Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Which ACA?

Which ACA?

  • 2.2 G SI1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2.5 I VVS2

    Votes: 10 50.0%
  • 2.6 H SI1

    Votes: 10 50.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Laila619

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
11,608
Thank you so much for the suggestions, sledge! Really appreciate the feedback.

FYI my current stone has a 55.1 table, 34.2/40.7 and 76 LGF’s. If it weren’t for the slight tint, I wouldn’t think to “upgrade”. I love everything else about it. It’s a really pretty stone. https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4132171.htm

I am switching from white gold/plat to a rose gold with platinum head solitaire setting. Maybe that will make the stone look whiter although that had the opposite effect with my former H color stone.
I am not sure—it’s been my experience that stones set in warm metals tend to not look as white unfortunately.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,441
Sledge, I love how practical your thinking is.
Thanks for the kind words. I just call it as I see it.


I do too look at measurements the way you do (thus, I am not too happy with my 61.9 depth as I would prefer the weight to be spread more on the surface.)
It appears your existing K has a 61.1 depth. FYI, this is a really nice stone. All the images are very crisp and the video looks amazing. I can see why you are struggling to find an acceptable trade.

As you begin to study proportions more, you will realize depth is a function of all the other proportions working together. For instance, look at the 2.9 J vs your current 2.932 K. Yes, there is a little weight difference overall, but notice how the table and PA are the same, but the CA is 34.5 on the J and only 34.2 on the K? You might also notice the crown height on the J is 15.4 vs 15.2 for the K.

Despite being very similar weight, there is still some spread difference -- 9.15 vs 9.25mm.

Or perhaps compare your 2.932 K to the 3.177 J I posted. Both have a 34.2/40.7 combo. But notice how the J has a 56.1 table, as opposed to 55.1 table? As the table gets larger and the other variables remain the same I'd expect the depth to lessen. But this stone has 61.7 which is "better" than 61.9 but still more than 61.1 of your other stone. Why?

Look at the girdle thickness. The 2.932 has thin to medium, whereas the 3.177 has thin to slightly thick. There's no denying the 3.177 stone is gorgeous and ideal, but she's also carrying some extra junk her girdle, lol.

Again, all these are ideal stones. Nothing is out of whack. In fact, ACA criteria for depth is 59.5-62, so all these stones are exactly what they should be. The images and videos prove it. But proportions can provide slight differences in personalities that one person may or may not prefer, and they will also effect spread to some degree.

FYI, this link may be easier to compare stats:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare/?idnos=4132171,4192008,4187474,4212262


I wonder, isn't the difference of 0.08mm a bit too big for ACA? (in the last 2.584ct one as oppose to the 2.638 where it is only 0.02mm.)
Haha, I am always looking at proportions & measurements when recommending stones so that also jumped out to me. I was curious if anyone else would catch it and comment.

Point blank, it's not a problem.

There's another thread that recently surfaced here asking a similar question. Myself and some others made comments. In particular came up an ACA with 0.09 variance.

 

nala

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
3,840
I’ve been following your journey from the start. It’s been fun. I think that you have always known that you don’t like tint but have tried it out bc you have the luxury at WF and were seduced by the size. But. Now you are realizing that something has to give. I don’t know how much you factor in resets and shipping fees but if those are all negligible expenses, then choose the biggest and lightest color that you can afford now! Then just keep upgrading!
 

daisygrl

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
291
Thanks for the kind words. I just call it as I see it.




It appears your existing K has a 61.1 depth. FYI, this is a really nice stone. All the images are very crisp and the video looks amazing. I can see why you are struggling to find an acceptable trade.

As you begin to study proportions more, you will realize depth is a function of all the other proportions working together. For instance, look at the 2.9 J vs your current 2.932 K. Yes, there is a little weight difference overall, but notice how the table and PA are the same, but the CA is 34.5 on the J and only 34.2 on the K? You might also notice the crown height on the J is 15.4 vs 15.2 for the K.

Despite being very similar weight, there is still some spread difference -- 9.15 vs 9.25mm.

Or perhaps compare your 2.932 K to the 3.177 J I posted. Both have a 34.2/40.7 combo. But notice how the J has a 56.1 table, as opposed to 55.1 table? As the table gets larger and the other variables remain the same I'd expect the depth to lessen. But this stone has 61.7 which is "better" than 61.9 but still more than 61.1 of your other stone. Why?

