"Milky" Diamond

[sledge]

Thank you everyone for all the great replies! I'm going to keep my response in one post as to not create a massive wall of quotes.

It's great to know that the inclusions are listed in order of severity in the GIA report. That alleviates a lot of the concerns I had over some diamonds. I was worried that some of the inclusions listed may be far worse in person. If it's listed below a visible inclusion then it shouldn't be so bad.

I've decided to look at diamonds up to medium fluorescence and have noticed that you get far more for your money doing this! However, it's still a struggle to find a diamond that matches all of the recommended ranges. I'm assuming this is due to my price/carat ratio, as there aren't any Astor Ideal cuts in my budget.

I've found a couple that fall within the green/yellow columns of the chart that Garry posted. Usually Table/Pavillion fall within the ideal range, with crown angle falling slightly outside into the yellow. I've included a few below that seem to meet most of the criteria. Please let me know what you think and thank you again for all of the help!

1.31-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

1.30-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

1.31-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

1.30-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

1.30-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile CA

www.bluenile.com

These stones face similar issues to the one I pointed out separately. Steep crowns combined with steep pavilions, so I really wouldn't recommend any of these.

The 36/40.8 would be the best of the group, but really for a 36 crown I'd be leaning towards a 40.6 pavilion. And while I think the 36/40.8 is the best option for this group, I still don't like it. I'm even leery of a 35/40.8 personally. I've seen too many of them with bad advanced images to blindly gamble on them and BN doesn't provide advanced images. I'd find a combo that is safer personally.

Also, was it just a quirky dink, or are you intentionally looking for stones with medium blue fluor (MBF)?

Thanks Garry,

I found another diamond and will likely be proceeding with the purchase. It checks all of our criteria and even scores a 1.3 on the HCA tool! I'll be sure to have it professionally inspected as well.

I wanted to thank everyone here for all of their help. There's a lot more to this than I initially anticipated! I think you all saved me from making a less than ideal purchase!

Can you share a link to the stone you chose, so we can review the proportions with you? You're spending a good chunk of money and I want to see you get the maximum beauty possible for your dollar while meeting all your color & clarity requirements.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Hi DF, All the stones with the proportions on that chart look good in Ideal-Scope and ASET.
The right side indicates 54-58%
But the vast majority on the right side have smallish tables and the left side larger tables. Not because of cutters desire for creating beuaty - but because of the nature of the rough that gets cut and polished those ways,

That's the reason why I can't custom order my favorite proportions.

 

[MattSz]

These stones face similar issues to the one I pointed out separately. Steep crowns combined with steep pavilions, so I really wouldn't recommend any of these.

The 36/40.8 would be the best of the group, but really for a 36 crown I'd be leaning towards a 40.6 pavilion. And while I think the 36/40.8 is the best option for this group, I still don't like it. I'm even leery of a 35/40.8 personally. I've seen too many of them with bad advanced images to blindly gamble on them and BN doesn't provide advanced images. I'd find a combo that is safer personally.

Also, was it just a quirky dink, or are you intentionally looking for stones with medium blue fluor (MBF)?



Can you share a link to the stone you chose, so we can review the proportions with you? You're spending a good chunk of money and I want to see you get the maximum beauty possible for your dollar while meeting all your color & clarity requirements.

Not particularly looking at stones with medium fluorescence, but everything I looked at with faint/none was either milky or had pretty bad inclusions (within my budget of course). Once I started looking at medium fluorescence, a lot of the diamonds were much clearer.

Here's the diamond I'm planning to buy https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD15577665?refTab=DIAMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails

the crown angle isn't perfect, but as diamond seeker mentioned the 40.6 pavillion should help that. The depth is a little high, but it seems to be close enough to the recommended range. Please let me know what you think!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Not particularly looking at stones with medium fluorescence, but everything I looked at with faint/none was either milky or had pretty bad inclusions (within my budget of course). Once I started looking at medium fluorescence, a lot of the diamonds were much clearer.

