Thoughts on a CBI vs VC?

[symc820]

Relatively new to this and discovered PS as well as several options for Super Ideals - two options that stuck out to me were:

1.68 H SI1 from CBI
1.41 G VS2 from VC

They're not too far off from price - if cut wise they're on par, do people think it would be better off getting the smaller but better spec diamond vs the larger but color/clarity grade down one from CBI?
One thing to note is that with VC they're offering to set it on my existing setting for free. My significant other also is a size 5 finger so I'm wondering if the smaller size would be a more ideal fit.

Thanks in advance!

 

[LLJsmom]

Assuming you have seen neither, I would look at both IRL before making the decision. With super ideals, I think different people can have different preferences. I went through the process myself and one vendor's spoke to me more than another's. Just my experience. I am sure both are beautiful.

 

[jBright]

Assuming it’s eyeclean, cut is same, I’d go for the bigger one.

 

[Big Fat Facets]

super ideal!

you cannot go wrong!

best if you can see them in person, otherwise have both vendors provide video clip and see if you and your intended prefer one over the other

if it were me, i would need to be certain the si clarity is eye clean. i also would lean towards the vs clarity as i wouldn't want and si clarity stone.

 

[missy]

Assuming you have seen neither, I would look at both IRL before making the decision. With super ideals, I think different people can have different preferences. I went through the process myself and one vendor's spoke to me more than another's. Just my experience. I am sure both are beautiful.

This. If you can, see both in person. Seeing with one's own eyes is truly the best way to evaluate a stone. Some might say the only way. With a CBI and a VC you cannot go wrong and it just comes down to which one you prefer. And make sure the color and clarity are good for you. Good luck!

 

[tyty333]

That 1.68, even though eye-clean, has a black carbon on the table. That would not be clean enough for most PSers (of course, you need to
decide for yourself). Most people want no black carbon under the table unless its itty-bitty then its a maybe.

That G looks really nice...does VC have the same (or a good) trade-up policy if your GF ever decides she wants to go bigger down the road?
(I'm not sure).

 

[daisygrl]

How about this one, OP? https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD8052

You can always call both of these vendors and ask them if they have something else coming that might be to your liking. You can also ask CBI vendor (his name is Wink) if those diamonds on holds are still on holds or purchased or might be "released?" - As they are some nice ones on hold in G-H color range.

Both vendors are friendly and will assist you if you tell them what you are looking for. They might be more of help than us in terms of inventory. Just reach out. You cannot go wrong with either - both offer a spectacular cut and same trade-in policy in case you might want one in the future.

 

[symc820]

Thanks everyone for the replies so far! I'm going to try to get as much seeing in person/photos/videos as I can. I know many of these vendors allow you to see the diamond / free returns but I'm sure many are in the same boat where it is difficult to hold funds for two+ diamonds at the same time.

Should I not "trust" all super ideal vendors when they claim that their diamonds are eye clean?
@tyty333 I had the same concern about the 1.68 having the black carbon despite them saying it is eye clean. How about this 1.65? https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10853 It is currently on hold but thinking it is a better alternative without the large black carbon in the middle. VC does have the same upgrade policy which is one of the few reasons I narrowed down to CBI and VC.

@daisygrl Thanks for your suggestion! I took a look - wonder why it is more expensive per carat considering it is the same color/clarity? What do you think of the 1.65 I linked above? Currently on hold as you mentioned. I do have concerns about the cavity listed on the bottom of the diamond that you linked. I reached out to both vendors and they told me due to COVID that they don't have additional inventory expected.

 

[daisygrl]

Thanks everyone for the replies so far! I'm going to try to get as much seeing in person/photos/videos as I can. I know many of these vendors allow you to see the diamond / free returns but I'm sure many are in the same boat where it is difficult to hold funds for two+ diamonds at the same time.

Should I not "trust" all super ideal vendors when they claim that their diamonds are eye clean?
@tyty333 I had the same concern about the 1.68 having the black carbon despite them saying it is eye clean. How about this 1.65? https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10853 It is currently on hold but thinking it is a better alternative without the large black carbon in the middle. VC does have the same upgrade policy which is one of the few reasons I narrowed down to CBI and VC.

@daisygrl Thanks for your suggestion! I took a look - wonder why it is more expensive per carat considering it is the same color/clarity? What do you think of the 1.65 I linked above? Currently on hold as you mentioned. I do have concerns about the cavity listed on the bottom of the diamond that you linked. I reached out to both vendors and they told me due to COVID that they don't have additional inventory expected.

Good eye regarding the price discrepancies between 1.68 and 1.59. I really do not know why that is since the cheaper one is even bigger while having the same clarity and color. I really like the 1.65ct. Did you put it on hold? Ask them if it is eye clean since it does have a cloud and a crystal on the table. Ask them for the actual images and a video of that stone.

