Which stone? WF or BGD?

[BoubaFris]

hello there!

Wonder which one would you choose? And why? Trying to learn your thought process on these online purchases.

For info, I am not colour sensitive, just trying to maximize my budget of $7k. Most likely in a solitaire setting similar to https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-1613.htm
Also open also to any other suggestions for the stone.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3858588.htm

Or

https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...1.475-k-vs1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104096091008

Thank you!

 

[PintoBean]

hello there!

Wonder which one would you choose? And why? Trying to learn your thought process on these online purchases.

For info, I am not colour sensitive, just trying to maximize my budget of $7k. Most likely in a solitaire setting similar to https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-1613.htm
Also open also to any other suggestions for the stone.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3858588.htm

Or

https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...1.475-k-vs1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104096091008

Thank you!

The K color range is broader. I would suggest ordering both diamonds and looking at them side by side at home.

 

[BoubaFris]

The K color range is broader. I would suggest ordering both diamonds and looking at them side by side at home.

Thank you PB. Unfortunately I am not in the US, making it difficult to deal with returns and customs. Would need all the resources to make a decision. Dilemma

 

[PintoBean]

Thank you PB. Unfortunately I am not in the US, making it difficult to deal with returns and customs. Would need all the resources to make a decision. Dilemma

Then it would be worth paying an independent appraiser for their service. $7,000 is a lot of money to spend on something that is not so easy to return.

 

[ratatat]

Depends on if you like fluorescence? It may make the stone look a bit whiter in some lighting but it might also glow blue out in the sunshine. Would you mind that? Would you like that? That to me seems to be the main difference between the two. I am a bit partial because I have a BGD signature and I love it

 

[BoubaFris]

Thank you PB and ratatat. Yes I like the flourescence. Maybe in that case, it would be easier to ask IDJ to vet through the stones but I won't get the super ideals and the better upgrade policy ...

 

[SimoneDi]

The BGD with flouro with show up whiter it is also slightly larger and a better clarity so that would be my pick. I have had 3 stones from BGD and one of them was a K with flouro that showed up pretty white.

P.S. Also a comment on the setting - the felicity in a very thin setting, I would personally not recommend it for long term wear. I will say that I used to love the look until I actually saw and tried on the settingin person and I was surprised as to how thin really and uncomfortable the setting is. Here are two classic settings that I love from bgd:
https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/elegance-18k-white-gold-5415w18
https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...assic-style-half-round-18k-white-gold-5540w18

 

[PintoBean]

I've had 2 bgblues K with Fluor. My 1.5 definitely is whiter and brighter than the 1.2 I had traded in to upgrade. I think that if you like super ideals you should opt for the independent appraisal route and have them help you pick the brighter and whiter of the two. I think that it will be a more mind clean purchase for you to go the super ideal route since this is an international purchase.

 

[SimoneDi]

I don't think that OP needs an independent appraiser to make a decision. A K with flouro will about 99% of the time be whiter when compared to a K without flouro. @BoubaFris, why don't you ask BGD to take a photo next to a J and another K for example (with and without flouro). I think that would give you a great idea. The K with flouro that I had appeared much whiter than my then J without flouro. Another J with flouro that I upgraded to appeared whiter than the I that I eventually decided to keep. Also, you can only decide what is "white" enough for you. People have different color preferences. If super-ideal is what you want, don't settle for less because you might end up not happy with it in the long term.

Here is a pic for reference, but please bear in mind that this is in a non-fluorescent environment.

From left to right:
1.8 J w/ flouro, 1.1 K w/ flouro, 1.5 J (cushion) w/o flouro

 

[BoubaFris]

Thank you all for the replies PB and Simone.

Great advice @SimoneDi. I will have a chat with BGD and see how it goes.

Editing the typo error in the name. Sorry

 

[BoubaFris]

The BGD with flouro with show up whiter it is also slightly larger and a better clarity so that would be my pick. I have had 3 stones from BGD and one of them was a K with flouro that showed up pretty white.

P.S. Also a comment on the setting - the felicity in a very thin setting, I would personally not recommend it for long term wear. I will say that I used to love the look until I actually saw and tried on the settingin person and I was surprised as to how thin really and uncomfortable the setting is. Here are two classic settings that I love from bgd:
https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/elegance-18k-white-gold-5415w18
https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...assic-style-half-round-18k-white-gold-5540w18

Thank you. Even in platinum which supposed to be harder?

For your K colour with Fluor, did you choose white gold? Will white "whiten" the stone?

 

[SimoneDi]

Thank you. Even in platinum which supposed to be harder?

