Your thoughts on these two RB's I am looking at?...

[lookingforever]

Hi,

I have put two diamonds on hold and wanted to get your thoughts on which you think would be the better choice and why. Here are the specs and links:

Diamond #1
$8,679
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3034514.htm#
WF ACA
1.203ct
6.86 x 6.89 x 4.2
depth % 61.1
table % 54.8
Flour: neg
Girdle: thin-med
Crown 34.2
Crown % 15.4
Pavillion 40.7
Pavillion % 43
HCA 0.9 (Ex, Ex, Ex, VG)
Consultant said it's eye clean from 6 inches top and side views

Diamond #2
$8,780 (assume there's a PS discount but this doesn't take that into account)
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.23-carat-i-color-vs1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-73662
JA True Hearts
1.23ct
6.88x6.93x4.24
depth % 61.2
table % 55.2
Flour: Med Blue
Girdle: thin-slightly thick
Crown 34.1
Crown % 15
Pavillion 40.9
Pavillion % 43.1
HCA 0.9 (Ex, Ex, Ex, VG)
I haven't gotten any addt'l info yet from the consultant on this diamond. I was originally drawn to the WF ACAs but there wasn't much selection so I started looking at JA's hearts collection. I found this one and it looked like a nice one. However, the cert is dated 2011, does that mean it might be a leftover? If so, do you know why it may not have been desirable? Maybe the med blue flour? I need to ask if it causes an oily/milky effect but the pics looks good so far.

I am going for maximum brilliance, scintillation and fire. It will be going in a 6-prong solitaire. Which do you recommend/prefer and why? Also, is there any additional information I need to be asking to help me make my decision. I'm open to other options as well, these were just the 2 that caught my eye so far.

Thanks in advance!!!

 

[RockyRacoon]

Save yourself about $1k and go with this option (size difference should be negligible):

1.113ct, H, SI1
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.113-h-si1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104066186026

 

[c-k]

This may be a hard one to pick the best. The specs on both are nearly identical other than color/clarity. I prefer a stone where no inclusions can be seen without a loupe, also the I color in a setting will be very white.

I know that the WF is a true H&A, where the Jamesallen may or may not not be as well defined, but I like the I/VS1 over the H/SI1...so the Jamesallen would be my pick.

If you could have both in hand and then make a choice..

 

[lookingforever]

Save yourself about $1k and go with this option (size difference should be negligible):

1.113ct, H, SI1
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.113-h-si1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104066186026

When went to look at diamonds by future fiance was pretty sold on the 1.2ct size so I probably want to stay around there since that is what she is expecting. Also, the 1.2ct is still in our budget. Do you not like either of the two I picked for her?

 

[lookingforever]

This may be a hard one to pick the best. The specs on both are nearly identical other than color/clarity. I prefer a stone where no inclusions can be seen without a loupe, also the I color in a setting will be very white.

I know that the WF is a true H&A, where the Jamesallen may or may not not be as well defined, but I like the I/VS1 over the H/SI1...so the Jamesallen would be my pick.

If you could have both in hand and then make a choice..

Do you have any thoughts on how their ideal scopes and hearts images compare, or are they too close that they both look good?

Thanks!

 

[c-k]

This may be a hard one to pick the best. The specs on both are nearly identical other than color/clarity. I prefer a stone where no inclusions can be seen without a loupe, also the I color in a setting will be very white.

I know that the WF is a true H&A, where the Jamesallen may or may not not be as well defined, but I like the I/VS1 over the H/SI1...so the Jamesallen would be my pick.

If you could have both in hand and then make a choice..

Do you have any thoughts on how their ideal scopes and hearts images compare, or are they too close that they both look good?

Thanks!

The Idealscope should look very similar, hearts don't really know till you see the image. Both stones should be very nice.

Depends on your priorities, if the WF stone is eye clean to your satisfaction, it is a higher H color and a ACA H&A's best cut/symmetry. If you want a VS1 clarity, a step lower I color, still an AGSL Ideal cut, maybe not a true H&A's but still beautiful.

 

[Christina...]

Is purchasing a 'true' HA stone important to you? If so, then I would choose the ACA. The JA stone has slight deviations in the hearts image. I also prefer the value of an eye clean SI1 coupled with the higher color. Have you compared the 'add ons' that each company can off you? IMO WF offers better upgrade and buy back polices, I also prefer their customer service to JA's....not that JA's is bad, I just personally felt that I received more personalized attention from WF, but YMMV. I think you should also consider which vendor has the setting you prefer. It's much easier to purchase both the setting and the stone from the same vendor. That said, they both look like nice diamonds, I think at this point it's just a matter of prioritizing what is important to you

 

[Andelain]

I like the WF one, you just can't beat an ACA.