Here's the diamond I'm planning to buy https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD15577665?refTab=DIAMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails

the crown angle isn't perfect, but as diamond seeker mentioned the 40.6 pavillion should help that. The depth is a little high, but it seems to be close enough to the recommended range. Please let me know what you think!

It will show huge flashes of fire (at the expense of less brightness because of the short lower girdle facets = very fat star pattern).

 

[MattSz]

It will show huge flashes of fire (at the expense of less brightness because of the short lower girdle facets = very fat star pattern).

Would the potential of "blueness" from the medium fluorescence be exacerbated by the huge flashes of fire?

From my minimal research, fire flashes are desirable (please correct me if I'm wrong), but of course so is brightness! Do you think this diamond will still have nice eye appeal?

 

[sledge]

Not particularly looking at stones with medium fluorescence, but everything I looked at with faint/none was either milky or had pretty bad inclusions (within my budget of course). Once I started looking at medium fluorescence, a lot of the diamonds were much clearer.

Here's the diamond I'm planning to buy https://www.bluenile.com/ca/diamond-details/LD15577665?refTab=DIAMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails

the crown angle isn't perfect, but as diamond seeker mentioned the 40.6 pavillion should help that. The depth is a little high, but it seems to be close enough to the recommended range. Please let me know what you think!

Actually I quite like a 35.5/40.6 as it leans on the side of bigger fire, at the expense of a little bit of brightness (white light return). Also I do like the fat arrows, although some may find them "too contrasty" or dark in select viewing environments.

Small lesson here. Lower girdle facets (LGF's) as reported by GIA are an average of all the actual LGF values that is then rounded to the nearest 5%. In this case, the report shows a value of 75%, but that could mean 73-77%. Again, the lower the value, the fatter the arrow. I'd say these arrows are towards the lower end of that range.

The extra depth likely being the result of the slightly thick girdle.

As far as the MBF goes, it's always a good idea to ask the vendor if there are negative effects associated with it. Also keep in mind that while fluor is sometimes desirable, it tends to be less desirable in higher colored stones which is probably why you are seeing more of those at a cheaper rate (as vendors are discounting to help move them). FWIW, I like fluor. My wife's stone is an H-VS2 w/ MBF. No negative effects. We don't believe it whitens the stone very much, if any, but it did help lower the price at purchase time!

 

[sledge]

I don't want to shake your confidence, but I will toss a few other options on the table.

WF ACA 1.288 G-SI1 @ $9,476 USD wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4312104.htm

Super ideal stone with guaranteed performance & a killer lifetime upgrade policy. Eye clean and nice fire. You give up some color and fractions of carats, but the spread is the same as your 1.34 (roughly 7mm) because it's ideally cut and no extra depth.


WF ACA 1.282 G-SI1 @ $9,356 USD wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3488746.htm

Similar to the first option. Slightly different proportions, but still a super ideal cut & absolutely gorgeous.


GIA XXX 1.40 E-SI1 @ $9,620 USD
https://diamonddealfinder.com/enquiry.php?id_field=2756501
https://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/18532746/round-diamond-E-color-SI1-Clarity?sku=18532746
GIA report: https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=3355974578

Dreamy specs: 56t, 61.6d, 34.5c/40.8p & 75lgf

Really good bang for the buck for size & color and NO fluor. Currently no great video or picture, but what I saw on B2C I *think* it's probably eye clean. Definitely want to verify.

Available from 2 PS trusted vendors, Martin @ USA Certed Diamonds & Brian @ B2C. Martin has the cheaper price, but Brian may match. Typically Martin is a no thrills type experience with no trade-in, where B2C offers a little more. Also I know B2C will sometimes ship a stone in and take advanced images prior to finalizing your purchase, so you get that added warm fuzzy if that's important to you.


