Help me pick a WF diamond

[minniezhang]

This is my first time posting here. I've always used Pricescope to check HCA, but never realized there's a community here

After 11 years of marriage, we are finally ready to upgrade my ring. We got married when we were still grad students, so needless to say our budget was limited.

At the time we really didn't do much homework on how to pick the perfect diamond, so I went for the most obvious C: carat. We ended up with a ring from Bluenile that's J, 0.91ct, VS2 in 6 prong solitaire setting.

Over time I started to realize there are so many things I didn't like about the ring. I know people can't really tell or care about the diamond color, but deep down inside I knew, and I didn't care for J at all. Also I wanted the ring to look bigger, so the first year we started working, I switched the solitaire to a halo setting (pic below).



I've been happy with this ring, but always wanted a bigger and better grade diamond. After much research, we narrowed down our choices, currently to 2 diamonds, both from Whiteflash ACA. We like to set the budget to ~$40k or below, and here's the info on both stones.

1. 2.50ct, G, VS2, $35k, HCA = 0.9 (WF link here)


2. 2.53ct, G, VS1, $40k, HCA = 1.2 (WF link here)


Since they are almost the same size, I'm inclined to go with the cheaper option (stone 1). But the stone video seems to show the impurities quite clearly, I worry if it will be eye clean. Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated!

Also I love the 6 prong tiffany setting, so I probably will go with Vache U-113 setting. I don't like the stone sitting too tall, should I request a low or medium height when I make the purchase?

Thanks for your help!

 

[whitewave]

Tough choice but I would go with the vs1 if you are concerned about eye clean.

Yes, you should probably ask for medium setting when you call.

I’d call and discuss both and see what they say. A call might save you 5k if they say #1 is eye clean.

 

[tyty333]

I dont know what kind of eagle eye-site you must have but I can barely detect the inclusions in the up-close video. I agree with @whitewave...call
and talk to them. The VS2 would work with my eyesight (not to mention the $5k savings).

Definitely give them your preference as for as stone setting height.

Edit...also ask if the stones can be put on hold for a day or two until you make up your mind.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I too would ask your representative at WF to pull both stones and give an assessment. They will both be beautiful stones in terms of performance but their opinion regarding clarity may sway your choice one way or another.

Best of luck - please come back and show us whichever stone you choose - we would love to share it with you!!

 

[minniezhang]

Tough choice but I would go with the vs1 if you are concerned about eye clean.

Yes, you should probably ask for medium setting when you call.

I’d call and discuss both and see what they say. A call might save you 5k if they say #1 is eye clean.

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll definitely call before making a decision.

In terms of the setting, I heard people say don't mess with the original design. So I wasn't sure if I should ask for the medium height.

 

[minniezhang]

I dont know what kind of eagle eye-site you must have but I can barely detect the inclusions in the up-close video. I agree with @whitewave...call
and talk to them. The VS2 would work with my eyesight (not to mention the $5k savings).

Definitely give them your preference as for as stone setting height.

Edit...also ask if the stones can be put on hold for a day or two until you make up your mind.

Haha I think it's because I saw the diagram from the diamond certificate, so I always look for it when I watch the video. My current stone is a VS2 and I'd say it's eye clean

 

[minniezhang]

I too would ask your representative at WF to pull both stones and give an assessment. They will both be beautiful stones in terms of performance but their opinion regarding clarity may sway your choice one way or another.

Best of luck - please come back and show us whichever stone you choose - we would love to share it with you!!

That's a great idea - I'll definitely ask them to compare for me.

I'd love to share the ring once I get it. But it might be a while (at least next month or so). I've been looking at WF's inventory since last November, and till now stone 1 is still there. I guess there's not a high demand for stones at this level? I was kind of concerned if there's anything wrong with it - why wasn't it picked by others?

 

[MissGotRocks]

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll definitely call before making a decision.

In terms of the setting, I heard people say don't mess with the original design. So I wasn't sure if I should ask for the medium height.

I think the U113 is generally set at medium but it surely won’t hurt to make that request at purchase! Should be a beautiful ring!!

 

[minniezhang]

I too would ask your representative at WF to pull both stones and give an assessment. They will both be beautiful stones in terms of performance but their opinion regarding clarity may sway your choice one way or another.