For your K colour with Fluor, did you choose white gold? Will white "whiten" the stone?

I can't obviously advice you what you will like, but if there is one word to describe the setting, it would be "flimsy", because it is so thin, the edges are also super sharp and I found it really uncomfortable, I really, really disliked it, to be honest, but I am sure that other people like it. I am all about comfort these days. What about something like this setting? https://www.etsy.com/listing/499694599/cvb-jane-simple-four-prong-solitaire?ref=shop_home_active_18 It is similar to the Vatche, still very delicate, but definitely more substantial. Caysie is currently making me a setting and she is lovely to work with.

Re your other question - if white metal is what you like, get that. I think that the white metal doesn't have that much influence on the appearance of the diamond, but I do find that lower color diamonds seem slightly warmer in rose and yellow gold. I had my K set in white, but I was actually going to reset it in RG. I decided to trade it in so the reset never happened, but I would just get the metal that speaks to you.

 

[SimoneDi]

Ok I had to find this quote by @yssie that I remember reading a long time ago. She, in my opinion, best described what "makes a diamond look the largest". This is what she said that always stuck with me and it wasn't until later that I actually saw it for myself: "A too-thin band gets lost, and the eye tries to compensate; a too-thick band doesn't make the diamond POP." I put another emphasis on comfort that very thin shanks just don't seem to provide. From Vatche, this will be a better alternative: https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...tche-venus-solitaire-engagement-ring-2378.htm

Below is the full quote and here is the original thread: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ould-make-my-diamond-look-the-biggest.143175/

I think:

A medium-height prong solitaire on a medium-width plain band makes the centre look largest because the stone takes centrestage and there are NO distractions. The outline of many prongs is easier to follow, and tricks the eye into thinking the border is outside the stone's actual outline. Ever closed one eye and held your fingers an inch apart, and enclosed between them a building/person/whatever that's in the distance? Like that, an extremely low setting means that the stone appears to cover less of your finger. An extremely high set stone would look to cover more finger from face-up, but the very visible side profile brings your eye back to the reality of size. A too-thin band gets lost, and the eye tries to compensate; a too-thick band doesn't make the diamond POP.

A solitaire on a micropave band also makes the centre look smaller, for two reasons:
1. The stones have depth, and that depth must stick out from the band on the finger, making the outer circumference of the ring bigger than if there were no stones to add that extra thickness. And a stone will look visibly bigger on a size2 band than an apparent size4 band - we're talking tenths of a mm here, but remember that's the scale of the diamond itself. Which is also in part the second reason:
2. melee is WHITE WHITE WHITE, and the eye is drawn to this line of white stretching along the finger. The viewer now judges how much of the line of melee the centrestone covers rather than how much of a thinner, less visible plain band, and the resulting judgement is that the centrestone is smaller. This effect is pronounced if you pair your pave ring with two pave bands flanking, as now even more of the finger is covered and that point of comparison is further lost.

A halo gives a larger appearance from afar, but close-up is busier and can detract from the centrestone, though the finger-coverage is incredible

I do think you need to try them on, though - people seem to love halos on their fingers or dislike them, not much in between! A bezel solitare is rather the same way - bigger from afar, but since it's covering a small area of diamond the diamond itself looks smaller close-up.

Three-stones are the worst of the lot for increasing the apparent size of your centrestone - finger coverage and a hugely sparkly look, but even smaller sidestones definitely take away from your centre. This is coming from a three-stone girl

JMHO.

 

[BoubaFris]

Ok I had to find this quote by @yssie that I remember reading a long time ago. She, in my opinion, best described what "makes a diamond look the largest". This is what she said that always stuck with me and it wasn't until later that I actually saw it for myself: "A too-thin band gets lost, and the eye tries to compensate; a too-thick band doesn't make the diamond POP." I put another emphasis on comfort that very thin shanks just don't seem to provide. From Vatche, this will be a better alternative: https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...tche-venus-solitaire-engagement-ring-2378.htm

Below is the full quote and here is the original thread: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ould-make-my-diamond-look-the-biggest.143175/

Thank you for this quote. It is very informative as I was also thinking of a 3 stone. More things to ponder on.

Having both lines of BGD, do you think the blue line is not as "ideal" as the signature line?

 

[SimoneDi]

Thank you for this quote. It is very informative as I was also thinking of a 3 stone. More things to ponder on.

Having both lines of BGD, do you think the blue line is not as "ideal" as the signature line?

No, they are 100% the same cut wise, they simply emphasize on fluorescence with their "blue" line. For lower colors, I prefer fluorescence, it helps the color and makes the stones appear brighter.

