Which of these stones offers the best value?

[Edward_T]

Hi,

I'm comparing a few hearts/arrows stones at WF and BGD and it's kind of tough to figure out which one would offer the best value when taking everything into account, i.e, the 4C's vs. prices.

The 3 stones at WF all conform to ideal proportions with slight differences in size, color, clarity and prices:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare/?idnos=4159487,4159485,4159481

1) WF 1.845 F/VVS1
Light Return: Excellent
Fire: Excellent
Scintillation: Very Good
Spread: Very Good
HCA Score : 1.4 - Excellent - within TIC range

2) WF 1.765 D/VVS2
Light Return:Excellent
Fire:Excellent
Scintillation:Very Good
Spread:Very Good
HCA Score : 1.4 - Excellent - within TIC range

3) WF 1.725 E/VVS1
Light Return:Excellent
Fire:Excellent
Scintillation:Excellent
Spread:Very Good
HCA Score :1 - Excellent - within TIC range
This stone is the smallest (although not by much) but I'm curious as to why the scintillation rating is "Excellent" as compared to "Very Good" for the two bigger ones. The HCA score is 1 which is close to ideal as far as HCA is concerned (if I remember correctly), but I also learned that HCA is a rejection tool rather than a selection tool so I'm not sure if the "Excellent" scintillation rating and HCA score of 1 would give it a slight edge over the two slightly larger stones.

BGD 1.798 F/VVS1:
https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...-ags-c-104106339005#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/3/
Light Return:Excellent
Fire:Excellent
Scintillation:Excellent
Spread:Very Good
HCA Score : 0.7 - Excellent - within TIC range

The BGD stone (1.798 F/VVS1) is very close to stone 1 from WF (1.845 F/VVS1) from a technical standpoint and also price, but the Table% = 57.3 which is slightly higher than the upper range of the ideal range of 54-57.

I looked at the hearts/arrows, ASET and idealscope images of these 2 stones and they're both very nice but to my untrained eyes the BGD's hearts pattern seems to be just a tad nicer/cleaner but I can't be sure. On the other hand the WF stone #1 is slightly larger and conforms to all ideal proportions while the BGD stone seems to slightly miss the mark on Table%. Should this be a concern at all? To my eyes the brilliance and sparkle of the BGD stone is pretty incredible. Which one would you pick based on these data? Any insight is greatly appreciated.

 

[TODiamonds]

These stones are all fantastic and at this price range clearly budget isn't a concern so I'd take the biggest rock - stone 1. They're all so close in specs that size will be the only noticeable difference IMO. I would pass on the BGD only because I prefer a 55 to a 57 table personally.

You're overthinking the HCA scores. Be careful comparing the WF to BGD videos - they are different platforms which present the stones differently, so not exactly apples-to-apples. Hard to trust your eyes when comparing sparkle/brilliance across different website/vendor platforms (ie: everything looks worse on BN for example).

 

[lovedogs]

You can't make a bad choice. All are great. Is upgrade policy a consideration? If so, WF is significantly better. But if not, both are great vendors with excellent stones.

 

[oldminer]

When you address "Value" you should be thinking of dollars. However, your questions and comparisons relate far more to what diamond would look the best, or which one is technically the best performer. Such issues are not dollar issues in a direct sense. You must focus on what aspect are most important and what are secondary in importance. I believe you want direction in the appearance and beauty side of the situation as your main priority. In that regard, you have been given great advice already. Mixing this with "value" will only confuse and somewhat change your priorities.

 

[tyty333]

I too would go with the largest. All the stones have Ideal light return so you really cant go wrong. The HCA tool is really for stones where you dont have
all the images like you do with ACAs or BGDs.

 

[mwilliamanderson]

I like the ACA D 1.76.
Why? It’s plenty big, couldn't be any whiter, great clarity and there’s a great upgrade policy along with it!

 

[lovedogs]

I too would go with the largest. All the stones have Ideal light return so you really cant go wrong. The HCA tool is really for stones where you dont have
all the images like you do with ACAs or BGDs.

