Pulling the trigger - Ideal AGS Princess, help?

[Valjean]

Hello again! Thank you so far for your inputs on my couple posts, you know who you are!

So I narrowed down three choices and most likely going with White Flash. What are your opinions on these two?

0.85 F VS1 Princess I Ideal AGS N 74.8% 61% 5.16x5.15x3.85 Price = $3600
http://www.agslab.com/reportTypes/pdqd.php?StoneID=7889804&Weight=0.85&D=1

0.81ct E VS2 Princess Cut Loose Diamond = $3000
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2541794.htm

0.77ct G VS2 Super Ideal Princess Cut Diamond Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE selection = $2900
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2405183.htm

Sorry no scans yet for the 0.85, have to order the diamond in to get those.
Ring size will be 3.75 (slim finger!)

A couple choices for the setting:

"Sleek Line" Solitaire Engagement Ring in Platinum - $975
http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/sleek-line-solitaire-engagement-ring-432.htm

1895-style Solitaire Ring - $1500 - (if setting is done locally through jeweller)
http://vivodiamonds.blogspot.com/2009/08/0_21.html

I originally wanted the setting done locally so that it will be easier for me to deal with resizing, cleaning, warranties, etc. as to purchasing the setting online. What are your thoughts?


Thanks again!
Valjean

 

[Valjean]

Anyone? :\

 

[jbawwou]

I dont know a thing about Princess cuts but I like the .77 with the sleek line or the 4 prong tiffany setting.
http://www.whiteflash.com/engagemen...-solitaire-engagement-ring-for-princess-8.htm

 

[Valjean]

I dont know a thing about Princess cuts but I like the .77 with the sleek line or the 4 prong tiffany setting.
http://www.whiteflash.com/engagemen...-solitaire-engagement-ring-for-princess-8.htm

Thanks for your input!

 

[D&T]

I don't know what your first one looks like but if you look at the dimensions of the last "G" .77ct color and your.81ct E, the "G" is actually larger in terms of face up size, and still face up beautifully white.The .81ct has a bit of hidden weight in the girdle and slightly deeper. I would put it in the sleek line legato as well, and have them ship the entire ring to you. Its a simple solitaire, and you can get any good local bench jeweler to resize if necessary down the road if you don't want the hassle of mailing it back. so I would vote for the "G" as I don't know what the first one looks like,... and its near the same size as the first, and I"m pretty sure it will be stunning.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know what your first one looks like but if you look at the dimensions of the last "G" .77ct color and your.81ct E, the "G" is actually larger in terms of face up size, and still face up beautifully white.The .81ct has a bit of hidden weight in the girdle and slightly deeper. I would put it in the sleek line legato as well, and have them ship the entire ring to you. Its a simple solitaire, and you can get any good local bench jeweler to resize if necessary down the road if you don't want the hassle of mailing it back. so I would vote for the "G" as I don't know what the first one looks like,... and its near the same size as the first, and I"m pretty sure it will be stunning.

Thanks DT! I will be getting picture of the first one (0.85) soon as WF needs to get it in their shop first. The numbers do look amazing. You are right though about the 0.81 being slightly deeper. My choices are down to the 0.77 and the 0.85.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know what your first one looks like but if you look at the dimensions of the last "G" .77ct color and your.81ct E, the "G" is actually larger in terms of face up size, and still face up beautifully white.The .81ct has a bit of hidden weight in the girdle and slightly deeper. I would put it in the sleek line legato as well, and have them ship the entire ring to you. Its a simple solitaire, and you can get any good local bench jeweler to resize if necessary down the road if you don't want the hassle of mailing it back. so I would vote for the "G" as I don't know what the first one looks like,... and its near the same size as the first, and I"m pretty sure it will be stunning.

Would it be worth it to spend the extra $700 on the 0.85 F compared to the 0.77 G? Cut wise they are both graded AGS triple 0.

 

[D&T]

"is it worth it?" is a personal question ($700 is a chunk of change to put towards a nice wedding band). The dimensions, I don't think I would notice. However, color you may/may not notice. Performance may differ slightly. When WF gets it in, I would trust their judgement ask your SA and few of them there which one they would prefer.