 

[BoubaFris]

No, they are 100% the same cut wise, they simply emphasize on fluorescence with their "blue" line. For lower colors, I prefer fluorescence, it helps the color and makes the stones appear brighter.

Thank you

 

[diamondseeker2006]

No, they are 100% the same cut wise, they simply emphasize on fluorescence with their "blue" line. For lower colors, I prefer fluorescence, it helps the color and makes the stones appear brighter.

I don't think that is accurate, or at least it wasn't in the past. I believe they do not provide hearts images for the Blue line, so they do not guarantee all the blue stones meet the standards of their Signature line. The stones do look beautifully cut, though.

In regard to K color and fluorescence, you do need to understand that sometimes stones with fluorescence are graded higher than they are because of the fluorescence. So a K with fl may not necessarily be whiter than a K without, because it might be lower color in the first place. Here's a good thread which explains it.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...f-blue-fluorescent-diamonds-revisited.219341/

So I would agree with the advice that I'd want a third party to assess the color.

 

[PintoBean]

I don't think that is accurate, or at least it wasn't in the past. I believe they do not provide hearts images for the Blue line, so they do not guarantee all the blue stones meet the standards of their Signature line. The stones do look beautifully cut, though.

In regard to K color and fluorescence, you do need to understand that sometimes stones with fluorescence are graded higher than they are because of the fluorescence. So a K with fl may not necessarily be whiter than a K without, because it might be lower color in the first place. Here's a good thread which explains it.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...f-blue-fluorescent-diamonds-revisited.219341/

So I would agree with the advice that I'd want a third party to assess the color.

Also, K color is a wide range. Hypothetically, if the bg blue was a low K with Fluor and the WF was a high K, would the Fluor still make the bg blue whiter than the WF stone?

With the stones priced closely, both from reputable vendors, and this being an international purchase, I'd let the independent appraiser weigh in.

 

[ac117]

I agree with DS and PB w/r/t K color and since you can't see the stones in person to compare, it would be difficult to exchange/return and you can't get the vendors assessment since the stones are from diff vendors, I think the independent appraiser idea is totally valid and could potentially put your mind at ease.

 

[BoubaFris]

Thank you all for the replies.

Re: difference between BG blue and H&A signature, this is the reply from BG:

<In regards to cut, there is no compromise in cut, quality or light performance between our Blue and H&A line- They are both cut to the same strict standards.>

So far, based on the picture that WF sent me on the stone in question, it doesn't look too tinted compared to the ACA melees which I believe is F/G colour. What do you think?

 

[SimoneDi]

I don't think that is accurate, or at least it wasn't in the past. I believe they do not provide hearts images for the Blue line, so they do not guarantee all the blue stones meet the standards of their Signature line. The stones do look beautifully cut, though.

In regard to K color and fluorescence, you do need to understand that sometimes stones with fluorescence are graded higher than they are because of the fluorescence. So a K with fl may not necessarily be whiter than a K without, because it might be lower color in the first place. Here's a good thread which explains it.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...f-blue-fluorescent-diamonds-revisited.219341/

So I would agree with the advice that I'd want a third party to assess the color.

Alright, last time (few months back) when I had a discussion with BGD that is what I understood. Also, if one asks nicely, H&A images may be provided. I have mine for my old "blue" stones. I don't think that It is necessarily in writing as their inventory with fluorescent stones is always limited and mayyybe some of the stones are not 100% H&A, but I know that Brian selects them all personally and he rejects a vast majority of diamonds.

Regarding color grading, this is interesting because I remember reading that stones with blue fluorescence sometimes tend to be "punished" for flouro and overgraded as to being warmer than they truly are. I need to find the thread..

Regardless, and based on what I have seen with fluorescent stones, if there is med - very strong flouro, the stones face up at least a shade whiter than non-fluorescent diamonds. So in my view, an even "low K" with flouro will be whiter most of the time when compared to a "high K". Again, this is just my opinion based on what I have seen and this may just be my experience, not necessarily what is true in most cases.

 

[SimoneDi]

Thank you all for the replies.

Re: difference between BG blue and H&A signature, this is the reply from BG:

<In regards to cut, there is no compromise in cut, quality or light performance between our Blue and H&A line- They are both cut to the same strict standards.>

So far, based on the picture that WF sent me on the stone in question, it doesn't look too tinted compared to the ACA melees which I believe is F/G colour. What do you think?

It definitely looks white! Pretty band, too.

 

[BoubaFris]

Re: independent appraiser.

