Which D color VS1 3 carat-ish?

[FornasettiLover]

3.21 Carat E VVS2 Round Brilliant Diamond GIA Certified 6217372157 Affinity Cut - D46384522

www.adiamor.com

3.56 Carat D VS1 Round Brilliant Diamond GIA Certified 5376318319 Affinity Cut - D46499846

www.adiamor.com

This is the smallest but still my favorite of the stones with videos:

3.03 Carat E VVS2 Round Brilliant Diamond GIA Certified Affinity Cut - D46455352

3.03 carat, Round, E Color, VVS2 clarity, GIA Certified Diamond, Affinity Cut Diamond, D46455352

www.adiamor.com

Thank you for explaining! And searching! Do you like these better than the 3.36 WF found or just because you can see the video? They all look great to me so I’m going to roll with people who have more expertise!

 

[FornasettiLover]

What about this one? I only suggest it because it is Victor Canera and I know he is popular here.

Diamond Detail | Victor Canera

victorcanera.com

But I definitely like the ones you like. I actually just ordered a digital caliper to measure the size of the fake ring I bought when I was trying to figure out if I would ever wear one. It'll arrive tomorrow. I'm hoping this is closer to a 9 and not a 10, because then I'm in trouble!

 

[marrduk24]

What about this one? I only suggest it because it is Victor Canera and I know he is popular here.

Diamond Detail | Victor Canera

victorcanera.com

But I definitely like the ones you like. I actually just ordered a digital caliper to measure the size of the fake ring I bought when I was trying to figure out if I would ever wear one. It'll arrive tomorrow. I'm hoping this is closer to a 9 and not a 10, because then I'm in trouble!

Victor is popular because of his traditional handmade jewelery and his H&A super-ideals. This particular diamond you posted is not his super ideal. It also has a slightly shallower crown.

My rankings so far would be

1. Your original 3.36 and 3.03 that the previous poster posted. They feel similar

2. 3.56 that previous poster posted

3. Your original 3.25 and 3.21 would be last for me.

 

[munchee]

The diamond from VC you linked above is his virtual diamond too, which doesn’t get same upgrade warranty as his ideal diamond. If you’re getting virtual diamond anywhere, maybe you can ask VC team if they can source that particular diamond for you so you can have his setting if any of his setting catch your eyes? I don’t know whether he can, but doesn’t hurt to just ask. But if you already have other setting in mind then it doesn’t matter if you don’t get it from him.

 

[FornasettiLover]

Victor is popular because of his traditional handmade jewelery and his H&A super-ideals. This particular diamond you posted is not his super ideal. It also has a slightly shallower crown.

My rankings so far would be

1. Your original 3.36 and 3.03 that the previous poster posted. They feel similar

2. 3.56 that previous poster posted

3. Your original 3.25 and 3.21 would be last for me.

This is perfect! Thank you. Maybe my calipers will help me decide . There is most certainly a difference between the top contenders.

 

[FornasettiLover]

The diamond from VC you linked above is his virtual diamond too, which doesn’t get same upgrade warranty as his ideal diamond. If you’re getting virtual diamond anywhere, maybe you can ask VC team if they can source that particular diamond for you so you can have his setting if any of his setting catch your eyes? I don’t know whether he can, but doesn’t hurt to just ask. But if you already have other setting in mind then it doesn’t matter if you don’t get it from him.

I’m not set on one, but have an idea. His work is beautiful.

 

[FornasettiLover]

I’m not getting engaged or anything, so if someone loved one and needed to take one of these stones I would be more than happy for them to do so.

 

[Txborn79]

I’m not set on one, but have an idea. His work is beautiful.

If you think you would want a VC design, I’d reach out to him and see what he may be able to bring in or he can also have one cut to order for you

 

[FornasettiLover]

Caliper update: The fake stone I have as a tester is about 9.6 mm. I realize that now that I have been wearing it my eye will expect this size. I tested another one that was 8 mm and it felt too small.

Question: do real diamonds look the same size as fake diamonds if they measure the same? Or is there some magical property that makes them look larger?

I think that a mm or two would not bother me, but I fear that the 3.03 stone everyone likes (including me, the video is fantastic, so is the price), which is 9.2mm, would now look too small? I actually like the 3.03 number too. Sounds cuckoo but I'm looking for ways to decide.

If so, is the new ranking:
1. WF 3.36 (which when they bring it in can end up having ugly inclusions, who knows?)
2. Adiamor 3.56 if they can source it?
3. ? try a smaller stone? 3.03?

I'm not particular about the setting and at this point would prefer not to start over with another vendor (i.e. Victor).

WF has this in their inventory, but it's an F, VS2, 9.3 mm, so unless it amazes me I think I would for sure end up upgrading, which I really don't want to do. I'm kind of a one and done kind of person. WF said they would not cut anything this size or color until this one sells, so there is no point waiting for something else to pop up.

Thank you again for y'all's thoughts and continued interest.

 

[marrduk24]

diamond diameter to carat relationship can vary based on cut (girdle, depth etc).
This chart will give you a general idea.

in this size I would say 0.1mm is virtually distinguishable and even 0.2mm can be hard to differentiate.
3 vs 3.35 is 0.35mm, which is meaningful.