 

[jstarfireb]

The only one we have sufficient info on is the ACA, the 0.777 G/VS2, which looks like a very nice diamond. The 0.81 E/VS2 is not in house and would have to be called in; it's also not an AGS0 as it has a GIA cert, not AGS. The photo is not an actual pic of that diamond, just a stock photo. So at this point I would not say it's worth the extra $700 to get that one! I'd stick with the ACA.

I'm also not sure where your first diamond is coming from, but we can't help much without photos and an ASET!

ETA: The sleek line is a very nice setting, but also consider the one with the "Legato" head - IMO much more elegant and sleek. You can still get your ring inspected and cleaned locally if you order the setting from WF. Personally I think it's a lot more convenient to get the diamond and setting from the same vendor.

 

[yssie]

I guess I'll be the lone voice of dissent - I'm honestly not loving the contrast pattern on the ACA - it covers a number of virtual facets and I think it will be visibly over-dark IRL, esp seeing the AGS ASET plot. I'm also just not a huge fan of thick mains..

I prefer these
another 2ch: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2231076.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2327041.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2327034.htm

 

[jstarfireb]

I guess I'll be the lone voice of dissent - I'm honestly not loving the contrast pattern on the ACA - it covers a number of virtual facets and I think it will be visibly over-dark IRL, esp seeing the AGS ASET plot. I'm also just not a huge fan of thick mains..

I prefer these
another 2ch: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2231076.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2327041.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2327034.htm

Yssie, I'm thinking the same about the ACA, but also wondering whether it will be visually apparent in real life, because after all, it made ACA status!

Valjean, weren't you originally considering a Solasfera princess from GOG and some other ones we had recommended? I liked those better than these. Or do I have the wrong person?

ETA: FWIW, the ASET of the second diamond Yssie suggested looks nearly identical to my own ACA princess, so I like it as well!

 

[Valjean]

"is it worth it?" is a personal question ($700 is a chunk of change to put towards a nice wedding band). The dimensions, I don't think I would notice. However, color you may/may not notice. Performance may differ slightly. When WF gets it in, I would trust their judgement ask your SA and few of them there which one they would prefer.

Yes it is indeed a personal question, and yes $700 is a lot of money for me and would never consider it as chung of change. \My GF and I are both practical people and always try to save as much as we can. I will definitely ask WF what they think when they get it in and see what they prefer, but I'm afraid that they may be biased towards their own in-house diamond for obvious reasons. Thank you for your response though! Much appreciated.

 

[Valjean]

The only one we have sufficient info on is the ACA, the 0.777 G/VS2, which looks like a very nice diamond. The 0.81 E/VS2 is not in house and would have to be called in; it's also not an AGS0 as it has a GIA cert, not AGS. The photo is not an actual pic of that diamond, just a stock photo. So at this point I would not say it's worth the extra $700 to get that one! I'd stick with the ACA.

I'm also not sure where your first diamond is coming from, but we can't help much without photos and an ASET!

ETA: The sleek line is a very nice setting, but also consider the one with the "Legato" head - IMO much more elegant and sleek. You can still get your ring inspected and cleaned locally if you order the setting from WF. Personally I think it's a lot more convenient to get the diamond and setting from the same vendor.

Just to clarify, the extra $700 is towards the 0.85 F (vs the 0.77 G). WF says that size wise it's just a difference of less than the thickness of a piece of paper. Colorwise though, I don't know what the real difference is between an F and a G.

Giving is much thought, I have narrowed it down to the 0.77 and the 0.85, leaning towards the 0.77 based on your opinions. I have yet to get the images for the 0.85 later this week and will post them on here for reference so that we can get a better idea on what we are working with. I also saw the Legato and I'm liking it a lot. It does bare a lot of resemblance to the 1895 Cartier. Thanks for your input!