Does it mean that I would have to buy both stones and send them to the appraiser? Once he has confirmed the winning stone, he would send it back for setting and the other would be returned? I guess I would lose out on the foreign exchange for the return part. Am I correct in the process?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You really can't tell anything about the color of the stone in that picture. I am sure it's a pretty stone because of the cut, but you should be able to tell K from F in real life viewing.

As far a the appraiser goes, the ideal situation would be to buy both with the understanding you want an independent appraiser to compare the two stones before deciding. The only complication I can think of is that some vendors will only send a purchased stone directly to the buyer. You'll be paying shipping costs from the appraiser to you and the other stone back to the vendor, I assume. Although, if there was a truly independent appraiser in Houston, this could be an easier process, but I don't know of one. I know David Atlas has settled a color dispute before. But that would require shipping to him. Neil Beaty is good, too.

 

[PintoBean]

Re: independent appraiser.

Does it mean that I would have to buy both stones and send them to the appraiser? Once he has confirmed the winning stone, he would send it back for setting and the other would be returned? I guess I would lose out on the foreign exchange for the return part. Am I correct in the process?

I don't know maybe they can hold a credit card and charge it only if the stone isn't returned?

 

[SimoneDi]

I don't know maybe they can hold a credit card and charge it only if the stone isn't returned?

I can't speak for WF, but BGD will not ship a stone if not paid. Also, they only ship to a FedEx facility for pickup, so that would require for the appraiser to pick up the stone, unless they can make an exception.

Aren't any PSers in Houston? Maybe a volunteer can visit both vendors and provide feedback on the stones?

 

[PintoBean]

Alright, last time (few months back) when I had a discussion with BGD that is what I understood. Also, if one asks nicely, H&A images may be provided. I have mine for my old "blue" stones. I don't think that It is necessarily in writing as their inventory with fluorescent stones is always limited and mayyybe some of the stones are not 100% H&A, but I know that Brian selects them all personally and he rejects a vast majority of diamonds.

Regarding color grading, this is interesting because I remember reading that stones with blue fluorescence sometimes tend to be "punished" for flouro and overgraded as to being warmer than they truly are. I need to find the thread..

Regardless, and based on what I have seen with fluorescent stones, if there is med - very strong flouro, the stones face up at least a shade whiter than non-fluorescent diamonds. So in my view, an even "low K" with flouro will be whiter most of the time when compared to a "high K". Again, this is just my opinion based on what I have seen and this may just be my experience, not necessarily what is true in most cases.

Keep in mind that AGS can at times be softer than GIA so you may be comparing what GIA would consider an L with a K.

Just a little background. I own 2 pairs of K studs, a 1.5+ ct bgblue, a K pendant and a K EC. That's 7 Ks lolol (more Ks than in the Kardashian family). I sent @ac117 to verify 3 of my Ks (the 3 most recent ones) bc she's extremely color sensitive to make sure that the diamonds were white top down. Ks can be a great buy so long as you are Kautious lololololol

 

[SimoneDi]

Keep in mind that AGS can at times be softer than GIA so you may be comparing what GIA would consider an L with a K.

Just a little background. I own 2 pairs of K studs, a 1.5+ ct bgblue, a K pendant and a K EC. That's 7 Ks lolol (more Ks than in the Kardashian family). I sent @ac117 to verify 3 of my Ks (the 3 most recent ones) bc she's extremely color sensitive to make sure that the diamonds were white top down. Ks can be a great buy so long as you are Kautious lololololol

lol "kautious" ok, ok definitely a better K color expert than I could be.. mine range mostly in I/J/K and I let go of my K.. so that's that. I agree with you that K can be a great buy because they are really much cheaper even than Js.

Really nice of @ac117 to check them out for you! Maybe we should do a trip to TX?

 

[BoubaFris]

Keep in mind that AGS can at times be softer than GIA so you may be comparing what GIA would consider an L with a K.

Just a little background. I own 2 pairs of K studs, a 1.5+ ct bgblue, a K pendant and a K EC. That's 7 Ks lolol (more Ks than in the Kardashian family). I sent @ac117 to verify 3 of my Ks (the 3 most recent ones) bc she's extremely color sensitive to make sure that the diamonds were white top down. Ks can be a great buy so long as you are Kautious lololololol

Lololol! Great sense of humour!!

 

[BoubaFris]

lol "kautious" ok, ok definitely a better K color expert than I could be.. mine range mostly in I/J/K and I let go of my K.. so that's that. I agree with you that K can be a great buy because they are really much cheaper even than Js.

Really nice of @ac117 to check them out for you! Maybe we should do a trip to TX?

That would be nice. Any volunteers?