GIA XXX 1.26 F-VS1 @ $8,828 USD wire
https://www.b2cjewels.com/dd/18586808/round-diamond-F-color-VS1-Clarity?sku=18586808

57t, 61.6d, 34c/40.8p & 80lgf

Another nice bang for the buck! Slightly less weight than the 1.34, but still very close at roughly 6.95mm diameter. Awesome clarity & price. Slight drop in color, but still amazing. This one does have MBF, which may help whiten (ever so slightly) in high UV conditions.


GIA XXX 1.22 F-VS2 @ $8,028 USD
https://www.rarecarat.com/product/89278278

57t, 61.8d, 34.5c/40.8p & 75lgf

Maybe too small, but very nice proportions, color & clarity. And below budget!

 

[sledge]

Actually I quite like a 35.5/40.6 as it leans on the side of bigger fire, at the expense of a little bit of brightness (white light return). Also I do like the fat arrows, although some may find them "too contrasty" or dark in select viewing environments.

Small lesson here. Lower girdle facets (LGF's) as reported by GIA are an average of all the actual LGF values that is then rounded to the nearest 5%. In this case, the report shows a value of 75%, but that could mean 73-77%. Again, the lower the value, the fatter the arrow. I'd say these arrows are towards the lower end of that range.

The extra depth likely being the result of the slightly thick girdle.

As far as the MBF goes, it's always a good idea to ask the vendor if there are negative effects associated with it. Also keep in mind that while fluor is sometimes desirable, it tends to be less desirable in higher colored stones which is probably why you are seeing more of those at a cheaper rate (as vendors are discounting to help move them). FWIW, I like fluor. My wife's stone is an H-VS2 w/ MBF. No negative effects. We don't believe it whitens the stone very much, if any, but it did help lower the price at purchase time!

I forgot to add earlier, the one thing I dislike about this stone is because it's carrying extra weight in the depth it will size up small for it's carat weight.

In some of the other suggestions I noted, you will see the 1.288 and 1.282 stones measure to nearly the same spread (diameter) as this larger stone. So in a sense, you are paying for carat weight that your eyes can't really appreciate.

Garry's HCA is trying to warn you of this if you pay attention the "Looks Like Size" portion of the HCA score. Below is a screen shot for the 1.34 stone being discussed.

 

[MattSz]

Actually I quite like a 35.5/40.6 as it leans on the side of bigger fire, at the expense of a little bit of brightness (white light return). Also I do like the fat arrows, although some may find them "too contrasty" or dark in select viewing environments.

Small lesson here. Lower girdle facets (LGF's) as reported by GIA are an average of all the actual LGF values that is then rounded to the nearest 5%. In this case, the report shows a value of 75%, but that could mean 73-77%. Again, the lower the value, the fatter the arrow. I'd say these arrows are towards the lower end of that range.

The extra depth likely being the result of the slightly thick girdle.

As far as the MBF goes, it's always a good idea to ask the vendor if there are negative effects associated with it. Also keep in mind that while fluor is sometimes desirable, it tends to be less desirable in higher colored stones which is probably why you are seeing more of those at a cheaper rate (as vendors are discounting to help move them). FWIW, I like fluor. My wife's stone is an H-VS2 w/ MBF. No negative effects. We don't believe it whitens the stone very much, if any, but it did help lower the price at purchase time!

I actually really like the fat arrows too, its a bit more unique than some of the other diamonds I've been looking at. I also confirmed with Blue Nile that the diamond is eye clean and has no negative effects from fluorescence.

Thank you for all of the suggestions. They're all gorgeous diamonds! I really wish Blue Nile provided the same level of imaging that white flash does. It would certainly alleviate a lot of the uncertainty while purchasing.

Here comes the but. The only thing I've been told is that the carat size has to be 1.3+. Believe me, I've tried convincing her otherwise but it's a losing battle! That 1.4 looks promising though I'm going to look into that one as well.

I also noticed that in Garry's HCA report. I'm hoping that the extra .04 will offset the size decrease a bit so it still looks like a 1.3.