This

 

[Edward_T]

These stones are all fantastic and at this price range clearly budget isn't a concern so I'd take the biggest rock - stone 1. They're all so close in specs that size will be the only noticeable difference IMO. I would pass on the BGD only because I prefer a 55 to a 57 table personally.

You're overthinking the HCA scores. Be careful comparing the WF to BGD videos - they are different platforms which present the stones differently, so not exactly apples-to-apples. Hard to trust your eyes when comparing sparkle/brilliance across different website/vendor platforms (ie: everything looks worse on BN for example).

Thank you for your pointers. I noticed that on both BGD and Victor Canera's websites I could see the black arrows flashing by when the stones were rotating toward the front in their videos, and I could manually grab the rocks with the mouse to slow them down and turn them slowly to look at the arrows which were much darker and more pronounced than those shown in WF and HPD videos where the arrows were just a shade of grey and not clearly visible. Is this an effect of the way the cameras were positioned on different platforms?

 

[Edward_T]

You can't make a bad choice. All are great. Is upgrade policy a consideration? If so, WF is significantly better. But if not, both are great vendors with excellent stones.

Thanks, I haven't thought much about upgrading and will take that into consideration. I've read here that WF provides excellent policies and customer service.

 

[TODiamonds]

Thank you for your pointers. I noticed that on both BGD and Victor Canera's websites I could see the black arrows flashing by when the stones were rotating toward the front in their videos, and I could manually grab the rocks with the mouse to slow them down and turn them slowly to look at the arrows which were much darker and more pronounced than those shown in WF and HPD videos where the arrows were just a shade of grey and not clearly visible. Is this an effect of the way the cameras were positioned on different platforms?

Yes - position, lighting, everything really.

I'm not a fan of the WF videos - they are too blinding and prevent you from seeing the details. Doesn't do anything for me. BGD videos are much better. I actually like the videos on JA best.

 

[lovedogs]

Thanks, I haven't thought much about upgrading and will take that into consideration. I've read here that WF provides excellent policies and customer service.

Yup, WF and HPD have the best customer service around (IMHO). That doesn't mean other vendors aren't good as well, but for super ideal diamonds they are the best.

 

[Edward_T]

When you address "Value" you should be thinking of dollars. However, your questions and comparisons relate far more to what diamond would look the best, or which one is technically the best performer. Such issues are not dollar issues in a direct sense. You must focus on what aspect are most important and what are secondary in importance. I believe you want direction in the appearance and beauty side of the situation as your main priority. In that regard, you have been given great advice already. Mixing this with "value" will only confuse and somewhat change your priorities.

Thanks, you're absolutely correct. I think the WF #1 and BGD stone are only somewhat more expensive due to their slightly larger sizes so I was wondering which one would have the best bang for the buck from a performance standpoint. I was mainly concerned with the cut, so now it's only a matter of what of the remaining 3C's should be given priority based on my personal preferences.

 

[Edward_T]

I too would go with the largest. All the stones have Ideal light return so you really cant go wrong. The HCA tool is really for stones where you dont have
all the images like you do with ACAs or BGDs.

Thank you for your advice. Initially I was leaning toward the largest rock too but I was a bit concerned about the color F because I'm considering a setting that would expose large side views of the stone, and I've learned that color is more easily discerned from the sides and bottom.

 

[Wewechew]

Thank you for your advice. Initially I was leaning toward the largest rock too but I was a bit concerned about the color F because I'm considering a setting that would expose large side views of the stone, and I've learned that color is more easily discerned from the sides and bottom.

Unless you are extremely color sensitive, you are not going to be able to see tint in an F.

 

[Edward_T]

I like the ACA D 1.76.
Why? It’s plenty big, couldn't be any whiter, great clarity and there’s a great upgrade policy along with it!

Thank you for your pointers. Initially I preferred the largest one but since my gf is interested in a setting that would expose large side views of the stone I'm now considering the ACA D 1.76 (just slightly smaller than the largest one but still big enough and have the best color) because she's very color sensitive.

