shape
carat
color
clarity

WF ACA - 2.7 G VS2 vs 2.42 F VS2

Which Diamond

  • 2.700 G VS2

    Votes: 15 68.2%
  • 2.416 F VS2

    Votes: 7 31.8%

  • Total voters
    22

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
Hello -

Could anyone offer some insight for a first time buyer on two diamonds? The diamond will be set in a halo setting, where the side stones are listed as G/H color and VS clarity. They are both whiteflash a-cut-above diamonds, which are listed as "eye clean" on the site. They are as follows:

2.700 G VS2 - https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4384093.htm
2.416 F VS2 - https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4384092.htm

I spoke with their expert, who told me there is absolutely nothing inclusion-wise she can see on the 2.4ct, so this is absolutely the safer choice. She also told me that the 2.7ct is eye clean from 10 inches, but she can see the small clouds when she moves the stone around in the light at 6 inches (although she noted it was small). She also noted that the overall light performance of the stone is not impacted.

I WANT to like 2.7ct because it's obviously significantly larger, and I think F color over G is overkill. The price difference is irrelevant to me, they are close enough - it just comes down to whether or not I can live with the cluster of clouds right in the middle of the table on the bigger stone. What it may come down to in the end is buying the high risk, high reward stone, and just exchanging it if I can't live with the clouds.

Curious what people here think - thanks in advance for any advice!
 

DejaWiz

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
5,951
I can definitely see the table inclusions on the 2.7 in the magnified videos, which leads me to believe that this may be more towards the lower end of the VS2 range, leaning a little closer to SI1 than VS1.

However, they are small and the sheer high amount of light performance that an ACA exhibits will likely drown them out completely.

If you like the 2.7 better due to the size, then I would say go for it. If you don't like it once it's in hand, then WF's top-notch service and return policy is there for you to utilize.
 

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
Appreciate the input. If it helps, I am pretty neurotic when it comes to tiny defects/imperfections. On the other hand, the person the diamond is for does not have my insane OCD, and little things that would bother me won't bother her nearly as much. Which is why I think she would appreciate the size over the clarity.

In general, are clouds a problematic type of inclusion? I know dark crystals are the worst, but if clouds don't affect performance, are they one of the better types of inclusions to ignore?
 

Cerulean

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
5,077
It already sounds like the G isn’t “mind clean” for you. Granted, if you’re not the wearer and you think your intended would rather have size, go for the G. But if it will always bug you…just get the F. Either way, you’ve got a sizable stone going into a halo.

I’d also ask for the melee to match. But I’m personally very color sensitive.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,016
Since this is for your SO rather than you and you said she would appreciate the size bump, go with the larger stone. ACAs are highly vetted, so no need to worry about quality
 

DejaWiz

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
5,951
Appreciate the input. If it helps, I am pretty neurotic when it comes to tiny defects/imperfections. On the other hand, the person the diamond is for does not have my insane OCD, and little things that would bother me won't bother her nearly as much. Which is why I think she would appreciate the size over the clarity.

In general, are clouds a problematic type of inclusion? I know dark crystals are the worst, but if clouds don't affect performance, are they one of the better types of inclusions to ignore?


I hear you...I'm the same way. Recently got my wife an early 15 year anniversary ring with a perfectly eye clean SI1 solitaire, and I spent three weeks beating my head against the wall trying to over-scrutinize it in order to look for something to be wrong with it. After giving it a gentle bath in dishsoapy warm water, a light scrub with a soft bristle brush, then a quick rinse and dry, the difference was amazing.
...it even looked a little better than it did the day it was brought home!

Clouds can be problematic, but only if they are prominent enough to cause interference with light return/performance. You'll have nothing to worry about with an AGS VS2 or better and even most AGS SI1 grades, since any clouds (which either natural or lab diamonds can possess) are going to be so small that they are not going to inhibit light performance or even be seen with the naked eye...many diamonds in these clarity grades with minute clouds won't even be visible at 10x magnification.

Now, if we were talking IGI or any other lab that is known for being a little more lenient in grading, then "additional clouds not shown" or "clarity based on clouds not shown" on their reports in the VS2 or lower clarity grades would raise a red flag for me and I would be scrutinizing such a diamond like crazy in order to definitively determine if the clouding was bad enough that it permeates a good portion of the entire interior to cause light performance problems and haziness.