 

[Valjean]

I guess I'll be the lone voice of dissent - I'm honestly not loving the contrast pattern on the ACA - it covers a number of virtual facets and I think it will be visibly over-dark IRL, esp seeing the AGS ASET plot. I'm also just not a huge fan of thick mains..

I prefer these
another 2ch: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2231076.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2327041.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2327034.htm

Yssie, I'm thinking the same about the ACA, but also wondering whether it will be visually apparent in real life, because after all, it made ACA status!

Valjean, weren't you originally considering a Solasfera princess from GOG and some other ones we had recommended? I liked those better than these. Or do I have the wrong person?

ETA: FWIW, the ASET of the second diamond Yssie suggested looks nearly identical to my own ACA princess, so I like it as well!

Thanks Yssie and Starfireb. I never thought about the contrast pattern, I'll look at the plot again and see. I'll also checked out the links you posted and will let WF know.

Yes I was considering a Solasfera from GOG, but what they were quoting me was way out of my price range, so I opted to look for something similar. One of the ones you picked for me is one of my choices above is the 0.77 below:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2405183.htm

 

[E B]

Yes I was considering a Solasfera from GOG, but what they were quoting me was way out of my price range, so I opted to look for something similar. One of the ones you picked for me is one of my choices above is the 0.77 below:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2405183.htm

The Solasfera below is the same price as the .85 from WF without wire ($3596), and if I remember correctly, should be $100 or so less if you pay by wire.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/7847/

It *is* smaller, but not by much.

 

[yssie]

Yes I was considering a Solasfera from GOG, but what they were quoting me was way out of my price range, so I opted to look for something similar. One of the ones you picked for me is one of my choices above is the 0.77 below:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2405183.htm

The Solasfera below is the same price as the .85 from WF without wire ($3596), and if I remember correctly, should be $100 or so less if you pay by wire.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/7847/

It *is* smaller, but not by much.

Bingo! Same spread as the 0.77 too - nice find!

 

[Valjean]

Yes I was considering a Solasfera from GOG, but what they were quoting me was way out of my price range, so I opted to look for something similar. One of the ones you picked for me is one of my choices above is the 0.77 below:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2405183.htm

The Solasfera below is the same price as the .85 from WF without wire ($3596), and if I remember correctly, should be $100 or so less if you pay by wire.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/7847/

It *is* smaller, but not by much.

Bingo! Same spread as the 0.77 too - nice find!

Great find EB! this should go right to the top of my selections. Thanks!

 

[jstarfireb]

Yes I was considering a Solasfera from GOG, but what they were quoting me was way out of my price range, so I opted to look for something similar. One of the ones you picked for me is one of my choices above is the 0.77 below:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2405183.htm

Yup, I remember picking that one and a few others for you, and I still think it's a pretty nice stone (remember, it's an AGS0 and a branded super-ideal, like Solasfera, so it really can't be ugly!). But as Yssie pointed out, there is something a little odd about the contrast pattern, and I prefer some of the others we had suggested to you. The light return looks great from the ASET, but it sounds like you might prefer the patterning of the Solasfera, although it's anyone's guess as to whether they'd actually appear different under normal viewing conditions. IIRC, my favorite stone was actually the one from Brian Gavin.

But really, when we're talking about AGS ideal princesses, and especially branded super-ideals, we're pretty much splitting hairs. Almost any AGS0 princess will be beautiful and will beat out 99% of other princess cuts on the market. If you have a choice between them, then look at the facet patterning, number of cheverons, etc., and pick the one that appeals to you most.

 

[Valjean]

Yes I was considering a Solasfera from GOG, but what they were quoting me was way out of my price range, so I opted to look for something similar. One of the ones you picked for me is one of my choices above is the 0.77 below:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2405183.htm

Yup, I remember picking that one and a few others for you, and I still think it's a pretty nice stone (remember, it's an AGS0 and a branded super-ideal, like Solasfera, so it really can't be ugly!). But as Yssie pointed out, there is something a little odd about the contrast pattern, and I prefer some of the others we had suggested to you. The light return looks great from the ASET, but it sounds like you might prefer the patterning of the Solasfera, although it's anyone's guess as to whether they'd actually appear different under normal viewing conditions. IIRC, my favorite stone was actually the one from Brian Gavin.