Look at the girdle thickness. The 2.932 has thin to medium, whereas the 3.177 has thin to slightly thick. There's no denying the 3.177 stone is gorgeous and ideal, but she's also carrying some extra junk her girdle, lol.

Again, all these are ideal stones. Nothing is out of whack. In fact, ACA criteria for depth is 59.5-62, so all these stones are exactly what they should be. The images and videos prove it. But proportions can provide slight differences in personalities that one person may or may not prefer, and they will also effect spread to some degree.

FYI, this link may be easier to compare stats:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare/?idnos=4132171,4192008,4187474,4212262




Haha, I am always looking at proportions & measurements when recommending stones so that also jumped out to me. I was curious if anyone else would catch it and comment.

Point blank, it's not a problem.

There's another thread that recently surfaced here asking a similar question. Myself and some others made comments. In particular came up an ACA with 0.09 variance.

What about the stone that does not have "some extra junk in her girdle" and is "thin to medium" but with 61.9 depth? The spread is obviously going to be smaller, so is most of the weight "wasted" on the bottom?
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,441
What about the stone that does not have "some extra junk in her girdle" and is "thin to medium" but with 61.9 depth? The spread is obviously going to be smaller, so is most of the weight "wasted" on the bottom?
LOL, no she doesn't have any junk in her girdle.

With the 2.9 J, you have that small 55 table, but you are pairing with a steeper crown angle than your current stone. When you do that, you get more height in the crown section. The pavilion section is still the same as before (42.9%) just as the girdle is the same (3%) as your K stone, since both are thin-medium.

On your K, you have the 55 table but a shallower 34.2 crown so you have less crown height which is effectively pushing the weight out horizontally.

Neither the J or K is "wasting" their carat weight. Both are ideal cut stones. If either was too deep, you would see leakage in the ASET and/or IS images. No leakage is present.

The reason the proportions are all different is because when diamond rough is purchased, they try to maximize the size of the finished diamond with as little waste as possible while staying within ideal parameters. Ideal isn't a one size fits all solution, there is a range. Ideal could mean 57 table with 34/40.6 combo and depth would likely be < 61. Or it could mean 54 table with 35/40.6 combo and likely be 62+ depth. The table, crown & pavilion all play together and push the weight around in the stone differently. Yet, in the case of WF stones (and other super ideals) they still manage to do so while maximizing light return & performance.

Not sure this will help or not, but envision a house roof. Have you ever noticed how some are steep and others are flatter? The larger the "pitch" of the roof the steeper it is. So a 12/12 is very steep, whereas a 4/12 is very shallow. Both cover the house and provide sufficient coverage, but depending on other variables (and preferences) one roof pitch may be used over another.

1582847715331.png
 

TweetyBird23

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
1,069
Btw the 2.6 H SI1 is out because the inclusions are visible from 5-7 inches away. Since I like everything else about my current 2.9 K and I want a rose gold setting now regardless of the stone, we might try reseting it in a rose gold shank/platinum head setting first to see if the 2.9 K faces up whiter. I think a conservative approach is best since I'm not crazy about the alternatives and really love everything about my diamond except the slight tint.

Not my diamond below but here's a picture of a 2.9 in Whiteflash's rose gold Elegant head setting. YUM.

unnamed-1.jpg
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,441
I can't say I'm surprised about the H SI1 not being eye clean to YOUR standards. There is no hard & fast "industry" rule but many vendors consider eye clean as 12" away looking at the top only. And frankly I don't black inclusions on the table.

I even saw on one vendors site where it mentioned "casually glancing". Umm, no that isn't going to work for me at all, LOL. I want 6" from top & sides and scrutinizing the hell out of it. I realize that may mean I won't buy an SI1 stone, but I'm okay with that as I know what I want from a clarity standpoint and my wallet is prepared to pay for those desires. :lol:

Of the stones you listed, I think the I VVS2 was the one to beat IMO. The G would be nice but too much of a size decrease.

The J's I listed might work really nice. That 2.9 you are busting my chops about on the depth will be a very firey stone that I think you will like very well actually.

But my gut told me when I saw this thread, none of these were your winner.