 

[lookingforever]

Is purchasing a 'true' HA stone important to you? If so, then I would choose the ACA. The JA stone has slight deviations in the hearts image. I also prefer the value of an eye clean SI1 coupled with the higher color. Have you compared the 'add ons' that each company can off you? IMO WF offers better upgrade and buy back polices, I also prefer their customer service to JA's....not that JA's is bad, I just personally felt that I received more personalized attention from WF, but YMMV. I think you should also consider which vendor has the setting you prefer. It's much easier to purchase both the setting and the stone from the same vendor. That said, they both look like nice diamonds, I think at this point it's just a matter of prioritizing what is important to you

I like the WF one, you just can't beat an ACA.

Thank you all, I do want to purchase a true HA, so I have eliminated the JA stone. I now am choosing between the WF ACA and a BG signature that I have found. The BG signatures are true HA? Is the criteria for the BG signature HA the same as the WF ACA?

This is the BG Signature I am looking at

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.242-i-si1-round-diamond-ags-104067957022#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/3/

It is a color grade lower than the WF ACA but it is slightly bigger. They are about the same price. I am evaluating the inclusions as I have read that crystals are the most desirable of inclusions which is what the WF ACA primarily has while the BG has one "larger" feather.

Do you all have any additional thoughts between the WF ACA and BG Signature?

Thanks sooo much!!!

 

[Clairitek]

If I recall correctly, Brian Gavin worked at Whiteflash when the ACA cut was developed so I would say that the BGD Signature and ACA stones are of the same cut quality.

Do you have any preference towards settings at either place? Are upgrade policies comparable?

 

[MissGotRocks]

The size difference is really negligible. I would prefer the higher color from WF but you might want to call both and inquire about inclusions. That could be the decision maker.

 

[lookingforever]

If I recall correctly, Brian Gavin worked at Whiteflash when the ACA cut was developed so I would say that the BGD Signature and ACA stones are of the same cut quality.

Do you have any preference towards settings at either place? Are upgrade policies comparable?

The size difference is really negligible. I would prefer the higher color from WF but you might want to call both and inquire about inclusions. That could be the decision maker.

Thanks for your replies! I have been reading more threads and it sounds like it's a toss up between BG and WF ACA, which is making it very hard for me to decide.

Is the size really negligible? This is making it even harder to choose...

I am inquiring more on the inclusions. So far the 1.203 is eye clean from 6 inches from the top and side with no black inclusions. The 1.242 BG just has a feather and I am waiting to hear back on how visible it is.

I can go with either BG or WF on the setting, although she did like a wedding band from WF.

Any more thoughts?

 

[c-k]

Thank you all, I do want to purchase a true HA, so I have eliminated the JA stone. I now am choosing between the WF ACA and a BG signature that I have found. The BG signatures are true HA? Is the criteria for the BG signature HA the same as the WF ACA?

This is the BG Signature I am looking at

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.242-i-si1-round-diamond-ags-104067957022#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/3/

It is a color grade lower than the WF ACA but it is slightly bigger. They are about the same price. I am evaluating the inclusions as I have read that crystals are the most desirable of inclusions which is what the WF ACA primarily has while the BG has one "larger" feather.

Do you all have any additional thoughts between the WF ACA and BG Signature?

Thanks sooo much!!!

Both are true H&A"S, as was mentioned Brian Gavin developed the H&A's while at WF then opened BGD later....I think it would be hard to say which if either is better or worse....I prefer some of the cuts of BGD, but that is just me. I have dealt with both and these are 2 great companies.

Clarity of SI1 for both with one having crystals, the other a feather...again can't say which is better or worse, depends how many, where, etc etc for the inclusions...are both 'eye clean' and for myself that would mean to my satisfaction.

H color vs I color, one may be a boarder color or not, would have to compare side by side, when in a setting both will be very white.

One bigger, a tad bigger, would be hard to pick not much difference.....you can't go wrong with either.

 

[lookingforever]

Both are true H&A"S, as was mentioned Brian Gavin developed the H&A's while at WF then opened BGD later....I think it would be hard to say which if either is better or worse....I prefer some of the cuts of BGD, but that is just me. I have dealt with both and these are 2 great companies.

Clarity of SI1 for both with one having crystals, the other a feather...again can't say which is better or worse, depends how many, where, etc etc for the inclusions...are both 'eye clean' and for myself that would mean to my satisfaction.

H color vs I color, one may be a boarder color or not, would have to compare side by side, when in a setting both will be very white.

One bigger, a tad bigger, would be hard to pick not much difference.....you can't go wrong with either.

