Thoughts on these 2 WF Diamonds

[Titan7]

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3798132.htm


http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3797676.htm

Crown angle and crown height seems to be the big difference. I like a diamond with more fire think there is gonna be a lot of difference between them?

 

[MissGotRocks]

I doubt it will be a big difference although I like the first one's numbers better. Call WF and ask them to compare the stones- they are very honest and forthright with their opinions!

 

[Titan7]

What is it about the numbers you like? I was looking at the images and perhaps not an issue but there is more green in the aset image around the edges of the star facets on this one compared to the other. Not sure if that really means anything? Biggest difference is the
Crown CA and CH. 34.2/15.1 vs 34.7/15.4. I like fire, but it's really hard to determine if that difference will mean anything off numbers

 

[Dancing Fire]

Both are well cut. I would probably buy 1.78ct b/c it is less expensive plus the diameter is almost the same.

 

[Titan7]

Why such a difference on the price per Ct? They seem nearly identical except for the crown specs and 3 points of weight. Can't figure out the $1900 difference? Is there a price jump @ 1.80ct?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Why such a difference on the price per Ct? They seem nearly identical except for the crown specs and 3 points of weight. Can't figure out the $1900 difference? Is there a price jump @ 1.80ct?

That's why I'd pick the 1.78ct..

 

[bmfang]

Why such a difference on the price per Ct? They seem nearly identical except for the crown specs and 3 points of weight. Can't figure out the $1900 difference? Is there a price jump @ 1.80ct?

That's why I'd pick the 1.78ct..

Ditto here. The $1900 difference is probably based on some ephemeral thing that you can't see so I'd rather have the $1900 in my pocket instead.

 

[Titan7]

I am thinking of flying out there to see them both. I am trading in my wife's current ACA that has been sitting in the safe for over a year. I have been waiting for them to get in something in this color and clarity, and size. Sitilation and fire is more important than brilliance I would think the higher crown and steeper crown angle would provide that and I don't mind spending the extra $$ if there is enough difference but I think for the $$ we are spending my eyes need to make that call. A quick turn around flight from CA for the day may be in order. Of course I can't do it tomorrow so it will have to be on Valentine's Day, lol. Told my wife I will not be home until about 10pm.

They look so close on the specs, either there is a difference or one just cost more at the wholesale level. The crown is the only think specs that appear differnt to me by any margin.

 

[Titan7]

Well after 2 days of looking at images and side to side videos of the two and having super patient Brittany at WF compare these in person, the better performer was actually the 1.788. I figured the slight differences on the crown would have favored the 1.818. We think it came down to th star facets, in the aset and IS images the star facets showed more green in the aset and more white in the IS photos on the outside edges of the star facets. Everyone who compared the videos as well as WF in person felt the 1.788 was just slightly a better performer. I mean it was splitting hairs but that what everyone saw, go figure. I guess this is more proff that you need to compare them regardless of the numbers. Now these were soooooo close at time I thought I was seeming the same diamond. My wife agreed so it's done. I think I spent 3-4 hours looking at the images and videos, so glad that's over. What finally pushed me over the edge is what I asked Brittany which diamond she would take out of the two, she opted for the 1.788. Guess that worked out, saved $1900.00 to go towards the setting. Btw, the price difference was a price per ct. jump at 1.80. Excellent work by Brittany and WF! Happy Valentines diamond to my wife, well in the next few days.

 

[whitewave]

Lucky lady!

 

[Titan7]

Sorry for the typos, darn iPad. Tried to edit the post but too late. Just courious, anybody else run into this situation where the expected outcome on two diamonds is different from what the specs would dictate? I mean the crown difference of .5 degrees and crown height difference of .3% isn't a lot. After seeing the more dispersed fire and scintillation I guess there really may be something to those IS and Aset images, well we are splitting hairs.

Let me know what your thoughts are, this is the side by side video.

http://video.whiteflash.com/2017/02/AGS-104091828003_AGS-104091829001_360-61980.mp4

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Splitting hairs? Yes, very much!!! Both are outstanding!

Curious, though. Why has your wife's current ACA been sitting in the safe for over a year?