Before you go through the expense to reset your existing K, is it possible that you could ship your ring to WF and let them unmount the stone and then ship the stone (loose), your existing setting and the new setting back to you so you could then put the stone in each setting and get a visual reference with YOUR EYES how each setup will look? Then once you decide, ship it all back to WF and let them mount in whatever setting you choose.

Maybe you could even setup a deal to view the 2.9 and/or 3.177 J stones I recommended. They may not ship to your house without requiring a cash deposit, but they may ship to a local trusted appraiser in your area. It might be worth asking anyhow.
 

TweetyBird23

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
1,069
I can't say I'm surprised about the H SI1 not being eye clean to YOUR standards. There is no hard & fast "industry" rule but many vendors consider eye clean as 12" away looking at the top only. And frankly I don't black inclusions on the table.

I even saw on one vendors site where it mentioned "casually glancing". Umm, no that isn't going to work for me at all, LOL. I want 6" from top & sides and scrutinizing the hell out of it. I realize that may mean I won't buy an SI1 stone, but I'm okay with that as I know what I want from a clarity standpoint and my wallet is prepared to pay for those desires. :lol:

Of the stones you listed, I think the I VVS2 was the one to beat IMO. The G would be nice but too much of a size decrease.

The J's I listed might work really nice. That 2.9 you are busting my chops about on the depth will be a very firey stone that I think you will like very well actually.

But my gut told me when I saw this thread, none of these were your winner.

Before you go through the expense to reset your existing K, is it possible that you could ship your ring to WF and let them unmount the stone and then ship the stone (loose), your existing setting and the new setting back to you so you could then put the stone in each setting and get a visual reference with YOUR EYES how each setup will look? Then once you decide, ship it all back to WF and let them mount in whatever setting you choose.

Maybe you could even setup a deal to view the 2.9 and/or 3.177 J stones I recommended. They may not ship to your house without requiring a cash deposit, but they may ship to a local trusted appraiser in your area. It might be worth asking anyhow.
I wasn’t busting any chops! I think Daisy was the one inquiring about depth. :)
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,441
I wasn’t busting any chops! I think Daisy was the one inquiring about depth. :)
LOL, you were right...sorry about that. :doh:

And I was just teasing. Happy to get all geeky about it. It's a good question, and I'm surprised that people don't pay more attention to spread, depth and proportions.
 

Laila619

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
11,608
You might just have a low K. I know it’s sort of taboo to talk about, but AGS can be slightly softer on color grading than GIA. Maybe the reset will help though. It can’t hurt to give it a try!
 

TweetyBird23

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
1,069
You might just have a low K. I know it’s sort of taboo to talk about, but AGS can be slightly softer on color grading than GIA. Maybe the reset will help though. It can’t hurt to give it a try!
I hope so. I hope it doesn’t make it look warmer. :???:
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,592
What about the stone that does not have "some extra junk in her girdle" and is "thin to medium" but with 61.9 depth? The spread is obviously going to be smaller, so is most of the weight "wasted" on the bottom?
I love the 61.9% depth :love: if the stone come with a high crown + a small table. That just me! ;))
 

daisygrl

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
291
I love the 61.9% depth :love: if the stone come with a high crown + a small table. That just me! ;))
Just wondering what you love about it as opposed to, for instance, 61.1? I have just purchased one ACA and the ONLY thing that bothers me is 61.9 depth. Stone he would face up bigger if less deep. And bigger is better :lol: (considering they are all ACA so the cut is not an issue.)
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,592
Just wondering what you love about it as opposed to, for instance, 61.1? I have just purchased one ACA and the ONLY thing that bothers me is 61.9 depth. Stone he would face up bigger if less deep. And bigger is better :lol:
JMO, a deeper stone with a small table + a higher crown = more fire.
 

daisygrl

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
291
JMO, a deeper stone with a small table + a higher crown = more fire.
Oh, that is my stone! 55.7 table, 34.6 crown, 61.9 depth. I do love my stone but at the same time I can't help but think of the possibility of it looking bigger optically. Anyway, I love learning about diamonds so I do ask a lot of questions.
 

