Would love opinions on these three JA diamonds

[2Neezers]

Hello,
I am looking in to trading up a smaller diamond I have with James Allen for something in the .90 ct range. I have looked over their current inventory and picked out the following three diamonds. I am hoping to get the biggest, eye clean diamond possible in H color or higher for less than $3500. This won't be my primary ring stone, so I am willing to sacrifice clarity since my aging eyes can't see tiny inclusions anyways .
I would love opinions on these three (I have them all on hold) and have mentioned my concerns for each one below.

This is my favorite based on the F color. This is the only one of the three that JA can not provide me with an idealscope image of, so that is a concern. They said it is not in New York, so no idealscope is available.
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.90-carat-f-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-2460958

This one has a carbon spot inclusion, but I think I could have a prong placed over it:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.91-carat-h-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-2513945

This one looks nice and is AGS 0 (does it look a little hazy?), but I do prefer a laser engraved stone and it looks like this one isn't:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.86-carat-h-color-si1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-2541800

Thanks in advance for any input offered. If there are any other recommended stones that fit my criteria, I would love to see them.

 

[whitewave]

The last one you posted-- the .86 is sold.

I haven't seen the others yet.

 

[2Neezers]

The last one you posted-- the .86 is sold.

I haven't seen the others yet.

Hi Whitewave, It's not sold - I have all three of these on hold, so they will all show "Not Available", but all of the stats are still there to see .

 

[Alybetter]

I'm not an expert, but I do agree about the last stone you listed, the AGS, it had spots under the table and appeared hazy around the edges. That could possibly just be photography? The second one, those feathers around the edge would bother me. But that's purely subjective
Out of the 3, that first F color looks to be the best to me. It scored .9 HCA as well. You could possibly pay them to pull it and get ideal scope images. I think they do that.
There are a lot of RBs in the ranges you're looking for, I bet digging through them is tedious.

 

[tyty333]

I would eliminate the second one because not only does it have the carbon but it also has 2 feathers on the edge.

Did you ask JA if the 3rd one was hazy due to clouds? I doubt it is but always ask. Honestly, the first stone is quite lovely.
Ask JA if there are any durability issue due to the feather... We put prongs over some inclusions but I dont think a prong
over a feather is a good idea. Besides, I'm not sure how visible they are (ask JA). If they are hardly noticeable then you dont
need to worry about covering them (IMO)...I have older eyes also...a curse in most cases but a plus when buying diamonds!?!

 

[2Neezers]

Thanks for the input tyty333 and Alybetter!
I still like the #1 for it's color, but am not sure how the 53% table will work with the 62.4% depth. It doesn't seem like the best combo to me, but I haven't been able to find much info on that.
I picked #2 and #3 based on numbers I had seen posted from Todd Gray, so they should both be great performers I would guess.
Also, in another post I was reading, it looks like the numbers of #3 fall in to typical CBI stats, so maybe that stone is better than the photography is making it look?
The AGS report for #3 is different than the typical AGS report I am used to seeing, but in the upper right corner it say Light Performance 0, does anyone know if that means this is an AGS 000 stone? I don't see the light performance picture anywhere, but I'm wondering if this report is formatted differently than the one we typically see and they don't put the image on it, even though it's AGS 000?
Thanks!

 

[bmfang]

Thanks for the input tyty333 and Alybetter!
I still like the #1 for it's color, but am not sure how the 53% table will work with the 62.4% depth. It doesn't seem like the best combo to me, but I haven't been able to find much info on that.
I picked #2 and #3 based on numbers I had seen posted from Todd Gray, so they should both be great performers I would guess.
Also, in another post I was reading, it looks like the numbers of #3 fall in to typical CBI stats, so maybe that stone is better than the photography is making it look?
The AGS report for #3 is different than the typical AGS report I am used to seeing, but in the upper right corner it say Light Performance 0, does anyone know if that means this is an AGS 000 stone? I don't see the light performance picture anywhere, but I'm wondering if this report is formatted differently than the one we typically see and they don't put the image on it, even though it's AGS 000?
Thanks!

It is an AGS 000 Ideal. Just that the cutter chose not to pay for the Platinum Diamond Quality Report which has the computer generated ASET on the report.

 

[2Neezers]

Thanks bmfang! It's nice to know #3 is AGS 000, so the additional clouds not shown won't be an issue with light performance.
I am able to get an idealscope for #3, but I spoke with JA again and they said I can't get one on #1 without purchasing it first.

I am really favoring #1, but would love more opinions on it's numbers since the idealscope is not something I can see before making my purchase. Is the 53% table and 62.4% depth anything I should worry about? Any other red flags I should be made aware of for #1? I will have the ring insured, so if the feather were to cause an issue in the future the stone could be replaced. The price is quite good for an F at this size which appears to be eye clean from the image - the JAA price is $3,470. Would love to hear any opinions on this stone.
Thanks!