 

[tyty333]

Could WF bring the 3.36 in and you decide between that and the F, VS2 9.3? You can get side-by-side pictures/videos to help
you decide.

I dont think there will be any ugly inclusions in the 3.36. Its a VS1 and the inclusions are a small carbon and a pinpoint. They are not
on the table (or under it). They are off to the side. I have looked at a lot of 3+ carat stones at the VS1 level and cant even see anything in
the blown-up version (of course there will be that one stone that proves me wrong).

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Caliper update: The fake stone I have as a tester is about 9.6 mm. I realize that now that I have been wearing it my eye will expect this size. I tested another one that was 8 mm and it felt too small.

Question: do real diamonds look the same size as fake diamonds if they measure the same? Or is there some magical property that makes them look larger?

I think that a mm or two would not bother me, but I fear that the 3.03 stone everyone likes (including me, the video is fantastic, so is the price), which is 9.2mm, would now look too small? I actually like the 3.03 number too. Sounds cuckoo but I'm looking for ways to decide.

If so, is the new ranking:
1. WF 3.36 (which when they bring it in can end up having ugly inclusions, who knows?)
2. Adiamor 3.56 if they can source it?
3. ? try a smaller stone? 3.03?

I'm not particular about the setting and at this point would prefer not to start over with another vendor (i.e. Victor).

WF has this in their inventory, but it's an F, VS2, 9.3 mm, so unless it amazes me I think I would for sure end up upgrading, which I really don't want to do. I'm kind of a one and done kind of person. WF said they would not cut anything this size or color until this one sells, so there is no point waiting for something else to pop up.

Thank you again for y'all's thoughts and continued interest.

Most people start noticing a size difference at around 0.2mm. So if your tester stone is 9.6mm, you probably want to be in the ballpark of 9.4-9.8mm for you to feel like it’s roughly the same size as your tester.

I think maybe call in for the 3.36ct first. A VS1 is not going to have awful inclusions that you can see. If the price/size is good and the numbers look good, you need to get your own eyes on it to see if it is “the one”.

 

[FornasettiLover]

Could WF bring the 3.36 in and you decide between that and the F, VS2 9.3? You can get side-by-side pictures/videos to help
you decide.

I dont think there will be any ugly inclusions in the 3.36. Its a VS1 and the inclusions are a small carbon and a pinpoint. They are not
on the table (or under it). They are off to the side. I have looked at a lot of 3+ carat stones at the VS1 level and cant even see anything in
the blown-up version (of course there will be that one stone that proves me wrong).

Here comes a super dumb question... how did you know it was a carbon inclusion? Aren't those the black ones that are horrible? Are they sometimes not horrible?

 

[FornasettiLover]

Could WF bring the 3.36 in and you decide between that and the F, VS2 9.3? You can get side-by-side pictures/videos to help
you decide.

I dont think there will be any ugly inclusions in the 3.36. Its a VS1 and the inclusions are a small carbon and a pinpoint. They are not
on the table (or under it). They are off to the side. I have looked at a lot of 3+ carat stones at the VS1 level and cant even see anything in
the blown-up version (of course there will be that one stone that proves me wrong).

Yes, the plan is to compare the stone they bring in to their ACA.

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Here comes a super dumb question... how did you know it was a carbon inclusion? Aren't those the black ones that are horrible? Are they sometimes not horrible?

I'm not an expert, but just jumping in to say that not all black inclusions are bad, unless there are cultural considerations to not buy a stone with a black inclusion; there's no real need for a blanket avoidance. In this case, the stone is a VS1, which means that the inclusions are very very small and you would need a loupe to see them. Plus, if you see the location of the inclusions in the plot, they are along the side of the diamond and not in the table or somewhere where they would be more noticeable. Inclusions along the side are much harder to see and these may be prongable which would completely take care of lingering concerns. I don't think you will have an issue with the inclusions in this diamond.

 

[marrduk24]

Here comes a super dumb question... how did you know it was a carbon inclusion? Aren't those the black ones that are horrible? Are they sometimes not horrible?

At VS1 you should really not worry about inclusions and focus on other things. At VS1 neither they are eye visible nor they are likely to impact light return/ transparency. The whole point of working with a reputable dealer like Whiteflash (or multiple other sellers recommended on PS) is so that they can inspect the diamond and point obvious issues such as transparency issue or Color tinge.

1. Start with your budget
2. Prioritize your 4 Cs: most people here would prioritize cut as one of the most important variables
3. In terms of color vs carat I have seen very different personal preference. See a recent poll - half the people said they were fine with H or I and other half said they want F or G. No one can make that decision for you. I personally don’t think compromising carat for color is worth it. Given your budget, you can easily get a F color, VS1, ideal cut, 3.5+ carat stone

4. Clarity: general view would that at VS2 you are at eye clean and at VS1 you are at mind clean. But that’s a general view

So set your minimum color, carat and clarity requirements, come up with options that meet those and people here can provide inputs on which one is likely to have best fire, brilliance and scintillation. So far it seems to be your 3.36 carat diamond.