But really, when we're talking about AGS ideal princesses, and especially branded super-ideals, we're pretty much splitting hairs. Almost any AGS0 princess will be beautiful and will beat out 99% of other princess cuts on the market. If you have a choice between them, then look at the facet patterning, number of cheverons, etc., and pick the one that appeals to you most.

Thanks Jstar for educating me on all of these. Yes an AGS ideal princess like the 0.77 above and the Solasfera EB pointed out we're pretty much splitting hairs, and the obvious deciding factor is to actually compare the two in person, but I think even so, they would be fairly close. However the Solasfera above is an E compared to a G for the ACA. Can you briefly explain to me what I should be looking for in regards to the contrast pattern Yssie pointed out for the ACA?

 

[yssie]

Can you briefly explain to me what I should be looking for in regards to the contrast pattern

Not jstar but the still ASET photo on the WF website shows those blue patterns under the table, as does the AGS computer-gen simulation, those are areas of contrast created by obstruction (those facets require light from directly above, which your head is blocking). Would ask your rep to tilt the stone through a variety of viewing angles and tell you if the obstruction (black contrast IRL, can see it in the still photo too) is persistent through these angles - if so you will see that when you or your intended bends over the stone those areas will become black, in that pattern, called "head obstruction" if you want to do a search to read more.

It is hard to judge much from a single static view, but as the pattern is visible in the ASET/IS/actual photo - that were not all taken at precisely the same angle, presumably - it is something to investigate if you find it displeasing to your eye. Ultimately it is, as jstar says, not a big deal - it is going to be a prettier stone than the vast majority of princesses you will see IRL. But, since you have time and are willing to put in effort, you can hunt for a stone with the nuances you prefer..

 

[jstarfireb]

Can you briefly explain to me what I should be looking for in regards to the contrast pattern

Not jstar but the still ASET photo on the WF website shows those blue patterns under the table, as does the AGS computer-gen simulation, those are areas of contrast created by obstruction (those facets require light from directly above, which your head is blocking). Would ask your rep to tilt the stone through a variety of viewing angles and tell you if the obstruction (black contrast IRL, can see it in the still photo too) is persistent through these angles - if so you will see that when you or your intended bends over the stone those areas will become black, in that pattern, called "head obstruction" if you want to do a search to read more.

It is hard to judge much from a single static view, but as the pattern is visible in the ASET/IS/actual photo - that were not all taken at precisely the same angle, presumably - it is something to investigate if you find it displeasing to your eye. Ultimately it is, as jstar says, not a big deal - it is going to be a prettier stone than the vast majority of princesses you will see IRL. But, since you have time and are willing to put in effort, you can hunt for a stone with the nuances you prefer..

What Yssie said! Basically it's something you just get a feel for. The facets in a princess cut create a center pattern that's a little bit different from stone to stone. The pattern is created by contrast between bright and dark areas, which in turn are created by light return and obstruction, respectively. The facet sizes and table shape also play into this. Since the ASET shows where light is returned, leaking, and obstructed, it gives you an idea of what the contrast pattern will look like in real life (although a video is of course better).

I should mention that I don't think the pattern of the 0.77 is unattractive at all, but it's just different from what I've typically seen with ideal-cut princesses, and it definitely differs from the Solasfera pattern, which appears more uniform. The center X is very strong in this princess, which is something you may prefer or something you may dislike. So it's not inherently better or worse, just different, and it's up to you to decide which one your eye prefers. Does that make sense?

As for color, E vs. G is a personal choice, but as I mentioned, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, especially with the stone mounted. If you are your girlfriend are particularly color-sensitive or value a very white stone for a cultural reason (to some, high color and clarity symbolize purity), go with the E. Otherwise, it's not at all unreasonable to go with the G.