 

[caf]

Yes, I trust HPD/CBI, WF and VC when they say their super ideals are eye clean. Having just bought 5 CBIs my experience has been that when HPD says eye clean, they’re eye clean. Call or email Wink and ask him your questions. He’ll send you more videos and walk you through each stone. He’s a super patient guy. I’m confident WF and VC would too. Their reputations rest on their honesty re: their stones. I’d have stones brought into jewelers near you for you to see if you have concerns.

 

[tyty333]

Thanks everyone for the replies so far! I'm going to try to get as much seeing in person/photos/videos as I can. I know many of these vendors allow you to see the diamond / free returns but I'm sure many are in the same boat where it is difficult to hold funds for two+ diamonds at the same time.

Should I not "trust" all super ideal vendors when they claim that their diamonds are eye clean? I think you can trust Wink. I think its more a matter of mind clean. Perhaps they can video it at a distance for you so you can see. @tyty333 I had the same concern about the 1.68 having the black carbon despite them saying it is eye clean. How about this 1.65? https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10853 It is currently on hold but thinking it is a better alternative without the large black carbon in the middle. Those are not real pictures of the stone. They are just stand-ins until
the stone is finished. Plus, its on hold. VC does have the same upgrade policy which is one of the few reasons I narrowed down to CBI and VC.

@daisygrl Thanks for your suggestion! I took a look - wonder why it is more expensive per carat considering it is the same color/clarity? What do you think of the 1.65 I linked above? Currently on hold as you mentioned. I do have concerns about the cavity listed on the bottom of the diamond that you linked. I reached out to both vendors and they told me due to COVID that they don't have additional inventory expected.

 

[luv2sparkle]

I would probably trust HPD a little bit more, because Wink is a diamond guy. Victor is a craftsman, but his focus is more on the end product. That doesn't mean to imply that he doesn't know his stuff or cant recognize a gorgeous stone, but that is Wink's focus. I am sure all the stones are great, that is just how I would personally evaluate the process.

 

[AprilBaby]

I would trust Wink 100% if he says it’s eye clean. Go big or go home!

 

[symc820]

Thanks everyone! Trying to get pictures/videos of both. I'm starting to lean a bit more to the 1.41 - I imagine it wouldn't look that much smaller than the 1.65/1.68? especially on a size 5 ring, and because of my 4 prong setting, I'm guessing I would be able to tell the difference between the G and H more easily with the tint. I'm also mixed about the "mind clean" factor of having an SI.

 

[xxxxxx]

Great that you’re looking at both. I love VCs stones!

 

[symc820]

Is there any "concern" about the VC having a 57.6 table? Seems to be a tad bit higher than what most people have in their ideal range.

 

[jp201845]

Another thing to consider is upgrade policy. HPD has one of the best in the business if not the best. Im not sure about VC upgrade policy though.

 

[xxxxxx]

Is there any "concern" about the VC having a 57.6 table? Seems to be a tad bit higher than what most people have in their ideal range.

No I wouldn’t be worried. If it has an AGS report that states it’s cut quality you can trust that. It could be that you prefer a smaller table. This is something best decided by looking at diamonds directly.

 

[bps413]

Relatively new to this and discovered PS as well as several options for Super Ideals - two options that stuck out to me were:

1.68 H SI1 from CBI

@symc820 did you ever decide on a stone? Curious if Wink provided you with videos or additional pictures of the 1.68? Would you be willing to share, if so?

 

[MR2019]

I looked at the 1.68 H #10812. I am not a professional by any means but was very picky about inclusions and have good eye sight. These were not visible to a naked eye. There didn’t appear to be any carbon black color. Under a loupe it could be seen and the light on aset scope made it more visible but again invisible if it wasnt magnified. Talking with wink he ensured me it was eye clean and he was 100% right.

I found that the reflection of light and sparkle makes it very difficult to even focus on the area where the inclusion was. I think the back lighting makes it look black for some reason.

Overall this diamond was brighter with more sparkle than another idea cuts I was looking at. Unfortunately I went another direction.

I am not sure if it helps. Wink posted this video of a 1.65 which I think might be a similar type of inclusions for perspective.

 

[lovedogs]

CBIs are top notch in terms of being eye clean and incredibly sparkly (IMHO, of course).

 

[bps413]

CBIs are top notch in terms of being eye clean and incredibly sparkly (IMHO, of course).

I looked at the 1.68 H #10812. I am not a professional by any means but was very picky about inclusions and have good eye sight. These were not visible to a naked eye.

Thank you both! Reassuring to hear that it appeared to be a lighter inclusion as opposed to black.