Thankfully, that isn't the case here since AGS is the grading lab.
And to exponentially increase the confidence factor even further: it's a WF ACA, so it's already heavily scrutinized and vetted to meet their flagship lineup of offerings...they already did the hard work for you!
 
Last edited:

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
It already sounds like the G isn’t “mind clean” for you. Granted, if you’re not the wearer and you think your intended would rather have size, go for the G. But if it will always bug you…just get the F. Either way, you’ve got a sizable stone going into a halo.

I’d also ask for the melee to match. But I’m personally very color sensitive.

Do you think the F would present a problem with the center stone not matching the halo & melee? Is that something you can ask for, or did you mean shop around for another setting?

There are limited options that fit her ring size on Whiteflash that I think satisfy the clean-cut look she's after. And of them, I'm not sure any have F-color stones.
 

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
Since this is for your SO rather than you and you said she would appreciate the size bump, go with the larger stone. ACAs are highly vetted, so no need to worry about quality

Yes, for SO. I don't know this for sure, but it's based on anecdotal evidence like dead pixels on TV or scratches on phones. They bother me to no end, but she doesn't care. So, I think I might be missing an opportunity to step up in size for a similar price if I try to tailor it to my needs (mind clean)

I don't know if this helps anyone, but she is a size 8, which is part of why I want to go bigger. She has made comments about how she's jealous her friends have smaller fingers because it makes a ring look bigger comparatively. I'm sure both will look BIG in a halo, but I want to make sure it has a significant presence.
 

Cerulean

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
5,077
Do you think the F would present a problem with the center stone not matching the halo & melee? Is that something you can ask for, or did you mean shop around for another setting?

There are limited options that fit her ring size on Whiteflash that I think satisfy the clean-cut look she's after. And of them, I'm not sure any have F-color stones.

Generally melee look whiter, and it’s hard to see body color. I’d be shocked if the color difference is noticeable to most people. I think I misunderstood that you had selected a stock setting. If you were going custom, I see no reason that WF couldn’t select ~D/F melee. They aren’t graded as they are so tiny, so they are approximated by eye.

There are a few threads on PS about pave with center stone colors, I’m honestly just really neurotic about color, so take it with a grain of salt!

I’m sure other people have thoughts on this too!
 

Cerulean

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
5,077
Yes, for SO. I don't know this for sure, but it's based on anecdotal evidence like dead pixels on TV or scratches on phones. They bother me to no end, but she doesn't care. So, I think I might be missing an opportunity to step up in size for a similar price if I try to tailor it to my needs (mind clean)

I don't know if this helps anyone, but she is a size 8, which is part of why I want to go bigger. She has made comments about how she's jealous her friends have smaller fingers because it makes a ring look bigger comparatively. I'm sure both will look BIG in a halo, but I want to make sure it has a significant presence.

I am a size 7.75, so I understand! Both will be hard to miss and blow her away in a halo, I’m sure of it! I wouldn’t worry about that!
 

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
Clouds can be problematic, but only if they are prominent enough to cause interference with light return/performance. You'll have nothing to worry about with an AGS VS2 or better and even most AGS SI1 grades, since any clouds (which either natural or lab diamonds can possess) are going to be so small that they are not going to inhibit light performance or even be seen with the naked eye...many diamonds in these clarity grades with minute clouds won't even be visible at 10x magnification.

Very helpful - thanks. Since this is a surprise (on my own here), I feel like proposing with the bigger diamond means that she gets the choice to decide if she can live with the inclusion or not. I doubt if I proposed with the 2.4ct, she would even consider the other option, because the 2.4ct won't be small by any means. But, I might always wonder if she would have loved a bigger size and not even noticed the clouds...

30 day return policy means she can effectively make the choice for me!
 

DejaWiz

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
5,951
Very helpful - thanks. Since this is a surprise (on my own here), I feel like proposing with the bigger diamond means that she gets the choice to decide if she can live with the inclusion or not. I doubt if I proposed with the 2.4ct, she would even consider the other option, because the 2.4ct won't be small by any means. But, I might always wonder if she would have loved a bigger size and not even noticed the clouds...

30 day return policy means she can effectively make the choice for me!