 

[Titan7]

Her 1.03 ACA FVS1, was an insurance replacement, we were looking to upsize at the time but could not find the "right" diamond and I missed a couple on there site by a few hours. So after 1 year and 4 months I finally found a couple that were almost identical. We decided not to mount the 1.03 as we were upsizing, did not think it would take me a year to find the right one, I would not move away from F VS1, that's always been the perfect compromise on color and clarity, and that's what all her diamonds are, that was some of the problem. I also like 55-56% tables, then finding the right angles, wow, I am nuts. I still would have liked to have a 7.8-7.9 F VS1 with 34.5/15.5. 40.8/43.1, with a 55% table but getting this with acceptable inclusions with a thin-med girdle proved to be a pipe dream. These two were right on the money. I thought we would end up with the 1.818, but the better performer seem to be the 1.788. Look at the light reflecting off the diamond and the black turn table in the video. Just crazy! Is just me or is that 1.788 on fire!

Now we need to find a nice setting, she like the Verragio rings.

 

[Titan7]

Now second thoughts are creeping in, lol.

Here is another video side by side under direct spotlight in a white tray. Which has more scintillation? My eye keeps saying the one on the left but what do you think. I still have time to switch them. Oh the agony.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHsBRNx4iko&feature=youtu.be

 

[Lore]

Now second thoughts are creeping in, lol.

Here is another video side by side under direct spotlight in a white tray. Which has more scintillation? My eye keeps saying the one on the left but what do you think. I still have time to switch them. Oh the agony.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHsBRNx4iko&feature=youtu.be

Both are beautiful but I think you made the right choice, esp for the money, with the left one.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Her 1.03 ACA FVS1, was an insurance replacement, we were looking to upsize at the time but could not find the "right" diamond and I missed a couple on there site by a few hours. So after 1 year and 4 months I finally found a couple that were almost identical. We decided not to mount the 1.03 as we were upsizing, did not think it would take me a year to find the right one, I would not move away from F VS1, that's always been the perfect compromise on color and clarity, and that's what all her diamonds are, that was some of the problem. I also like 55-56% tables, then finding the right angles, wow, I am nuts. I still would have liked to have a 7.8-7.9 F VS1 with 34.5/15.5. 40.8/43.1, with a 55% table but getting this with acceptable inclusions with a thin-med girdle proved to be a pipe dream. These two were right on the money. I thought we would end up with the 1.818, but the better performer seem to be the 1.788. Look at the light reflecting off the diamond and the black turn table in the video. Just crazy! Is just me or is that 1.788 on fire!

Now we need to find a nice setting, she like the Verragio rings.

I will tell you that in almost a year of looking at WF stones, the one I ended up with had the 34.5/40.8 specs with a 56% table. It was just a huge stroke of luck that the stone popped up as they would have been my 'ideal' specs. However, I will also tell you that in that span of time, there were other stones that were coming into their inventory that might have met my color/clarity preferences. I would have gone with a G/VS2 stone had I found one in which I thought the inclusions wouldn't bother me. When some of those stones reached WF, they were rejected for their ACA line based on light performance and other assessments that they perform on stones to qualify them as ACAs. The point of all of this is to say that their standards for ACA stones in terms of performance and light return seemed to trump crown/pavilion angles (even though they have relatively narrow parameters for those as well). The take away for me was that if a stone was deemed ACA worthy, the concern over the 'right' combos of crown/pavilion angles that I had in my head became less important. Of course we see with other vendors as well selling super ideal hearts and arrows stones that they also allow variance in c/p angles as all stones aren't cut with absolute specificity but rather within what they consider their ideal 'range'.

I truly think you will be very pleased with the stone you have chosen. The good news is that if it doesn't wow you the way you want, trading in is easy enough to do as you well know. My stone does exhibit nice amounts of fire but it takes the right light to really produce it so to me, having a bright, even looking stone was more important than fire as that was the look that I knew I would be seeing most of the time. I somehow seriously doubt that if the c/p angles were off of my 'ideal' specs one or two points either way that it would have made a tremendous difference in this super ideal stone. For consumers that have a good working knowledge of diamonds, we can be our own worst enemies. While we have learned much, there is obviously so much more that goes into the creation of a super ideal stone. When we narrow our parameters too much, we can't see the forest for the trees. Thank goodness these vendors are there to guide us and help us wade through all of the information to make the best informed choice that we can!!

