Which pair of ACAs would you pick?

[raindrops on roses]

Hi all! I had recently upgraded my original smaller ACA studs to around 1.6ctw, J VVS/VS. They are really sparkly and I enjoyed the size upgrade, but having worn them for a couple of months now, I've come to realize that J color diamonds really isn't for me, personally. So I'm looking to change them into diamonds of similar ctw, but with H SI1 specs. The WF rep has helped to shortlist 3 diamonds - so I need to pick 2 out of 3.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=3961918,3964547,4027052

Her assessment of the diamonds is as follows:

All of them made our eye clean. From the side each of these had inclusions that could be seen from 10 inches, though for earrings I’m not sure how much that would really matter. When it comes to the inclusions the 0.816ct (ending in 0067) does have a combination of darker and light inclusions while the 0.816ct (ending in 2009) are all lighter inclusions. The 0.823ct has lighter inclusions as well but to me it’s the easier of the three to see the inclusion from the side.

I'm confused and waffling, and would really appreciate some advice on which 2 diamonds to pick, given that the other variables such as the color and performance are equal. My current pair of studs are very clean (VVS/VS), and going down to SI1 might be an adjustment. I know this is probably a mind-clean issue, given that the diamonds are for earrings, but I want to make the best/most well-informed choice here. Thank you and sorry for the long post!

 

[MissGotRocks]

I think to my eye the second and third stones look more visually matched although they will not be side to side. Perhaps it boils down to what you think about the inclusions but I think the side view won't be nearly as important as it would in a ring.

How do you plan to set them?

 

[BlingDreams]

First, all of these would be gorgeous. Its a matter of preference from here on out.

I’m a “specs” girl, so I like #1 and #3 because the angles are closest to each other (if I’m doing my math right... I’m on my phone so I can’t see all of them at the same time!). Btw, I have very similar stones! And I LOVE mine (even being SI1/2). No inclusions can be seen and they sparkle like mad.

 

[raindrops on roses]

I think to my eye the second and third stones look more visually matched although they will not be side to side. Perhaps it boils down to what you think about the inclusions but I think the side view won't be nearly as important as it would in a ring.

How do you plan to set them?

Thanks for your reply! I'll likely be going with the 6 prong martini settings. My inclination is to pair diamonds #1 and #3, but my dilemma is that diamond #1 has black/darker inclusions (even though the inclusions fall further away from the table). Diamond #2 has light inclusions, but they are right smack in the middle of the table.

 

[raindrops on roses]

First, all of these would be gorgeous. Its a matter of preference from here on out.

I’m a “specs” girl, so I like #1 and #3 because the angles are closest to each other (if I’m doing my math right... I’m on my phone so I can’t see all of them at the same time!). Btw, I have very similar stones! And I LOVE mine (even being SI1/2). No inclusions can be seen and they sparkle like mad.

Thanks! I've admired your beautiful studs from the other thread, and it's great that you mention no inclusions can be seen. I feel more reassured about choosing SI1 stones!

 

[sledge]

I actually like this pairing the best. All angles, etc are nearly identical except LGF's of 76 and 78, but visually they do not look off.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-di...etails.aspx?Diamond1=3916981&Diamond2=4027052

 

[SimoneDi]

I actually like this pairing the best. All angles, etc are nearly identical except LGF's of 76 and 78, but visually they do not look off.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-di...etails.aspx?Diamond1=3916981&Diamond2=4027052

The size difference between these two is too significant IMO. I prefer AGS-104098170067 and AGS-104101293058. I am all about matching cut proportions, but in this case, the stones will be set as earrings, not as side stones and the actual dimensions are more important.

@raindrops on roses no one will notice a crystal inclusion in that size, especially since these will be earrings. I wouldn't stress over it.

 

[sledge]

The size difference between these two is too significant IMO. I prefer AGS-104098170067 and AGS-104101293058. I am all about matching cut proportions, but in this case, the stones will be set as earrings, not as side stones and the actual dimensions are more important.

@raindrops on roses no one will notice a crystal inclusion in that size, especially since these will be earrings. I wouldn't stress over it.

Agree weight difference is funky but 0.07mm variance shouldn't be visible to the naked eye.

5.92x5.95x3.67 mm
5.99x6.02x3.71 mm

 

[raindrops on roses]

The size difference between these two is too significant IMO. I prefer AGS-104098170067 and AGS-104101293058. I am all about matching cut proportions, but in this case, the stones will be set as earrings, not as side stones and the actual dimensions are more important.

@raindrops on roses no one will notice a crystal inclusion in that size, especially since these will be earrings. I wouldn't stress over it.

Thanks SimoneDi, I'm also inclined to go with the 2 diamonds that you mentioned, since their measurements and angles closely match one another. I'm feeling much more certain about my selection, thanks!

 

[raindrops on roses]

Agree weight difference is funky but 0.07mm variance shouldn't be visible to the naked eye.

5.92x5.95x3.67 mm
5.99x6.02x3.71 mm

Thanks for your input! Unfortunately, I can indeed easily tell even a 0.07mm difference. My current pair of studs are 5.90x5.92 and 5.97x5.99, and the size difference is definitely noticable even on my ears. My BF and mum can also consistently correctly point out the bigger diamond stud. I never would have thought it was possible, had I not seen it for myself!

 

[sledge]

Thanks for your input! Unfortunately, I can indeed easily tell even a 0.07mm difference. My current pair of studs are 5.90x5.92 and 5.97x5.99, and the size difference is definitely noticable even on my ears. My BF and mum can also consistently correctly point out the bigger diamond stud. I never would have thought it was possible, had I not seen it for myself!

Interesting. It appears everyone in your family has excellent vision. I would think most would struggle to see it side by side, let alone with the distance between your ears.

Although another PS member has a diamond that is out of round by about 0.09mm or so, best I recall and I spotted that. He couldn't see it though.

FYI...

• 0.07mm = 0.002755906 inches = 1/360th of an inch

If you don't mind, I'd love to see a photograph of them. Not because I don't believe you, but just to see if I can detect the difference. Please don't say which is bigger until I've had a chance to review.