Comparing the two diameters, 2.4 at 8.62mm vs 2.7 at 8.92mm, the general rule of thumb is that most people can see a physical size difference at 0.2mm in diameter for a Modern Round Brilliant cut when they are sitting side by side, so the 2.7 will be at exactly 1.5x the factor for a minimum noticeable size difference.

Here is a comparison (diamdb.com link at the bottom - thanks to sledge for utilizing this tool in the past here on PS) to show how each would look, both white gold/platinum and yellow gold, size 8 ring- sorry, no melee option.

WF 27 vs 24 WG.png
WF 27 vs 24 YG.png

 
Last edited:

Cerulean

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
5,077
Comparing the two diameters, 2.4 at 8.62mm vs 2.7 at 8.92mm, the general rule of thumb is that most people can see a physical size difference at 0.2mm in diameter for a Modern Round Brilliant cut when they are sitting side by side, so the 2.7 will be at exactly 1.5x the factor for a minimum noticeable size difference.

Here is a comparison (diamdb.com link at the bottom - thanks to sledge for utilizing this tool in the past here on PS) to show how each would look, both white gold/platinum and yellow gold, size 8 ring- sorry, no melee option.

View attachment 838378
View attachment 838379

What setting are you considering OP? Typically a halo is adding ~1mm all around - so 2mm across. But obviously that varies a lot depending on the size of melee.

She’s going to get a lot of finger coverage. I do think it’s interesting that you said she might return the 2.7, but would never return the 2.4…
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
27,196
I vote going for the bigger size (G) since its what your GF would appreciate. For me, the small inclusions on the table are quite
forgettable if you can only see them when you are looking/searching for them. 99.75% (pulling this number out of you know where like
@Dancing Fire does :lol: ) we just enjoy how beautiful our stones are day-to-day. Its only that small amount of time when
you're looking at it super up-close or possibly with a loupe that you might take notice.

Plus, I think with a size 8 finger (I feel her pain...size 6 3/4 here), I think she could appreciate the size over something that's not
apparent.

Both beautiful stones though and I don't think you can go wrong with either!
 

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
What setting are you considering OP? Typically a halo is adding ~1mm all around - so 2mm across. But obviously that varies a lot depending on the size of melee.

She’s going to get a lot of finger coverage. I do think it’s interesting that you said she might return the 2.7, but would never return the 2.4…


Sorry, what I meant might not have been clear.

Even though she's less obsessive than me about little imperfections, I can't predict her exact reaction. I think there is a comparatively higher risk on the 2.7ct that she has a problem with the inclusions and wants to swap the diamond out. I think with the 2.4ct, there's not much I think she could consider "wrong" with the ring to the point that she's want to trade it back in, and would just settle with it without wanting to consider another option which might be "higher risk."

In short, I think if I start with the "high risk - high reward" ring, it's easier to trade back in to a lower-risk, lower-reward ring (which is what I'm considering the 2.4 ct).
 

Cerulean

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
5,077

Sorry, what I meant might not have been clear.

Even though she's less obsessive than me about little imperfections, I can't predict her exact reaction. I think there is a comparatively higher risk on the 2.7ct that she has a problem with the inclusions and wants to swap the diamond out. I think with the 2.4ct, there's not much I think she could consider "wrong" with the ring to the point that she's want to trade it back in, and would just settle with it without wanting to consider another option which might be "higher risk."

In short, I think if I start with the "high risk - high reward" ring, it's easier to trade back in to a lower-risk, lower-reward ring (which is what I'm considering the 2.4 ct).

I understand! If you think the 2.4 feels like settling, try the 2.7! It sounds like that size bump would make her very happy! Either way these are both incredible diamonds, I’d consider both low risk TBH but totally get the obsessive bit. It’s a big purchase that deserves scrutiny
 

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
I understand! If you think the 2.4 feels like settling, try the 2.7! It sounds like that size bump would make her very happy! Either way these are both incredible diamonds, I’d consider both low risk TBH but totally get the obsessive bit. It’s a big purchase that deserves scrutiny

Appreciate all the help. I think either is a great choice, and neither would truly be settling of course - just trying to maximize value. It's really all down to size bump vs clarity peace of mind haha
 

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
Comparing the two diameters, 2.4 at 8.62mm vs 2.7 at 8.92mm, the general rule of thumb is that most people can see a physical size difference at 0.2mm in diameter for a Modern Round Brilliant cut when they are sitting side by side, so the 2.7 will be at exactly 1.5x the factor for a minimum noticeable size difference.