Thanks c-k. I am going to find out a bit more on the inclusions on the BG. It definitely has less inclusions. When I look at the magnified pics, i can see the inclusions on the WF ACA right away, and I can't find the inclusion on the BG at all, but ofc these pics are magnified, and the WF ACA is "completely clean" at 6 inches. I guess I will wait to see what BG says about it's inclusions, but I have a feeling it will be the same... In which case it seems I should probably go with the better color....

 

[Christina...]

Tough choice. Both the WF and BGD stones look fantastic, you can't make a 'bad' decision here. Even if the BGD comes back as being eye clean to your criteria, I think that I would still choose the WF stone. My rationalization is that it's a color grade better, it's eye clean from the top and the side at 6 inches (which is MY criteria) the size difference is negligible and your fiancé has already stated that she likes a wedding band that they offer and WF can offer you the stone for less money (even with the higher color grade). Like I said though, they are both beautiful diamonds and will make a gorgeous engagement ring. Both WF and BGD have been wonderful to work with in my experience, so regardless of which stone you choose, I think you will be in great hands.

Oh...I just wanted to add....you mention that the plot diagram looked cleaner in the BGD stone, and you're right, it does, however, it's not always as simple as that. It's possible for a single inclusion to reflect within the stone causing it to appear as though the stone has multiple inclusions instead of the single one listed on the report. Size, location and color are very important too. A black prong-able inclusion on the edge of the stone would be preferable to me than a small white feather smack in the middle of the table kwim? You are asking all the right questions and it's obvious that you have put a lot of time and effort into finding the perfect stone for your gf, your hard work will pay off in spades when she see's it for the first time.

Last thought...I know that it often isn't feasible but is it possible for you to purchase both stones so that you can view them side by side yourself?

 

[lookingforever]

Tough choice. Both the WF and BGD stones look fantastic, you can't make a 'bad' decision here. Even if the BGD comes back as being eye clean to your criteria, I think that I would still choose the WF stone. My rationalization is that it's a color grade better, it's eye clean from the top and the side at 6 inches (which is MY criteria) the size difference is negligible and your fiancé has already stated that she likes a wedding band that they offer and WF can offer you the stone for less money (even with the higher color grade). Like I said though, they are both beautiful diamonds and will make a gorgeous engagement ring. Both WF and BGD have been wonderful to work with in my experience, so regardless of which stone you choose, I think you will be in great hands.

Oh...I just wanted to add....you mention that the plot diagram looked cleaner in the BGD stone, and you're right, it does, however, it's not always as simple as that. It's possible for a single inclusion to reflect within the stone causing it to appear as though the stone has multiple inclusions instead of the single one listed on the report. Size, location and color are very important too. A black prong-able inclusion on the edge of the stone would be preferable to me than a small white feather smack in the middle of the table kwim? You are asking all the right questions and it's obvious that you have put a lot of time and effort into finding the perfect stone for your gf, your hard work will pay off in spades when she see's it for the first time.

Last thought...I know that it often isn't feasible but is it possible for you to purchase both stones so that you can view them side by side yourself?

Thank you for all the feedback. It is very helpful to go through the thought process. I could purchase both stones to view them side by side. Do a lot of people do that? It makes me feel a bit uneasy doing, like I would be leading the company on or something...

 

[MissGotRocks]

No, people do that all the time. You will probably have to pay to ship the stone back and just make sure no one has a restocking fee or anything - I don't think either of those companies do.

You really can't go wrong - a win/win situation!!

 

[c-k]

Thank you for all the feedback. It is very helpful to go through the thought process. As i thought, BG did come back that their stone is also eye clean from 6 inches from all angles. I could purchase both stones to view them side by side. Do a lot of people do that? It makes me feel a bit uneasy doing, like I would be leading the company on or something...

Yes, people do that, nothing wrong at all, in fact I would tell each what you are doing, comparing each stone, I have done just that. Yes, it takes a bit of time, and some expense. Most people don't want to take the time to do so. As both of these are SI1 eye clean stones, this way you could see for yourself if each passes your satisfaction for being eye clean to you.

Both have good return policies, I guess you could pick your favorite, & return if not liked, however then the other stone may be gone. Most decisions are based on each individual time and situation. You have done your homework, picked 2 beautiful stones, which is much more than most would ever do. Either way I think you will be happy with your choice.

 

[Christina...]

Yes, as the others have confirmed, it isn't uncommon to order two stones and view them side by side. In fact, when it's an option I think it's a wise decision. Although both the stones will have similar performance that isnt always the case. It's possible to have two ideally cut stones of like quality that perform differently when viewed side by side. Some people will never notice the nuances but others will find them quite obvious. You may decide you have a strong preference for a particular personality over another....or they may all look the same to you. Neither is wrong and you will only make that determination after some experience viewing different cuts. But I digress...like I said both of these stones will have similar performance, what I think will be valuable is having the chance to view the inclusions and color differences side by side. It feels as though you are really struggling with this decision so having the ability to see them first hand can provide you the confidence you need to make a final selection. To me that's worth the small return shipping fee. I agree though that you should speak with each vendor to determine cost and return times. Be prepared to be wowed! You have a couple beauties coming your way.