Best of luck - please come back and show us whichever stone you choose - we would love to share it with you!!

BTW your ring is BEAUTIFUL! I actually went to your original post to admire it

 

[MissGotRocks]

BTW your ring is BEAUTIFUL! I actually went to your original post to admire it

Aww, thanks so much! We can be diamond twins!!

 

[gm89uk]

If it was my money I definitely would go for the vs2. Can't imagine there would be much trouble with those inclusions

 

[telephone89]

I would highly highly doubt you can see any inclusions in real life. VS2 is minor inclusions visible under 10x magnification.
That said, the first one also faces up larger, even being slightly less ct. (though .05 x .05 is pretty negligible, but still!). I'd definitely go with the first one. Put the $5k into some earrings or something!

 

[minniezhang]

I would highly highly doubt you can see any inclusions in real life. VS2 is minor inclusions visible under 10x magnification.
That said, the first one also faces up larger, even being slightly less ct. (though .05 x .05 is pretty negligible, but still!). I'd definitely go with the first one. Put the $5k into some earrings or something!

Haha I’d love to save $5k too!

 

[MissGotRocks]

@minniezhang - Just curious to see if you decided on one of these two diamonds?

 

[Pecel]

How about HCA 0.9 vs 1.2?

Is HCA useful for assesment of super ideals???

 

[MissGotRocks]

How about HCA 0.9 vs 1.2?

Is HCA useful for assesment of super ideals???

HCA is not necessary for super ideal cut stones. The assessments done on the actual diamonds by the vendors, i.e., WF, CBI, BDG, etc. far exceed anything that the HCA could tell you about a diamond.

 

[sledge]

HCA is not necessary for super ideal cut stones. The assessments done on the actual diamonds by the vendors, i.e., WF, CBI, BDG, etc. far exceed anything that the HCA could tell you about a diamond.

Bingo.

HCA is a "guesstimate" and gets us close. You then use advanced images (when available) to seal the deal.

In this case, we have advanced images and they prove both stones are top notch performers. Additionally, WF can provide detailed SARIN reports for the nit picky diamond nerds like me to obtain more useful and reliable information about the stone proportions and performance.

In regards to which stone, I'd ask WF to pull and confirm they are 100% eye clean and how they perform side by side and also if there is any minor color advantage to either stone. It's possible to get a high or low G.

If you ask about eye clean I think there standard definition is 10" away from the top only with 20/20 vision and good lighting. It sounds like you have good visual acuity so I might adjust that a bit -- maybe 6" away from top or sides and scrutinizing the stone for flaws, all with 20/20 and good lighting.

The $5k savings would be nice and where I would be leaning but I get the impression it may cause you second doubts. If that's the case it's not worth saving $5k to be unhappy with $35k. Just a different way to look at it.

 

[minniezhang]

Bingo.

HCA is a "guesstimate" and gets us close. You then use advanced images (when available) to seal the deal.

In this case, we have advanced images and they prove both stones are top notch performers. Additionally, WF can provide detailed SARIN reports for the nit picky diamond nerds like me to obtain more useful and reliable information about the stone proportions and performance.

In regards to which stone, I'd ask WF to pull and confirm they are 100% eye clean and how they perform side by side and also if there is any minor color advantage to either stone. It's possible to get a high or low G.

If you ask about eye clean I think there standard definition is 10" away from the top only with 20/20 vision and good lighting. It sounds like you have good visual acuity so I might adjust that a bit -- maybe 6" away from top or sides and scrutinizing the stone for flaws, all with 20/20 and good lighting.

The $5k savings would be nice and where I would be leaning but I get the impression it may cause you second doubts. If that's the case it's not worth saving $5k to be unhappy with $35k. Just a different way to look at it.

Thanks @sledge for the detailed explanation. WF sent me side by side pictures of three diamonds and it showed the VS2 is indeed eye clean. So I picked that one!

 

[matt_k]

Thanks @sledge for the detailed explanation. WF sent me side by side pictures of three diamonds and it showed the VS2 is indeed eye clean. So I picked that one!