Here is a comparison (diamdb.com link at the bottom - thanks to sledge for utilizing this tool in the past here on PS) to show how each would look, both white gold/platinum and yellow gold, size 8 ring- sorry, no melee option.

WF 27 vs 24 WG.png
WF 27 vs 24 YG.png


Wow - this is a good tool. Might have to go do some math and try to estimate the total diameter with a halo so I can get an idea of how much each ring would take up on her finger.

With this, any concerns with the 1.8mm band? I liked the idea of a thin band so it would make the diamond pop more, but also don't want it to look out of place or anything.
 

help1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
13
I vote going for the bigger size (G) since its what your GF would appreciate. For me, the small inclusions on the table are quite
forgettable if you can only see them when you are looking/searching for them. 99.75% (pulling this number out of you know where like
@Dancing Fire does :lol: ) we just enjoy how beautiful our stones are day-to-day. Its only that small amount of time when
you're looking at it super up-close or possibly with a loupe that you might take notice.

Plus, I think with a size 8 finger (I feel her pain...size 6 3/4 here), I think she could appreciate the size over something that's not
apparent.

Both beautiful stones though and I don't think you can go wrong with either!

Thanks for the insight - can I ask a stupid question? How often are people really looking at a stone within 10 inches, BESIDES her? Maybe just the first time they see it? The expert told me she had to be at 6 inches and know where to look, which gives me a little comfort.

I also just don't really know if they would look worse at an angle, she would only really fill me in on the top-down view. I know the full sides will be blocked by the setting, but obviously people will catch a view other than directly over-head at times.
 

DejaWiz

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
5,951
Wow - this is a good tool. Might have to go do some math and try to estimate the total diameter with a halo so I can get an idea of how much each ring would take up on her finger.

With this, any concerns with the 1.8mm band? I liked the idea of a thin band so it would make the diamond pop more, but also don't want it to look out of place or anything.


The width of the band comes down to personal preference.
Some like a thinner band to give the appearance of a floating solitaire/basket, others like a wider band to create an overall visual package.

You can rip through the "Show Me The Bling" section to see a lot of different postings with both thicker and tinner bands...with halos!

 
Last edited:

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
27,196
Thanks for the insight - can I ask a stupid question? How often are people really looking at a stone within 10 inches, BESIDES her? Maybe just the first time they see it? The expert told me she had to be at 6 inches and know where to look, which gives me a little comfort.

I also just don't really know if they would look worse at an angle, she would only really fill me in on the top-down view. I know the full sides will be blocked by the setting, but obviously people will catch a view other than directly over-head at times.

From my experience, people will only ask to see it up close when she initially receives it. The general population is not searching for
inclusions...they are looking at how bright and sparkly it is. I highly doubt the general population will be able to pick those inclusions
out under "normal" viewing situations.

The clouds are small white inclusions so I don't think you need to worry about them at any angle. The common things I worry about
at an angle are carbon spots and feathers. Inclusions are listed on the report in order of significance so the grade making inclusion for that stone is the cloud. I personally don't think you need to worry about them.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
33,852
Beautiful stones!...I'll take either one! :bigsmile:
 

LLJsmom

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
12,631
Yes, for SO. I don't know this for sure, but it's based on anecdotal evidence like dead pixels on TV or scratches on phones. They bother me to no end, but she doesn't care. So, I think I might be missing an opportunity to step up in size for a similar price if I try to tailor it to my needs (mind clean)

I don't know if this helps anyone, but she is a size 8, which is part of why I want to go bigger. She has made comments about how she's jealous her friends have smaller fingers because it makes a ring look bigger comparatively. I'm sure both will look BIG in a halo, but I want to make sure it has a significant presence.

Alright given she’s been clear about her preference for a larger size go for the 2.7. It’s WF ACA so it’s a risk well worth taking. Like another poster said, WF already did the hard work for you.
 

LLJsmom

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
12,631
Thanks for the insight - can I ask a stupid question? How often are people really looking at a stone within 10 inches, BESIDES her? Maybe just the first time they see it? The expert told me she had to be at 6 inches and know where to look, which gives me a little comfort.