 

[lookingforever]

thanks everyone for all your help! I have posted a number of threads since becoming more than a lurker on this site, and everything has just been so helpful. My gf and I are actually in this process together, as we have already booked the venue and everything so we just wanted to take our time and look for a beautiful diamond.

I think we are leaning towards the WF ACA just because it is a higher color and because she likes the setting and wedding bands more at WF. When we went to look in person, she did like the H over the I, but we can't remember now if all other specs were equal. But if i remember correctly I do think the H was a better cut, but I can't be sure. Anyway, we are contemplating whether to still buy both stones to compare with our own eyess, just for that piece of mind, that we really chose the "best" stone to our liking. I have contacted BG and WF to get their thoughts on doing that.

Also, I was wondering if anyone knew if BG and WF did any promotions, especially now that is around V-day? I'm assuming not on the diamonds, but what about the settings and bands? I think i saw a thread that WF offered 14% off on settings last v-day (I might have mis read as I dont think I read thru the whole thread, I just saw the title in passing through other threads). Does BG ever do that? I am going to ask BG and WF myself, but I didn't want to bombard them with too many questions, as I already feel a bit strange asking about buying the diamond to compare it to another vendor's. So I just wanted to see if you all had any knowledge of a possible promotion at either of these vendors?

 

[TitanCi]

Tbh, I didn't read all the responses above but noted a few about color.

In my experience, AGS stones tend to look a shade warmer (to me and others that view the same stones) than what they're graded at, so these AGS H and GIA I are probably comparable, IMO.

The clarity is usually tighter for AGS. I don't think you can go wrong with either. Do you like fluorescence?

 

[lookingforever]

Tbh, I didn't read all the responses above but noted a few about color.

In my experience, AGS stones tend to look a shade warmer (to me and others that view the same stones) than what they're graded at, so these AGS H and GIA I are probably comparable, IMO.

The clarity is usually tighter for AGS. I don't think you can go wrong with either. Do you like fluorescence?

I switched one of the stones half way thru the thread. Both the BG and WF stones are AGS. I have never seen a stone in real life with flour (at least to my knowledge) so I couldn't really say if I like flourescence or not. Although, when I look at the pics and videos posted here and on BG's site, I didn't really think I liked the blue....

 

[lookingforever]

Also, it is okay to show each vendor the other stone I am contemplating? I guess I will since they asked. I'll see what they say themself I suppose...

 

[TitanCi]

Also, it is okay to show each vendor the other stone I am contemplating? I guess I will since they asked. I'll see what they say themself I suppose...

I've had vendors compare stones from other vendors. They've given me their honest opinions but obviously they want you to buy theirs.

 

[Christina...]

Also, it is okay to show each vendor the other stone I am contemplating? I guess I will since they asked. I'll see what they say themself I suppose...

Often times vendors have stock that hasn't yet been listed or know of new stock coming in, by sharing with them they can often times offer you stones you may be interested in that haven't yet been listed. Since you are dealing with reputable vendors, I don't see any reason NOT to share. So long as you know that YOU and GF make the final decision and you do so based on the merits of the stone and value offered, I don't see any reason not to share. Don't feel pressured by either vendor though. You have two really great options, weigh them accordingly.

 

[lookingforever]

It's $100 if I decide to return the diamond, so I would be spending an extra $150 to compare the two ($50 for the diamond I choose because I would still need to send it back to get set). I'm not sure it's worth that expense to do considering everyone says that both diamonds will be stellar!

The person from BG pointed out that the WF diamond has black in the ASET and hearts pics, while the BG has no black. She said she was surprised it was eye clean from 6 inches. WF said it's eye clean from 6 inches so I will take their word for it.

However, what do you think about her pointing out the black in the ASET and hearts pics of the WF diamond no black in the BG diamond?

 

[TitanCi]

Black where? Along the arrows? What is she talking about? Sounds like a sales/scare tactic. Don't certain spots have black ANYWAY?

If she's talking about the dark blue "black" arrows that just may be the picture quality. Blue in an ASET is for contrast, which is good.

If she is talking about the black triangles near the arrow shafts, then thats NOT a bad thing, that adds to scintillation IIRC.

Their (BG) ASET looks different cuz the stone is cut differently (while maintaining ideal specs, just a different "make"), so thats why theirs doesn't have the black triangles (if thats what she is referring to). Theirs is a freakin bright ass stone, thats for sure.