 

[sledge]

I also noticed that in Garry's HCA report. I'm hoping that the extra .04 will offset the size decrease a bit so it still looks like a 1.3.

BN 1.34 = 6.96x7.01mm = 6.985mm avg spread
WF 1.288 = 7.00x7.04mm = 7.02mm avg spread
WF 1.282 = 6.95x6.97mm = 6.96mm avg spread

Based on the WF stones I’d say, it’s going to size closer to a 1.285 or thereabouts. Very close to a 1.30. And truthfully, the difference in mm probably won’t be detectable to the naked eye. So if you like the 1.34 run with it. The cert says the weight you need.

I just wanted to make sure you understood the difference and how weight is rarely a good way to truly compare size as it involves a function of length, width & depth. Yet our eyes see spread from a top view of a diamond on a finger, which is a function of length & width only.

Also as I was looking at dimensions I saw where the WF 1.288 states “inquire” on eye clean. I missed that last night. This typically means there is a clarity condition of some sort so if you do consider that stone, you need to investigate and understand what is going on before committing.

 

[MattSz]

Blue Nile just informed me that the Diamond has been sold, after confirming that it was placed on hold for me.

Search continues, but certainly not with them!

I was hoping to get some thoughts on this diamond https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-11054427

Thanks,
Matt

 

[LLJsmom]

You will need to call JA and ask them to send you the GIA report. Please share that. I see the inclusion, but IRL it may be fine. Other than that, I can't tell much from the video. While you are on the phone with JA you can request a few more GIA reports of other candidates. Btw, not sure if upgrade policy matters to you but JA requires 2x the original price, while some other vendors require only a $1 more. Just FYI.

 

[LLJsmom]

1.32 Carat round diamond

This 1.32 carat round diamond G color vs2 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

Maybe ask them for this GIA report too? it's got some stuff on the surface. Would be interesting to see the report.

 

[sledge]

Blue Nile just informed me that the Diamond has been sold, after confirming that it was placed on hold for me.

Search continues, but certainly not with them!

I was hoping to get some thoughts on this diamond https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-11054427

Thanks,
Matt

Wow, that is a kick in the gonads. Sorry to hear about that. I excluded JA from my initial search as I thought I read earlier on you didn’t want to use them.

I don’t have access to the GIA cert but using the PS search engine can be helpful. One you can get the stone cheaper, about $8900. Two it shows the estimated HCA of only good. Diving further into it we see it scores a 4.7.

The video didn’t look good to me and this helped confirm my thoughts. Say no & keep looking.

 

[LLJsmom]

Just saying that @sledge's choices here are awesome. You can safely buy an SI1 from Whiteflash because they vet that the inclusion does not affect performance. And that the stone is eyeclean. So you can go bigger in size instead of spending your budget on the clarity when it does not affect what you see. Make sense?

WF ACA 1.288 G-SI1 @ $9,476 USD wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4312104.htm

Super ideal stone with guaranteed performance & a killer lifetime upgrade policy. Eye clean and nice fire. You give up some color and fractions of carats, but the spread is the same as your 1.34 (roughly 7mm) because it's ideally cut and no extra depth.


WF ACA 1.282 G-SI1 @ $9,356 USD wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3488746.htm

 

[AprilBaby]

Go for the WF and use their upgrade policy. Every woman will love an upgrade policy!

 

[sledge]

1.32 Carat round diamond

This 1.32 carat round diamond G color vs2 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

Maybe ask them for this GIA report too? it's got some stuff on the surface. Would be interesting to see the report.

Scores much better on HCA @ 1.3! I’m concerned about the crystals but at least they are clear.

Please post cert so we can further review.

 

[MattSz]

Certainly is defeating, but something else will come along.

Here are two GIA reports that I received from JA, neither are great cuts.