I also just don't really know if they would look worse at an angle, she would only really fill me in on the top-down view. I know the full sides will be blocked by the setting, but obviously people will catch a view other than directly over-head at times.

Bring your wife to a PS gathering and that’s the only time when people will bust out the loupes. Otherwise, never. Lol!
 

jaysonsmom

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
4,879
Thanks for the insight - can I ask a stupid question? How often are people really looking at a stone within 10 inches, BESIDES her? Maybe just the first time they see it? The expert told me she had to be at 6 inches and know where to look, which gives me a little comfort.

I also just don't really know if they would look worse at an angle, she would only really fill me in on the top-down view. I know the full sides will be blocked by the setting, but obviously people will catch a view other than directly over-head at times.

None of my friends or acquaintances have viewed my diamonds within 10 inches, and a few who have asked to try on my rings only comment on size, and color! I have never had anyone bust out a loupe.....
 

daisygrl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,002
None of my friends or acquaintances have viewed my diamonds within 10 inches, and a few who have asked to try on my rings only comment on size, and color! I have never had anyone bust out a loupe.....

Well, if you do, get new friends. lol
 

Lookinagain

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
4,411
Maybe I missed something up thread, but are you planning on setting the stone right away or ordering the stone and seeing what you think of it before setting it? I know generally, since you are having WF set it, it would all be done at once, but if your time frame permits, perhaps order the G 2.7 unset, and look at it yourself and see what you think of the clouds? If they don't bother you, it sounds like they won't bother her. I know this means shipping the stone back and forth, but you may have to do that anyway if you go for the 2.7 and it bothers her and you need to exchange. I'm just thinking you should do it before setting it. Again, sounds like you are the one with OCD about this, so if it works for you, you should feel fine about having it set and presenting it to her.
 

ringo865

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
2,897
Personally, I would get the bigger diamond. I would not get a 1.8 mm setting ever, not just for a size 8 finger, but never with an over 2.5 carat diamond with a halo AND melee down the shank. Too delicate.

Did SHE pick this setting, or are you just trying to eek out a little extra size? 2.7 is gonna be noticeable, even in a solitaire. And, if you don’t return it, you can trade up later for $1 (not double like lots of places) and get her a 3 carat F for your first anniversary (okay, kinda kidding, but not really).
 

Lookinagain

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
4,411
Personally, I would get the bigger diamond. I would not get a 1.8 mm setting ever, not just for a size 8 finger, but never with an over 2.5 carat diamond with a halo AND melee down the shank. Too delicate.

Did SHE pick this setting, or are you just trying to eek out a little extra size?

I agree the setting is too thin.

As far as the rest of the design, the fact that the stone looks to sit so high above the halo bothers me. If she picked this design, then fine, but if she didn't, I'd look for something different. You said this is a surprise, so I'm not sure if you know that she specifically wants a halo, why not have your diamond set in a temporary simple solitaire setting and let her pick the final setting after the engagement? I've seen many posts on PS where folks say they really want to be involved in their ring style so perhaps you could do that if she didn't pick out this setting or even say she wants a halo.
 

DejaWiz

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
5,951
I agree the setting is too thin.

As far as the rest of the design, the fact that the stone looks to sit so high above the halo bothers me. If she picked this design, then fine, but if she didn't, I'd look for something different. You said this is a surprise, so I'm not sure if you know that she specifically wants a halo, why not have your diamond set in a temporary simple solitaire setting and let her pick the final setting after the engagement? I've seen many posts on PS where folks say they really want to be involved in their ring style so perhaps you could do that if she didn't pick out this setting or even say she wants a halo.


That's a great suggestion.

I'll ad some anecdotal testimony: when my wife and I got married, we agreed that simple cheap-o plain WG bands was what we would get, then go window shopping every couple/few weeks until we had enough of a list to do a really thorough comparison between a lot of different settings, styles, and diamond sizes.
Me? I'm a fairly simple to please type of a guy and wear a plain tungsten band that I bought from an eBay seller over a decade ago for $17.
My wife? Well, when it comes to shiny stuff, her tastes tend to change as time goes by, and sometimes quite rapidly. She has a dedicated jewelry box that looks like a miniature armoire for a reason. :think:
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top