Thoughts on these 2+ carat ACA I SI1s

[DiamondNewb1]

Thought I'd start a new thread since I've had to revise my search for my gf's ering. I had settled on a diamond that was just under 2 carat, and she would have been just fine with that, but she mentioned in passing that she saw a coworker's approx 2.3 carat stone the other day and that it looked really nice. So I'm now looking at some slightly larger ACA stones from whiteflash.

What does everyone think about the following based on the pics? The 2.427 would be more ideal for me and would fall more neatly within my budget, but I think it looks a little more yellow from the side than some of the other stones. Ditto for the 2.01. To me, the 2.20, 2.617, and 2.735 all look pretty colorless from the side. Face up, they all look good to me. I'm now planning to put one of these in a Vatche U-113 and call it a day.

Whiteflash has also represented that all of these are "eyeclean" on their website. Can I trust them completely with that representation, assuming normal vision for myself and gf?

Thanks!

 

[DiamondNewb1]

I'll also include ASET/Idealscope images later if that helps inform the analysis, although these are all ACAs.

 

[erislynn]

You can't go wrong with these, but as long as we're cherrypicking, the hearts images might help distinguish between them more. Also, WF has always been very honest about eyecleanliness in my experience.

 

[Matthews1127]

They all face up white, and look white from the side. If she’s interested in size, I’d go with the largest your budget can handle: AGS0 ACA...yeah...the cut will be superior...
Any of these diamonds will out perform the average diamond. I’m team “big as budget before bust”. 2.617 or 2.735 would be my focus, since the rest is pretty set.
Just make sure the SI clarity doesn’t present any issues with the stones. As long as they are not detrimental to the structure of the diamond, and don’t cause any distraction/detraction, I’d go for it!

 

[DiamondNewb1]

Thanks very much for the input. The only issue might be whether an H, such as the attached, would be discernibly whiter. Several people in my other thread related that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an H and an I in an ACA stone, however. Here is the best H candidate I could locate on whiteflash:

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3253511.htm

 

[tyty333]

They are all lovely (but I know that's not what your're asking ). They all look pretty colorless to me from the sides. I could not tell you that one looked
more yellow than the other and since they are all AGS Is they should be extremely close in color.

Whiteflash's definition of eye-clean is viewing at 10 inches. They are trustworthy. If you are concerned for under 10 inches than you might ask.
Sometimes nothing is visible at any distance in an SI1. Sometimes something might be viewable at a distance you dont normally view stones (say like
6 inches or closer...where your eyes start to cross). If this concerns you then ask. I dont see anything in the video that would concern me but if
you want to be overly cautious...

The H is lovely too...honestly, I think only someone seeing them in person side by side is going to be able to give you any info of value. Sorry, I know
thats not what you want to hear.

If the stone were for me, personally, I would take the size over color.

Here is a relative size picture of the I and H ( they are close but there is a slight difference).

 

[HappyNewLife]

I feel like I’m becoming the “get the biggest “I” ACA you can afford” troll, lol. But that would be my suggestion. My “I” ACA is white from all angles unless there’s some ugly yellow lighting above. You can trust WF and you can always send it back if you dislike something. Go big!

 

[AllThingsSparkling]

IMO all ACAs are glorious and I would just pick the biggest one in budget. An ideal cut RB I will face up white just fine, and I would trust WF if they deem it eye clean

 

[tyty333]

Here are a couple of ACA "I" threads for your viewing pleasure...
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/1-4ct-i-vs2-whiteflash-aca-x-cvb-jovyn.227764/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/2-937-carat-whiteflash-aca.235381/

 

[cflutist]

First understand that all color grades are a range and with that range getting wider and wider as you go down the scale. In other words, there are high I's middle and low ones.
When I look at those 5 diamonds, #3 (middle) and the one to its right #4 have the most tint imo. But also note that there are limitations of accurate images based on your monitor, laptop, or tablet. I have not looked at the images, ASET, etc. But based on color alone, I would chose the one to the far right 2.73 or the one to the far left 2.22.
True that it will face up white, but with a Vatche U113 the pavillion is visible from the side (great choice btw).
As far as H vs. I color, I would ask WF for photos of the H along with #1 and #5.
As far as cut goes, you will be fine with any ACA.
Good luck with your search.
Just fyi, my 3 major diamonds are all F in color.

 

[DiamondNewb1]

Thanks everyone for your help. Much appreciated!

Here are the Ideal-scopes, ASETs, and hearts of the 2.22 and 2.735 diamonds, in addition to those of another diamond I located, a 2.521 ACA I SI1.

2.22:



2.521:



2.735:



Any additional thoughts after seeing these pictures, or are all three great?

Thanks!

 

[SimoneDi]

I love, love the 2.735 gorgeous diamond and it seems that it is very white-facing!

