sway me to purchase the WF stone. Nothing wrong with the JA stone mind you, but when you look at WF ACA's, you recognize how impeccably selected they are.

Good luck with whichever of these beauties you choose!

*small highjack*

Rod, not sure you frequent the Show Me The Ring section, but I posted my upgrades. I know you wanted to see the studs.

*end threadjack*

I did see them Ellen and THEY'RE GORGEOUS!!!!!!!

 

[Ellen]

Thanks.

 

[kcoursolle]

I just wanted to say that these are both lovely diamonds, the differences are hair splitting. Feel good about your decision either way, it''s going to be stunning!