 

[mwilliamanderson]

Thank you for your pointers. Initially I preferred the largest one but since my gf is interested in a setting that would expose large side views of the stone I'm now considering the ACA D 1.76 (just slightly smaller than the largest one but still big enough and have the best color) because she's very color sensitive.

Sounds like it makes a lot of sense given your situation. I bet she’ll love knowing it’s a D! On some future important anniversary or other life marker you can always upgrade for size if she’s interested.

 

[Edward_T]

Unless you are extremely color sensitive, you are not going to be able to see tint in an F.

I'm not, but my gf is.

 

[Wewechew]

I'm not, but my gf is.

In that case, go with the D. I love the little table on it

 

[Edward_T]

Yes - position, lighting, everything really.

I'm not a fan of the WF videos - they are too blinding and prevent you from seeing the details. Doesn't do anything for me. BGD videos are much better. I actually like the videos on JA best.

I thought the same things. BGD videos are much better than WF's but I think they're just a bit too flashy and aimed for optimal visual effects for marketing purposes although there's nothing wrong with that because their stones are among the best. JA videos are more realistic because that's what we more likely see in real life under normal lighting conditions.

 

[Edward_T]

Yup, WF and HPD have the best customer service around (IMHO). That doesn't mean other vendors aren't good as well, but for super ideal diamonds they are the best.

Thanks a lot for your advice; it's good to know that.

 

[Edward_T]

Sounds like it makes a lot of sense given your situation. I bet she’ll love knowing it’s a D! On some future important anniversary or other life marker you can always upgrade for size if she’s interested.

Thanks, I truly appreciate your insight. She's happy with 1ct so anything bigger is a plus; she's more interested in the cut, color and to a lesser extent the clarity of the stone.

 

[mwilliamanderson]

Thanks, I truly appreciate your insight. She's happy with 1ct so anything bigger is a plus; she's more interested in the cut, color and to a lesser extent the clarity of the stone.

I think she’s going to be VERY happy !

 

[Edward_T]

In that case, go with the D. I love the little table on it

Thanks. With all else being equal, what would a smaller table contribute to the overall performance of a stone?

 

[mwilliamanderson]

If you’re seriously considering it put a hold on it before someone in a similar position snatches it up. It will buy you some time.

 

[TODiamonds]

Thank you for your pointers. Initially I preferred the largest one but since my gf is interested in a setting that would expose large side views of the stone I'm now considering the ACA D 1.76 (just slightly smaller than the largest one but still big enough and have the best color) because she's very color sensitive.

I honestly highly doubt you or her will be able to tell the diff between a D and F once mounted (even from the side), but if it makes you feel more comfortable or if what the paper says matters, than go with the D.

 

[Edward_T]

I think she’s going to be VERY happy !

I truly hope so.

 

[Wewechew]

Thanks. With all else being equal, what would a smaller table contribute to the overall performance of a stone?

In theory, yes. Will your eyes be able to discern it? Probably not.

 

[Edward_T]

Yes - position, lighting, everything really.

I noticed that in most of WF's hearts images the top parts are for some reason whited out similar to the following:
https://www.whiteflash.com/photos/2...-Diamond-AGS-104107508036-Diamond-169537.webp

Very few of their hearts images are complete as compared to other vendors' images such as this one: https://www.hpdiamonds.com/img/model-diamond.jpg

Any reason why? Or is it just the way they like to present those images?

 

[Edward_T]

I honestly highly doubt you or her will be able to tell the diff between a D and F once mounted (even from the side), but if it makes you feel more comfortable or if what the paper says matters, than go with the D.

Thanks for your suggestion. She's extremely color sensitive and more interested in cut/color than size so I just want to err on the safe side. She's happy with 1ct so the small diff in sizes in this case probably doesn't really matter.

 

[Edward_T]

If you’re seriously considering it put a hold on it before someone in a similar position snatches it up. It will buy you some time.

Good idea, thanks.