 

[Titan7]

Thanks, good points it just gets exhausting after a while. Now my wife is second guessing size, and is thinking of a 2.08 GVs2

Not sure I want to go through this again. 7.8mm vs 8.2 while it's slightly noticeable in a halo setting I am not sure it "the look" will be night and day and with the trade from F VS1. WF has a great trade up program but with the setting cost at $5-7,000 it's much smarter to pick the correct size diamond also. The setting is a throw away if you make a jump in size like that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I truly think you will be very pleased with the stone you have chosen. The good news is that if it doesn't wow you the way you want, trading in is easy enough to do as you well know. My stone does exhibit nice amounts of fire but it takes the right light to really produce it so to me, having a bright, even looking stone was more important than fire as that was the look that I knew I would be seeing most of the time. I somehow seriously doubt that if the c/p angles were off of my 'ideal' specs one or two points either way that it would have made a tremendous difference in this super ideal stone. For consumers that have a good working knowledge of diamonds, we can be our own worst enemies. While we have learned much, there is obviously so much more that goes into the creation of a super ideal stone. When we narrow our parameters too much, we can't see the forest for the trees. Thank goodness these vendors are there to guide us and help us wade through all of the information to make the best informed choice that we can!!

People forget that a different machine will come up with a different set specs. My wife's stone was scanned on three machines and they are all within +/- 1/10th of a degree on angles and %

 

[MissGotRocks]

Thanks, good points it just gets exhausting after a while. Now my wife is second guessing size, and is thinking of a 2.08 GVs2

Not sure I want to go through this again. 7.8mm vs 8.2 while it's slightly noticeable in a halo setting I am not sure it "the look" will be night and day and with the trade from F VS1. WF has a great trade up program but with the setting cost at $5-7,000 it's much smarter to pick the correct size diamond also. The setting is a throw away if you make a jump in size like that.

Yes, the setting costs can be great so if she is really wanting to go over the 2 carat mark, you might as well do it now and call it done - lol! My G ACA is very white so dropping from an F to a G shouldn't be an issue.

 

[gm89uk]

Well after 2 days of looking at images and side to side videos of the two and having super patient Brittany at WF compare these in person, the better performer was actually the 1.788. I figured the slight differences on the crown would have favored the 1.818. We think it came down to th star facets, in the aset and IS images the star facets showed more green in the aset and more white in the IS photos on the outside edges of the star facets. Everyone who compared the videos as well as WF in person felt the 1.788 was just slightly a better performer. I mean it was splitting hairs but that what everyone saw, go figure. I guess this is more proff that you need to compare them regardless of the numbers. Now these were soooooo close at time I thought I was seeming the same diamond. My wife agreed so it's done. I think I spent 3-4 hours looking at the images and videos, so glad that's over. What finally pushed me over the edge is what I asked Brittany which diamond she would take out of the two, she opted for the 1.788. Guess that worked out, saved $1900.00 to go towards the setting. Btw, the price difference was a price per ct. jump at 1.80. Excellent work by Brittany and WF! Happy Valentines diamond to my wife, well in the next few days.

Firstly congratulations on your new diamond! Looks great. Both look fantastic and the difference is extremely small. I would have thought the larger contrast point (in the 1. would lead to more scintillation.

The slight difference maybe from the fact the the 1.788 has lightly longer LGF, thinner arrows favour brighter environments, fatter arrows favour dimmer environments. Neither are classified as thin or fat arrows. I think when it comes down to agonising comparisons for hours side by side, and you're going back and forth, then the difference isn't worth the price, or the effort!

 

[Titan7]

Thanks, but what's a "larger contrast point"? What was killings me on these two was I like the specs of the 1.82 better and there are no additional pin points, it's more in my head on the cert numbers, but my eyes keep pointing to the 1.79. But then with a single lens camera it's hard to "really" know for sure. Now she throws a curve ball and is asking about a 2ct GVS2, OMG, this is nuts. Not sure I can drop to GVs2 without seeing in person. I think we are gonna wait a few months before purchasing a settling, not gonna throw $$ away on that.

 

[gm89uk]

Very minor differences, I was talking about the controlled intentional leak points that enchance contrast and scintillation.

The difference between G and F is marginal and a VS2 isn't really a drop unless it's no longer eye clean. Would the size difference be more apparent than the difference between an F and G, probably. I think you are making it more difficult for yourself. ACA is there to assure you are buying the best of the best cut, exactly so you don't have to agonise over your purchase decision.