Clarity on both of these are nice with minimal inclusions. The first is really quite clear and has no fluorescence. However, they score 3.5 & 3.6 on the HCA tool. I'm going to take another shot at convincing the lady that a well-cut 1.28 is equal in appearance to a 1.3+. I agree that the diamonds sledge posted are much nicer than the diamonds I've been looking at up to this point.

 

[MattSz]

1.32 Carat round diamond

This 1.32 carat round diamond G color vs2 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

Maybe ask them for this GIA report too? it's got some stuff on the surface. Would be interesting to see the report.

Scores much better on HCA @ 1.3! I’m concerned about the crystals but at least they are clear.

Please post cert so we can further review.

Thanks! here's the GIA report for this one. Looks like the cut is quite nice.

 

[LLJsmom]

Thanks! here's the GIA report for this one. Looks like the cut is quite nice.

Can I mention that although this one is pretty decent, the price is actually higher than the Whiteflash ones posted by @sledge .

WF ACA 1.288 G-SI1 @ $9,476 USD wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4312104.htm

Super ideal stone with guaranteed performance & a killer lifetime upgrade policy. Eye clean and nice fire.
7.0 - 7.04

Whereas JA is 7.02-7.06.

So let's argue that there is no visual difference in size between the 2 stones.

Then, consider:
1. ACA stone is super ideal cut, which means that you see brightness from EDGE TO EDGE on the stone. Confirmed per AGS report. When I look at my ACA, I do keep looking for spots that don't light up. There are none. I would argue that your SO will experience the same with an ACA. (I've had GIA 3x with HCA under 2 that I've found not as bright.) A stone that lights up edge to edge will look WAY bigger than one that doesn't.
2. ACA has $1 more trade up policy.
3. ACA vetted to so inclusions do not affect performance. You can call them and discuss how eye clean it is, and they can send you videos and pics as these are in house stones.
4. ACA is cheaper.

It's ok. Take some time to think about this. Or you may want to call WF and put that stone on hold while you ponder.

 

[sledge]

Thanks! here's the GIA report for this one. Looks like the cut is quite nice.

This stone is very similar to the BN stone you found. Same c/p angle. Technically the same reported LGF's but as I discussed before, GIA averages & rounds to the nearest 5%. From the video it seems pretty clear these are still nice arrows but not overly fat like the BN stone.

A few other things worth noting. This stone has a medium girdle as opposed to slightly thick and also 42.5% pavilion depth as opposed to 43% on the other stone. Net effect to overall depth is 61.5% getting you into a more ideal depth as opposed to the former 62.8% which was slightly too deep.

FYI, the pavilion depth is a little revealing regarding the actual pavilion angles. An exact 40.6 pavilion measures to 42.855% depth. However, you have to consider culet, reported as none (or 0%) here. So the other factor at play is that because of the way GIA rounds, you likely have a few pavilions that are < 40.5 on this stone. All resulting in 42.5% depth, as opposed to 43%.

One advantage that JA does have over BN is that they can provide idealscope (IS) images on most their stones. If you are considering, I would request they provide an IS image so we can make a better educated decision about the anticipated light performance.

Also, I would ask JA to confirm if this stone is eye clean or not. Also, ask them to identify their criteria for determination. For instance, one common definition is 10" away looking at the top of the stone only with good lighting and 20/20 vision. I personally like to expand that definition to 6" and from top & sides, but that is above average to what most vendors consider normal (despite not having an "industry definition").

 

[sledge]

Also as I was looking at dimensions I saw where the WF 1.288 states “inquire” on eye clean. I missed that last night. This typically means there is a clarity condition of some sort so if you do consider that stone, you need to investigate and understand what is going on before committing.

Expanding on this a bit more. I would definitely talk to WF about this stone. I believe the feather near the edge is the issue. I see it in zoomed photos but would think it would still be eye clean, so I am not sure the "inquire" status. However, WF is the type of vendor that will be transparent & honest with you, even if it costs them a sale so I would feel confident in asking they pull the stone from their vault (yes, they own them & keep them on-site) and verify with some human eyeballs.