TweetyBird23

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
1,069
@TweetyBird23 Posting the 2.573 H VS2 in a lineup for you. I saved this pic when I was considering my current H stone. It looks to me a very colorless H. 2.725 J SI Comparison (with 2.786 I VS2).jpg
Thanks, Carebear! Ugh. Of course, it’s gorgeous. Any other notes on it? Do you know how long it’s been on WF and may I ask why you decide to pass?
 

CareBear

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
1,325
Thanks, Carebear! Ugh. Of course, it’s gorgeous. Any other notes on it? Do you know how long it’s been on WF and may I ask why you decide to pass?
@TweetyBird23 It was not one of the stones I was considering, it was in a lineup for another PSer. Unfortunately, I don't remember which thread. I can't figure out why this stone has not sold as it is absolutely stunning!
 

MissGotRocks

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
12,219
@TweetyBird23 that 2.57 stone is beautiful. The cert is dated 2018 so it has been around for awhile. It looks so white and bright - I too am surprised that it has been around so long. It is so hard to balance size with color and clarity - I feel for you! You could always do a smaller stone with a halo or as a three stone if the loss of size is something you can't live with - just a thought!
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,633
Oh, that is my stone! 55.7 table, 34.6 crown, 61.9 depth. I do love my stone but at the same time I can't help but think of the possibility of it looking bigger optically. Anyway, I love learning about diamonds so I do ask a lot of questions.
61.9 is certainly not deep. We recommend stones up to 62.3, although I think the ACA range is to 62.0. Get rid of that thinking! lol!
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,633

This one is beautiful and my personal top choice of all posted. I think the I VVS is a good choice, too, since it's two grades higher than your K. I wouldn't consider J if you don't like the tint in K. I think you have to go to I or higher. H-I is a great place to be. I'd want at least VS clarity for my own forever stone, so that's another reason I'd go for one of these two.
 

daisygrl

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
291
61.9 is certainly not deep. We recommend stones up to 62.3, although I think the ACA range is to 62.0. Get rid of that thinking! lol!
I really should! The stone is otherwise beautiful. I have, however, noticed that most super ideal cut vendors seldom have 61.9. It is usually 61.1-61.6. Anyway, I know I am going to enjoy it and will post pics as well.
 

TweetyBird23

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
1,069

daisygrl

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
291
Any thoughts on this stone for a same size, mini color upgrade?
Here is it next to my current K color.
6CEEA1E3-758B-4F64-86C6-F72007F94305.jpeg B1E2FC6E-085E-4442-8CB6-C8CDC1C62651.jpeg
The J looks whiter even from the top (K color is known to go a bit brownish - not sure if this is the case of your stone.) How do you feel about SI1 clarity?
 

TweetyBird23

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
1,069
The J looks whiter even from the top (K color is known to go a bit brownish - not sure if this is the case of your stone.) How do you feel about SI1 clarity?
I notice the difference as well. I’m fine with an eye clean SI. The same size in I color is looking at a $10k jump so a conservative K to J upgrade might make sense for now as my ring is already with Whiteflash (I’m changing the setting to my first love, rose gold).
 

daisygrl

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
291
I notice the difference as well. I’m fine with an eye clean SI. The same size in I color is looking at a $10k jump so a conservative K to J upgrade might make sense for now as my ring is already with Whiteflash (I’m changing the setting to my first love, rose gold).
$10K seems like a very high jump. I think you will see a difference in a color for sure. K is where many stones start to turn brownish. Also the facets on the new stone are a bit skinnier - Do you like that? Your original one must have been 75-76 LGF

Btw, I should mention that I decided not to go with Whiteflash due to the quality of the stone I received as well as service. I was very disappointed in both. I picked a different vendor and could not be more pleased.
 

Mamajemmy

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
214
Any thoughts on this stone for a same size, mini color upgrade?
Here is it next to my current K color.
6CEEA1E3-758B-4F64-86C6-F72007F94305.jpeg B1E2FC6E-085E-4442-8CB6-C8CDC1C62651.jpeg
I think the difference in color is more significant than the difference in size.
 

TweetyBird23

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
1,069
My stone is 76 and this J is 77. I prefer the 76 but moving up in color is a higher priority.

I’ve been working with WF for a couple of years now and they have gone above and beyond to accommodate me from day one. It’s too bad you were disappointed with WF but I’m glad you found a vendor that met and exceeded your expectations!
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Handmade diamond studs
    Handmade diamond studs
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top