 

[tyty333]

Here comes a super dumb question... how did you know it was a carbon inclusion? Aren't those the black ones that are horrible? Are they sometimes not horrible?

No dumb questions (especially when you're looking for your forever stone)...

I shouldnt have said "small carbon". I should have said "small crystal"...sorry about that!

edit...
Here is a K/VS 1 stone wtih a Crystal as the grade making inclusion. Its somewhere under the table but I couldnt tell you where because
I cant find it. Maybe someone in the trade could find it???

 

[marrduk24]

Agree that part of the process is learning more. I have been a member here for 3-4 months and feel like I have learnt a ton.
Of all of the options you have, I still think the ones that I like the most are

1. your original 3.36 carat
2. Option diamondseeker posted

3.56 Carat D VS1 Round Brilliant Diamond GIA Certified 5376318319 Affinity Cut - D46499846

www.adiamor.com

I looked around again today to see if I could find something in D to F color range, VS1+ clarity, >3.3 carats and <$100k and didn’t see anything else where I liked the cut.
Two that came closes were

1. 4 carat G VS1

https://diamonddealfinder.com/enquiry.php?id_field=2648713

2. 3.8 E VVS2

3.80 Carat E VVS2 Round Brilliant Diamond GIA Certified 2215289558 Affinity Cut - D46013978

3.80 carat, Round, E Color, VVS2 clarity, GIA Certified Diamond, Affinity Cut Diamond, D46013978

www.adiamor.com

 

[FornasettiLover]

Friends, thank you so much for your help. I think it is down to the original 3.36 and the 3.088 F VS2 ACA. The ACA would likely not be my forever stone because I realize I want the "mind clean" VS1. I also definitely want the high color too. However, I don't want to wait forever for the right ACA to come along.I will have them bring in the virtual 3.36 and compare it directly. Assuming there are photos and videos I will post those for your curiosity and input. Thank you!

 

[marrduk24]

Friends, thank you so much for your help. I think it is down to the original 3.36 and the 3.088 F VS2 ACA. The ACA would likely not be my forever stone because I realize I want the "mind clean" VS1. I also definitely want the high color too. However, I don't want to wait forever for the right ACA to come along.I will have them bring in the virtual 3.36 and compare it directly. Assuming there are photos and videos I will post those for your curiosity and input. Thank you!

Those seem like two great options to have. 3.56 from Adiamor is in India and I don’t think you want to deal with them bringing in a diamond from overseas.


You should have Whiteflash bring in 3.36 and have their photography dept take HD video of the diamond as well as Idealscope and ASET images. Post those here. Also have them take pictures of it next to F/ ACA so that you can we difference in color, size etc. You can post that here too.

That should give you all of the info to decide between these two. I think you have two great options here at your hand.

 

[magpie2]

I've no wish to muddy any waters here. However, as it appears no perfect solution has yet been arrived at, I've seen what I think is a very nice diamond on BN for your consideration. LD15390839. 3.51 ct FVS1. GIA 5373475966
There's no pic. showing currently, but the angles / dimensions, whilst just outside ACA ideals, still look good to this amateur. Also, the VS1 is probably as close to VVS2 as you'll get.
The 'downside' is it's medium blue fluor. Now, I know that subject has been raised and rejected previously, but when all the variables are refusing to line up, maybe it's time to think again. Incidentally, provided you don't wear it on Space Mountain (see Disney ref. above) or in Studio 64 (those were the days!) the 'downsides' of the fluorescence are likely to be;
1. A large stone at a key carat weight, so maybe you won't want to upgrade
2. An F that looks very like an E
3. You'll save enough vs some of the alternatives to buy a splendid pair of matching earrings.
Good luck with your search.

 

[FornasettiLover]

I've no wish to muddy any waters here. However, as it appears no perfect solution has yet been arrived at, I've seen what I think is a very nice diamond on BN for your consideration. LD15390839. 3.51 ct FVS1. GIA 5373475966
There's no pic. showing currently, but the angles / dimensions, whilst just outside ACA ideals, still look good to this amateur. Also, the VS1 is probably as close to VVS2 as you'll get.
The 'downside' is it's medium blue fluor. Now, I know that subject has been raised and rejected previously, but when all the variables are refusing to line up, maybe it's time to think again. Incidentally, provided you don't wear it on Space Mountain (see Disney ref. above) or in Studio 64 (those were the days!) the 'downsides' of the fluorescence are likely to be;
1. A large stone at a key carat weight, so maybe you won't want to upgrade
2. An F that looks very like an E
3. You'll save enough vs some of the alternatives to buy a splendid pair of matching earrings.
Good luck with your search.

Space Mountain is exactly the ride that worries me! My days of clubbing are decades gone by.

I’ve read a lot about fluorescence, pros and cons, and have seen some lovely bling here with stones that do fluoresce. I do love the idea of it, geologically speaking. However, in an effort to narrow the field, and not broaden it (yet) I’ll stick with a “no” on that parameter for now.