All that said, here are screen caps of various elements I've taken in an effort to better show you where I think it is and how minor it seems.

By the way -- look at the proportions. That 54.6% table and dreamy proportions! Can we say sparkle bomb?

Can I mention that although this one is pretty decent, the price is actually higher than the Whiteflash ones posted by @sledge .

WF ACA 1.288 G-SI1 @ $9,476 USD wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4312104.htm

Super ideal stone with guaranteed performance & a killer lifetime upgrade policy. Eye clean and nice fire.
7.0 - 7.04

Whereas JA is 7.02-7.06.

So let's argue that there is no visual difference in size between the 2 stones.

Then, consider:
1. ACA stone is super ideal cut, which means that you see brightness from EDGE TO EDGE on the stone. Confirmed per AGS report. When I look at my ACA, I do keep looking for spots that don't light up. There are none. I would argue that your SO will experience the same with an ACA. (I've had GIA 3x with HCA under 2 that I've found not as bright.) A stone that lights up edge to edge will look WAY bigger than one that doesn't.
2. ACA has $1 more trade up policy.
3. ACA vetted to so inclusions do not affect performance. You can call them and discuss how eye clean it is, and they can send you videos and pics as these are in house stones.
4. ACA is cheaper.

It's ok. Take some time to think about this. Or you may want to call WF and put that stone on hold while you ponder.

Totally agree. I'd talk with WF but dollar for dollar, seems much better than the JA stone. Absolutely NO size difference to the naked eye. It's simply a "mind thing" of the cert saying 1.288 vs 1.30+ carats.

But the trade policy is superior. JA requires you spend 2x the original amount each time you upgrade, which will eventually cap upgrades or sideway moves. Not to mention full transparency with loads of data & images to make an EDUCATED decision. Guaranteed performance from a true H&A stone! And hands down, superior customer service from a very trusted & dependable vendor that simply walks the walks and talks the talk.

My money would be gambling on the 1.288 hands down.

 

[MattSz]

Can I mention that although this one is pretty decent, the price is actually higher than the Whiteflash ones posted by @sledge .

WF ACA 1.288 G-SI1 @ $9,476 USD wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4312104.htm

Super ideal stone with guaranteed performance & a killer lifetime upgrade policy. Eye clean and nice fire....

Expanding on this a bit more. I would definitely talk to WF about this stone. I believe the feather near the edge is the issue......

I'll request the IS images from JA and post them here once I've received them!

My only concern with the WS diamond is the fact that its SI-1, but seems to only have a minor feather/crystal as mentioned. This would indicate to me that it suffers from some cloudiness or milkiness. I'll likely reach out to them to find out more about this one.

 

[LLJsmom]

I'll request the IS images from JA and post them here once I've received them!

My only concern with the WS diamond is the fact that its SI-1, but seems to only have a minor feather/crystal as mentioned. This would indicate to me that it suffers from some cloudiness or milkiness. I'll likely reach out to them to find out more about this one.

Hi MattSz, an ACA would not be milky. That is on of the things that WF vets for. Clouds is a type of inclusion. WF vets their stones so that stones with inclusions that affect performance are not classified as ACAs.

 

[sledge]

Hi MattSz, an ACA would not be milky. That is on of the things that WF vets for. Clouds is a type of inclusion. WF vets their stones so that stones with inclusions that affect performance are not classified as ACAs.

Ditto. WF ACA's aren't going to be milky or hazy. It's part of their vetting process. More info on inclusions in general and also ACA specifications so you can better understand how much precision goes into their stones.

A screen cap from the ACA spec page listed below:

An Expert Guide to Diamond Clarity and Diamond Grading

Diamond Clarity refers to impurities within a diamond. Find out the impact of different inclusions and how it affects the price of a diamond here.

www.whiteflash.com

A CUT ABOVE® Diamonds Specifications and Qualifications

Uncover the diamond specifications and qualifications that make up the Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® diamonds. The most carefully crafted diamonds in the world.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[MattSz]

Hi MattSz, an ACA would not be milky. That is on of the things that WF vets for. Clouds is a type of inclusion. WF vets their stones so that stones with inclusions that affect performance are not classified as ACAs.