My philosophy is get the best cut, lowest grade/colour that is imperceptible you can afford to get the biggest carat. If it's an eyeclean SI1 so be it. You have to trust the vendor to scrutinise it and tell you honestly whether it is visible or not. Can people notice a tint in G without a reference point? for the vast majority, it is definitely no. Will people notice the difference between a well selected VS2 and VS1 if the diamond is eye-clean (which most VS2s are), definitely not.

If choosing between 1.8 FVS1s and 2 GVS2s, i'd definitely go for the 2carat (if similar price point).

 

[Titan7]

Thank, thanks a good way to look at it. Thy are not similar in price, the 7.8 Fvs1 is $25k the 8.2 GVs2 is $29k. The big issue here is while I love the WF upgrade policies, I can't re-use the setting of th 7.8mm,and she wants a $6k Verragio setting so you can see she really needs to make a decision on size.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Yes, have her make a decision and set that stone! Diamonds sitting in a drawer are no good as no one gets to enjoy them.

Mind if I ask which Verragio setting she is looking at?

 

[Titan7]

Lol, working not on that! Shipping the 1.03 FVS1 back to WF tomorrow. She is looking at the following settings I think a 7.8mm diamond in these settings is gonna look huge on her 5 3/4 finger. But it's her call.

Venetian collection: 5057, 5068r, 5060r platinum and rose gold. There are some others also but those are the main contenders.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I agree that a haloed 1.8 is going to be a good sized ring but if she is going to be pining away for a 2 carat stone down the road might as well solve the dilemma now. With a larger stone, maybe she would consider going with a simpler, non haloed setting.

Verragio settings can be very intricate, delicate and pricey. If she is planning to wear this ring every day, I'd rather have Victor Canera make an Emilya halo ring for about the same money. Has she considered anything else in terms of settings?

 

[Elepig]

I also like 55-56% tables, then finding the right angles, wow, I am nuts. I still would have liked to have a 7.8-7.9 F VS1 with 34.5/15.5. 40.8/43.1, with a 55% table but getting this with acceptable inclusions with a thin-med girdle proved to be a pipe dream. These two were right on the money. I thought we would end up with the 1.818, but the better performer seem to be the 1.788.

Just a thought as we obsess over specs. The specs of the 1.78 are very close to Crafted by Infinity specs.

I found a place by me that carries them and went to see how they compared to my ACA and if they measured up to the hype. The few I saw were beautiful and one in particular had a little more something something, danced a little more, than mine did.
CBI - CA -34.1/15.2, PA - 40.9/43.2, T - 55.1. F VS1 1.11ct
My ACA - CA - 34.8/15.3, PA - 40.6/42.8, T - 56. F VS2 1.23ct

So then I went home, brought highperformancediamonds up on the internet, and went down the list of diamonds. The specs they consistently shoot for, it seems -
CA - usually 34 - 34.5, PA - usually 40.7-40.9, the star usually 49, 50, 51, T - mostly in 55-55.9 range (a few lower, few higher)

So, not surprised the 1.78 was a better performer and why I probably would have chosen it too.

 

[Titan7]

Thanks for the suggestions on the settings and comments on the 1.78. I am in Dallas on Business so I just booked a flight to head down to WF this week to see EVERYTHING with my own eyes. I also got the Sarine report for the diamond. What am I looking for on the averages? Outliers?

Nice to hear my eyes may not be deceiving me, but it's a single lens video vs my eyes. I just need to do this or I will always wonder.

Looking at the AGS ASET images on the CERT, looks like the 1.78 has more blue then the 1.82 on the top view photo? Did I mention I will be glad when this is over, lol!

She is dead set on Verragio, I have to admit I love those designs also. She has a wedding band she will wear while out at home depot and working around the house, no way she is wearing that new ring for messing around the house.

thanks so much for the info on the HPD vs ACA. To me the photos on WF give the edge in brilliance to the 1.78 it just appears a tad but whiter in the photo. But.... Same lighting???

I need help!

 

[MissGotRocks]

Going to see the stones in person is a great plus! You can view them with your own eyes and determine which one you like best.

Take pictures for us and enjoy your visit!!

 

[gm89uk]

Interested to see what you think after seeing them in person! Good luck.