Good choice! And if you ever decide to buy an ACA via whiteflash in the future, the listing will already tell you if it is eye-clean or not(if you read all the stats in the description under the ACA diamond listing there will be a section that says eye-clean... and it will list yes or no. Just sayin'

 

[diamondsR4eVR]

I can’t wait to see your ring!

 

[minniezhang]

Good choice! And if you ever decide to buy an ACA via whiteflash in the future, the listing will already tell you if it is eye-clean or not(if you read all the stats in the description under the ACA diamond listing there will be a section that says eye-clean... and it will list yes or no. Just sayin'

Thanks @matt_k! I actually saw that when browsing the diamonds. I guess I just needed that extra assurance it's indeed eye clean

 

[minniezhang]

I can’t wait to see your ring!

It's here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-upgrade-finally-arrived-2-5ct-g-vs2-aca.255848/

 

[minniezhang]

Good choice! And if you ever decide to buy an ACA via whiteflash in the future, the listing will already tell you if it is eye-clean or not(if you read all the stats in the description under the ACA diamond listing there will be a section that says eye-clean... and it will list yes or no. Just sayin'

Hey @matt_k, I got curious about what you said and went back to check. When I asked WF to compare a few diamonds, I also added this one:

Diamond | 2.520 ct G SI1 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4222767

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 2.520 carat G color SI1 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4222767

www.whiteflash.com

The webpage labeled it as “eye clean”, but I was told it’s not and I shouldn’t consider it. I wonder if they use different standard when it comes to eye cleaniess?

 

[MissGotRocks]

Their webpage has a definition of eye clean but also confirms that many factors can influence that definition. It may also include each client’s sensitivity to inclusions. That particular stone in the very magnified view looks as though it would be eye clean to most but perhaps one of the inclusions bounces around the facets? Perhaps your consultant had a good feel for your tolerance and in the alternative, the two diamonds that you chose from were felt to be more acceptable to you. I don’t know the definite answer or what they based advising you on that particular diamond. Just offering a few thoughts that come to my mind.

 

[minniezhang]

Their webpage has a definition of eye clean but also confirms that many factors can influence that definition. It may also include each client’s sensitivity to inclusions. That particular stone in the very magnified view looks as though it would be eye clean to most but perhaps one of the inclusions bounces around the facets? Perhaps your consultant had a good feel for your tolerance and in the alternative, the two diamonds that you chose from were felt to be more acceptable to you. I don’t know the definite answer or what they based advising you on that particular diamond. Just offering a few thoughts that come to my mind.

I completely second what you said @ MissGotRocks! It’s such an subjective thing. Looking at the magnified pictures online, I feel I have a very low tolerance for inclusions. But in reality, the diamond is so sparkly I could barely see anything inside . I probably would been happy even with the SI1 stone above.

 

[matt_k]

I completely second what you said @ MissGotRocks! It’s such an subjective thing. Looking at the magnified pictures online, I feel I have a very low tolerance for inclusions. But in reality, the diamond is so sparkly I could barely see anything inside . I probably would been happy even with the SI1 stone above.

I'm almost positive you wouldn't have noticed any inclusions with the naked eye whatsoever on that ACA SI1. I recently had a crafted by infinity super ideal Diamond that had si2 clarity, and it was absolutely eye-clean. it was a 1.60 carat ( NOT a small diamond; certainly not a 2.5, but not small ). These super ideal cuts are in a class by themselves(CBI, white flash, Brian Gavin). They have sparkle that masks color like nobody's business, and are cleaner than even your average GIA XXX when it comes to visible, naked eye clarity.

 

[minniezhang]

I'm almost positive you wouldn't have noticed any inclusions with the naked eye whatsoever on that ACA SI1. I recently had a crafted by infinity super ideal Diamond that had si2 clarity, and it was absolutely eye-clean. it was a 1.60 carat ( NOT a small diamond; certainly not a 2.5, but not small ). These super ideal cuts are in a class by themselves(CBI, white flash, Brian Gavin). They have sparkle that masks color like nobody's business, and are cleaner than even your average GIA XXX when it comes to visible, naked eye clarity.

Given the price for the SI1 is not that different than my VS2, and the diameter is actually slightly smaller, I’m still happy I got the VS2. But you are right, these ACA diamonds are so sparkly you can’t tell the color or the clarity. I’m just so happy with the upgrade!