Which Stone Would You Rather Have?

[Midway]

And why?

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_details.aspx?idno=160976

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2130/

I''m realizing now that I chose one of the worst times to buy a diamond since pickings are slim due to the upcoming holiday. Which one of the above diamonds would you rather have and why? Any thoughts/opinions would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Midway]

Throwing one more into the mix.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2638/

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 12/6/2006 2:48:27 AM
Author:Midway
And why?

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_details.aspx?idno=160976

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2130/

I''m realizing now that I chose one of the worst times to buy a diamond since pickings are slim due to the upcoming holiday. Which one of the above diamonds would you rather have and why? Any thoughts/opinions would be greatly appreciated!

Both of these diamonds are beautiful cut wise. If you are willing to buy the bigger one...then that would be my pick LOL. But, if your gf wants an expensive setting or something along those lines then plan accordingly for your budget. If however she wants a big rock, then I''d go for the bigger stone and a less expensive setting.

Don''t worry about buying near the holidays. It really doesn''t matter that much for internet vendors, their margins are much slimer than mall jewelers and prices don''t fluctuate as much. One thing, don''t forget to ask for the ps discount!

 

[strmrdr]

the WF stone says its sold.. do you have it on hold?

 

[kcoursolle]

After adding the third one to the mix...I wouldn't pick that one (not b/c it's not a beauty). It's smaller and more expensive, and has clarity overkill. As long as the G/SI2 is eye-clean or able to be covered with a prong, there will be little ot no visible difference between a VS1 and an SI2. Why pay for what you can't see??

 

[Midway]

Thanks for the responses.

Just to explain the background story a bit more. I actually purchased the WF diamond. I was hoping to get a stone with superior optics by choosing a cut above, AGS 0 diamond, however, the stone arrived yesterday and I have to say I was a bit disappointed. Instead of radiating light and demonstrating fire and scintillation, it looked rather flat to me. It looks well cut, but the cut does not translate into a rock that has punch or makes you say "wow!"

I've had several friends buy from GOG and I've been impressed with the stones they've purchased. I asked Tim at GOG to recommend a stone that is what I was looking for. 1.3-1.4 (I know the WF is 1.28 but they didn't have a 1.3-1.4 (hence my lamenting the time I'm buying my stone). SI1-SI2, G-H. The only thing I won't compromise is the cut, I want it GIA or AGS triple excellent/ideal. He recommended the 1.4 Tolkowski stone. He said it had superior optics and that he gauges a diamond on how his wife will react, i.e. something that makes her say "oh, its so pretty and sparkely." Tim assures me that the 1.4 has it. He also said that it was an eye clean SI2 and that you could barely see the middle inclusion from about 8 inches if you were really looking for it and knew it was there.

So, a few questions. Does anyone have experience with Tolkowski cut stones and what can you say about their optics? Should I have my WF stone cleaned? I just received it and I thought they'd probably clean it before the sent it out, but maybe not. I'm considering just purchasing the 1.4 and comparing the two side-by-side to help me make my judgment based on my own two eyes.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[Mara]

i like the first two...

the WF one looks great...i own several ACA and ES WF stones and they are fabulous. the specs on this one are good but a tiny bit deeper in 61+ depth than i *personally* love but it's a preference thing, the numbers are still very ideal.

but i think i like the SPECS on the GOG one better (the first GOG one). i also like that it's bigger and G SI2 instead of H SI1. however make sure it's entirely eye-clean. the 40.6ish pav angle...some think that can be an issue but you'd probably have to see it in person.

i think comparing the first two in person is a great idea. make sure both stones are clean and check them out in all types of lighting. its kind of funny you think the ACA is flat because my experience is that they are anything but. it could be that you are not sure what to actually look for. i think sometimes all the hype here on the forum makes people think these things are going to sit up and sing a hosanna to them or something. so maybe comparing the 2 stones to each other will give you a more realistic picture.

 

[belle]

Date: 12/6/2006 11:21:02 AM
Author: Mara

i think comparing the first two in person is a great idea. make sure both stones are clean and check them out in all types of lighting. its kind of funny you think the ACA is flat because my experience is that they are anything but. it could be that you are not sure what to actually look for. i think sometimes all the hype here on the forum makes people think these things are going to sit up and sing a hosanna to them or something. so maybe comparing the 2 stones to each other will give you a more realistic picture.

i also vote for comparing them side by side... AND comparing them in all types of lighting. as mara said, i think sometimes people get the idea that these diamonds are just going to jump up and do a dance when they get them. you really need to see them in many different types of lighting to appreciate what they have to offer.
(ps, take them to costco or another place with high lighting.

)

best of luck!

 

[thaddies7]

It is good to look at the numbers, especially the cut. But if it is not beautiful to the eye, then you should look around. When I look at the one that you bought, I am not impressed, but then again it''s just a picture. I like the one from GOG better.

 

[ILikeBond]

To me it looks like the whiteflash rock is leaking light under the table (see the idealscope image). That's probably the story your eye is telling you.