Ditto. WF ACA's aren't going to be milky or hazy. It's part of their vetting process. More info on inclusions in general and also ACA specifications so you can better understand how much precision goes into their stones.

A screen cap from the ACA spec page listed below:

An Expert Guide to Diamond Clarity and Diamond Grading

Diamond Clarity refers to impurities within a diamond. Find out the impact of different inclusions and how it affects the price of a diamond here.

www.whiteflash.com

A CUT ABOVE® Diamonds Specifications and Qualifications

Uncover the diamond specifications and qualifications that make up the Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® diamonds. The most carefully crafted diamonds in the world.

www.whiteflash.com

Ah ok, I'm comparing an SI1 from BN/JA to an ACA SI1 which I guess isn't a fair comparison. I'll certainly be reaching out to WF to look into this one more.

I also just found this diamond. Please let me know what you think.

1.30 Carat round diamond

This 1.3 carat round diamond F color vs1 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

I put this one on hold as it does have a pretty good HCA score, but the crown angle is pretty steep.

 

[sledge]

Ah ok, I'm comparing an SI1 from BN/JA to an ACA SI1 which I guess isn't a fair comparison. I'll certainly be reaching out to WF to look into this one more.

I also just found this diamond. Please let me know what you think.

1.30 Carat round diamond

This 1.3 carat round diamond F color vs1 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

I put this one on hold as it does have a pretty good HCA score, but the crown angle is pretty steep.

I'd really want to see an idealscope of this stone. Also a hearts image, but I doubt JA will do that for you. HCA score is teter-totering on the edge.

FYI, price from PS search engine is $9,800. Yet on the JA page it says "unavailable". Not sure if you placed on hold or it's already sold.

FWIW, the spread measures at 6.92x6.98, or 6.95 average. This stone technically has a smaller spread than the WF 1.288 despite carrying more weight. The difference is so minute I am not even going to spend time trying to explain it as your eyes isn't going to appreciate that small of a spread difference.

 

[LLJsmom]

Ah ok, I'm comparing an SI1 from BN/JA to an ACA SI1 which I guess isn't a fair comparison. I'll certainly be reaching out to WF to look into this one more.

I also just found this diamond. Please let me know what you think.

1.30 Carat round diamond

This 1.3 carat round diamond F color vs1 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

I put this one on hold as it does have a pretty good HCA score, but the crown angle is pretty steep.

Maybe @sledge can explain better why, but my gut says this may be leaky in the center. It's a little deep. And...ugh...it's a wee bit small for a 1.3 carat. The edges may not light up as much. Is it a really good deal? The dimensions are smaller than the 1.288.

But if you really want to go with BN or JA you can. And I don't think these stones are ugly. If you want to give a little on sparkle, that's ok. You and she may never even notice. It just depends on who you and she are. Some people stare at their diamonds a lot. I'm one of them. And over time I noticed things like, why is there this one spot that does not seem to light up as much, and why isn't it bright edge to edge, which lead me to doing more research and finding PS. But not everyone does that. Some people just look and to "sparkly!" and "yay!" and don't really have anything to compare it with. You don't know what you don't know, KWIM?

The only thing that does make a logistical difference in the long run is the upgrade policy. And if you guys are people that are NEVER going to upgrade, then that won't even apply to you. But if you and she are open to the possibility, WF does allow you much more future flexibility. Logistics.

 

[MattSz]

I'd really want to see an idealscope of this stone. Also a hearts image, but I doubt JA will do that for you. HCA score is teter-totering on the edge.

FYI, price from PS search engine is $9,800. Yet on the JA page it says "unavailable". Not sure if you placed on hold or it's already sold.