 

[gm89uk]

In order of whiteness best to worst I see

1) 2.735 far right
2) 2.2 far left
3) 2.617

All very close to each other, the others can see significantly more tint.

My favourite cuts 2.735, 2.617 (just personal preference). The ASET you included for the 2.5 looks great too, small table, but not included in the original comparison.

Goodluck, can't go wrong

 

[DiamondNewb1]

In order of whiteness best to worst I see

1) 2.735 far right
2) 2.2 far left
3) 2.617

All very close to each other, the others can see significantly more tint.

My favourite cuts 2.735, 2.617 (just personal preference). The ASET you included for the 2.5 looks great too, small table, but not included in the original comparison.

Goodluck, can't go wrong

Thanks, gm89.

Is there anything wrong with the small (54.5) table on the 2.521 carat diamond? Will it "appear" smaller due to the comparatively smaller table?

 

[DiamondNewb1]

And here are the images for the 2.617 (neglected to post these earlier):

 

[SimoneDi]

Thanks, gm89.

Is there anything wrong with the small (54.5) table on the 2.521 carat diamond? Will it "appear" smaller due to the comparatively smaller table?

Some people love small tables, they seem to make up for great fire performance. What were the specs on the 2.521 (cut specs)

The 2.735 is definitely ma flavorite still! I second what @HappyNewLife said regarding color. I can definitely seem some tint in the 2.6, but the 2.7 is very white facing!

 

[DiamondNewb1]

Some people love small tables, they seem to make up for great fire performance. What were the specs on the 2.521 (cut specs)

The 2.735 is definitely ma flavorite still! I second what @HappyNewLife said regarding color. I can definitely seem some tint in the 2.6, but the 2.7 is very white facing!

The specs on the 2.521 are as follows (it's an ACA, as well):

Depth % 61.9
Table % 54.3
Crown Angle 34.3
Star 51.0
Pavilion Angle 40.8
Crown % 15.6
Lower Girdle % 78.0

 

[ringo865]

Get the 2.735 (then stop looking)

Srsly, she'll be blown away!!!!!!!

 

[EvaEvans]

2.735 or 2.521 is my choice

 

[Dancing Fire]

Thanks, gm89.

Is there anything wrong with the small (54.5) table on the 2.521 carat diamond? Will it "appear" smaller due to the comparatively smaller table?

Nope, its table size has nothing to do with its diameter.

 

[gm89uk]

Sorry, I meant to say I liked the fact it had a small table!

 

[DiamondNewb1]

Does anyone think the 2.735 exhibits too much light leakage? I’m a novice obviously, but it looks as though more light is leaking out of the bottom of the diamond than is the case with the other three.

Would that be discernible in real life, or is it pretty irrelevant given the quality of the cut overall?

 

[SimoneDi]

Does anyone think the 2.735 exhibits too much light leakage? I’m a novice obviously, but it looks as though more light is leaking out of the bottom of the diamond than is the case with the other three.

Would that be discernible in real life, or is it pretty irrelevant given the quality of the cut overall?

There is no leakage, this is a super-ideal stone, it is beautiful!!

 

[Matthews1127]

Team 2.735!!!

 

[gm89uk]

Doesn't look like that to me, not sure what you're seeing. No light leakage.

 

[flyingpig]

If you think the washed out arrows are leakage, they are not.
It is just due to how these stones are positioned and angled. It has not thing to do with the diamonds themselves. None of these stones have light leakage issues.

 

[canuk-gal]

Does anyone think the 2.735 exhibits too much light leakage? I’m a novice obviously, but it looks as though more light is leaking out of the bottom of the diamond than is the case with the other three.

Would that be discernible in real life, or is it pretty irrelevant given the quality of the cut overall?[/QUOTE

????

Nice diamond. Up to you.

 

[flyingpig]

my bad.. I did not read that OP's comment.

I am not sure what OP's seeing either. Regardless, there is no light leakage.

 

[erislynn]

I think OP is talking about the green at 5 o'clock girdle of the 2.735. I can see corresponding white on the idealscope in the same area. Is there an inclusion there?

OP, if that's an inclusion, I like the 2.617. In the lineup photo, it has great edge to edge brightness and the side view does not show much tint. Would be nice to see regular photos of the 2.521 to compare also.

 

[DiamondNewb1]

[Qrislynn, post: 4255420, member: 87836"] I think OP is talking about the green at 5 o'clock girdle of the 2.735. I can see corresponding white on the idealscope in the same area. Is there an inclusion there?

OP, if that's an inclusion, I like the 2.617. In the lineup photo, it has great edge to edge brightness and the side view does not show much tint. Would be nice to see regular photos of the 2.521 to compare also.[/QUOTE]

I believe it is an inclusion. (Please see the GIA cert attached.) The open question is whether it would be noticeable in real life.