I like GOG's 1.4 G SI2. That rock is actually on my short-list, too, as I'm planning to buy soon. I've seen some of the Tolkowskis at GOG and they're very nice, and I know the folks at GOG consider it a top cutting outfit. My short-list isn't that short, though, so I'll be nice and let you have it.

 

[Midway]

Thanks to everyone for their comments! I''ve decided to get the 1.4, G, SI2. I need to compare the two side by side with the WF stone just for peace of mind. I think I will notice a difference, as people have pointed out the WF stone appears to be leaking light at the table.

Thanks Bond for letting me have the 1.4!

I do appreciate it, as I think this was meant to be the stone for me all along. Just took me a while to realize it. I''ll let you guys know how it all works out, and post pics when I have the ring together. Thanks again!

 

[ILikeBond]

Good luck! The Gemex report on that 1.40 G is unreal!

 

[Midway]

Bond, just curious but do you happen to know what the 5 different lighting conditions are that appear on the GemEx report. Just wondering what best resembles normal fluroescent office lighting conditions.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My 1.63 ct. stone is a Towlkowsky and it is very beautiful. I also bought and returned two stones before I found the keeper!

Understand, however, that lighting has everything to do with the look of a diamond. Mine reflects white light at work under florescent light. It throws off gorgeous colored flashes under halogen lighting in an exhibition hall. You may just be viewing the stone in lighting that is not optimal.

 

[Ellen]

Midway, try cleaning it. (with the drain shut!)

I had bought a pair of ACA studs, then decided to upgrade. I sent the old pair back and purchased a new pair. The new pair looked nothing like the first pair, and I couldn''t believe what I was seeing. I took them home and got a loupe out, there was something all over both. It took two cleanings and a real good scrubbing with a brush to get whatever was on there off. Once clean, they looked like the other pair, moreless, the way they should. However, I ended up returning them, as one did outperform the other, but I wouldn''t have called it flat.

I''m not sure what it was, I never mentioned it, but it''s a possibility with yours. Won''t take much to find out.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ellen, you returned the .58 ea. pair?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/6/2006 9:41:01 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Ellen, you returned the .58 ea. pair?

No, it was a different pair. Long story short, these were not long after my first pair, close to the same size as the first.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Gotcha! Thanks!

 

[sluke]

I lean towards the GOG 1.4 G SI-2 over the WF ACA as long as the GOG stone is eye clean. Size and color is what I will see, though you probably can''t tell the much difference btwn G & H.

 

[Midway]

Just a little follow-up on my diamond dilemma. I received the GOG stone this past Saturday and I''ve taken the last two days to compare the two diamonds in all different kinds of lights. My conclusion is that I was being too harsh on the WF stone. Mara and Belle, you were absolutely right, I was expecting the stone to get up and do a dance, which I agree now is not realistic. Also, the WF stone did have some stuff on it and a little cleaning helped remove whatever "flatness" I was seeing.

That said, I still have a dilemma since I do like the size of the larger stone.

First, what is everyone''s definition of "eye clean?" Does this vary between people?

The 1.4 GOG stone has an inclusion near the center. http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2130/ It is barely visible to the naked eye and only at about 4 inches or so. To give you a sense for how small it is, I can only locate the inclusion if I look first with a loupe, identify the inclusion then take the loupe away and stare at the stone. When I do this, I can see it faintly. If I look for the inclusion with my naked eyes first, I can''t locate it. The 1.28 WF stone is completely eye-clean to me. http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_details.aspx?idno=160976#

I don''t know if the small inclusion is going to bother me or not, so I just wanted to ask people for some guidance. I know much of this is going to come down to personal preference, whether I can tolerate the inclusion or not. But I guess I''m wondering if the 1.4 would still be considered "eye-clean" by the follks here. Or does eye-clean mean completely no visible inclusions with the naked eye. And is this really just a subjective judgment call or something more?

Also, Mara, just wanted to ask why the 40.6 pav angle could be an issue. The WF one is 40.9. As always, any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

 

[JulieN]

Yes, that is considered eye-clean.

 

[Ellen]

Midway, here''s WF''s actual descripton of their eyeclean definition.

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/faq.aspx?articleid=403&zoneid=6


As for which to go with, I lean towards the 1.4, but probably because that''s what I have, and you get the look of a 1.5, but don''t quite pay the price. If that''s the only way you can see the inclusion, just quit doing that.

 

[ILikeBond]

Date: 12/6/2006 2:51:25 PM
Author: Midway
Bond, just curious but do you happen to know what the 5 different lighting conditions are that appear on the GemEx report. Just wondering what best resembles normal fluroescent office lighting conditions.

Midway - sorry, I was away for a few days. I believe the machine shines a light in 5 different places around the stone and takes an image of each position.

Good Old Gold has an article about it here.

I just put a deposit on a stone from GOG myself today...

 

[Jelly]

1.53 I SI2 Expert Selection

I''d choose this one...it''s in your price range and is huge! I love my ES stone!