FWIW, the spread measures at 6.92x6.98, or 6.95 average. This stone technically has a smaller spread than the WF 1.288 despite carrying more weight. The difference is so minute I am not even going to spend time trying to explain it as your eyes isn't going to appreciate that small of a spread difference.

Maybe @sledge can explain better why, but my gut says this may be leaky in the center. It's a little deep. And...ugh...it's a wee bit small for a 1.3 carat. The edges may not light up as much. Is it a really good deal? The dimensions are smaller than the 1.288.

But if you really want to go with BN or JA you can. And I don't think these stones are ugly. If you want to give a little on sparkle, that's ok. You and she may never even notice. It just depends on who you and she are. Some people stare at their diamonds a lot. I'm one of them. And over time I noticed things like, why is there this one spot that does not seem to light up as much, and why isn't it bright edge to edge, which lead me to doing more research and finding PS. But not everyone does that. Some people just look and to "sparkly!" and "yay!" and don't really have anything to compare it with. You don't know what you don't know, KWIM?

The only thing that does make a logistical difference in the long run is the upgrade policy. And if you guys are people that are NEVER going to upgrade, then that won't even apply to you. But if you and she are open to the possibility, WF does allow you much more future flexibility. Logistics.

Ya JA said they couldn't provide an IS on that one, they also said no to a few others that I looked at. I placed the hold on it so hopefully they don't pull a Blue Nile if I decide to purchase it!

I completely agree about the size difference though. We sized the ring and looked at different carats at a store and I genuinely couldn't tell the difference between a 1.25 and a 1.3, but apparently it was obvious .

No matter what I end up purchasing I plan to have it professionally inspected. I'll request an IS as well. The proposal won't be for another few months so I have time to shop around again.

I'd hope the plan isn't to upgrade! but as you can tell I don't have as much say in this as I like to think haha. Knowing my girlfriend, any upgrade would be for something at least 2x, so I don't think it'll be an issue in the future, but the $1 upgrade is nice to have!

I'm still searching, but would this be considered a nice diamond at $9800?

 

[LLJsmom]

Ya JA said they couldn't provide an IS on that one, they also said no to a few others that I looked at. I placed the hold on it so hopefully they don't pull a Blue Nile if I decide to purchase it!

I completely agree about the size difference though. We sized the ring and looked at different carats at a store and I genuinely couldn't tell the difference between a 1.25 and a 1.3, but apparently it was obvious .

No matter what I end up purchasing I plan to have it professionally inspected. I'll request an IS as well. The proposal won't be for another few months so I have time to shop around again.

I'd hope the plan isn't to upgrade! but as you can tell I don't have as much say in this as I like to think haha. Knowing my girlfriend, any upgrade would be for something at least 2x, so I don't think it'll be an issue in the future, but the $1 upgrade is nice to have!

I'm still searching, but would this be considered a nice diamond at $9800?

Are you referring to the 1.3 F from JA? TBH, without an IS, it's too big a risk for me. I've had a GIA 3x stone with similar specs and this opinion is through my lens and personal experience. I would not buy this one because I think it will be leaky due to the depth. And again, from my personal experience, I could see the leakiness and it bothered me a whole lot. I will admit this took time. It took 9-12 months of wearing it that I noticed it.

If you have to go with JA, I would rather try my luck with this one, and order it for real life viewing and see if the inclusions bother you.




Actually, to answer your question, "would this be considered a nice diamond at $9800?" The answer is yes, it's nice. It's not GREAT, but it's probably nice. And to be fair, also you are asking people on Pricescope, and we demand a lot from a diamond, generally speaking. So if you're truly just wanting nice, I think it's fine. Can you do better for your budget, assuming we are talking more sparkly, more visually lively and beautiful? Yes, you can do better. Depends on whether you can get over the G and SI1 hang up (I noticed that everything you are choosing is F and VS2 or better.) I know. I've been that newbie. So the great thing with WF is that you can slowly move up over time. Less $$$$ impact at the time of upgrade.