 

[Valjean]

Can you briefly explain to me what I should be looking for in regards to the contrast pattern

Not jstar but the still ASET photo on the WF website shows those blue patterns under the table, as does the AGS computer-gen simulation, those are areas of contrast created by obstruction (those facets require light from directly above, which your head is blocking). Would ask your rep to tilt the stone through a variety of viewing angles and tell you if the obstruction (black contrast IRL, can see it in the still photo too) is persistent through these angles - if so you will see that when you or your intended bends over the stone those areas will become black, in that pattern, called "head obstruction" if you want to do a search to read more.

It is hard to judge much from a single static view, but as the pattern is visible in the ASET/IS/actual photo - that were not all taken at precisely the same angle, presumably - it is something to investigate if you find it displeasing to your eye. Ultimately it is, as jstar says, not a big deal - it is going to be a prettier stone than the vast majority of princesses you will see IRL. But, since you have time and are willing to put in effort, you can hunt for a stone with the nuances you prefer..

What Yssie said! Basically it's something you just get a feel for. The facets in a princess cut create a center pattern that's a little bit different from stone to stone. The pattern is created by contrast between bright and dark areas, which in turn are created by light return and obstruction, respectively. The facet sizes and table shape also play into this. Since the ASET shows where light is returned, leaking, and obstructed, it gives you an idea of what the contrast pattern will look like in real life (although a video is of course better).

Thank you Jstar and Yssie for taking the time to explain this to me, as a novice, these extra technicalities of what to look for in the diamond is very new to me. I will go ahead and ask my rep to check for obstruction at different angles. I really hope that WF does videoes like GOG, it would make the choices somewhat easier. Color-wise, I admit it is just more psychological than cultural. I just feel that the diamond will be "whiter" based on what says on paper. Then again this comfort comes at a cost even if they are really hard to tell IRL. It seems like I am now leaning towards the 0.77. The Solasfera would be great a very close contender.

You mentioned the center X being strong. How would this affect scintillation? I need to determine if having a strong center X is something that I prefer or dislike. What I am generally looking for is a nice overall scintillation, not necessarily uniform and even. I kind of like the randomness, but plenty. Hope this helps.

 

[yssie]

Can you briefly explain to me what I should be looking for in regards to the contrast pattern

Not jstar but the still ASET photo on the WF website shows those blue patterns under the table, as does the AGS computer-gen simulation, those are areas of contrast created by obstruction (those facets require light from directly above, which your head is blocking). Would ask your rep to tilt the stone through a variety of viewing angles and tell you if the obstruction (black contrast IRL, can see it in the still photo too) is persistent through these angles - if so you will see that when you or your intended bends over the stone those areas will become black, in that pattern, called "head obstruction" if you want to do a search to read more.

It is hard to judge much from a single static view, but as the pattern is visible in the ASET/IS/actual photo - that were not all taken at precisely the same angle, presumably - it is something to investigate if you find it displeasing to your eye. Ultimately it is, as jstar says, not a big deal - it is going to be a prettier stone than the vast majority of princesses you will see IRL. But, since you have time and are willing to put in effort, you can hunt for a stone with the nuances you prefer..

What Yssie said! Basically it's something you just get a feel for. The facets in a princess cut create a center pattern that's a little bit different from stone to stone. The pattern is created by contrast between bright and dark areas, which in turn are created by light return and obstruction, respectively. The facet sizes and table shape also play into this. Since the ASET shows where light is returned, leaking, and obstructed, it gives you an idea of what the contrast pattern will look like in real life (although a video is of course better).

Thank you Jstar and Yssie for taking the time to explain this to me, as a novice, these extra technicalities of what to look for in the diamond is very new to me. I will go ahead and ask my rep to check for obstruction at different angles. I really hope that WF does videoes like GOG, it would make the choices somewhat easier. Color-wise, I admit it is just more psychological than cultural. I just feel that the diamond will be "whiter" based on what says on paper. Then again this comfort comes at a cost even if they are really hard to tell IRL. It seems like I am now leaning towards the 0.77. The Solasfera would be great a very close contender.

You mentioned the center X being strong. How would this affect scintillation? I need to determine if having a strong center X is something that I prefer or dislike. What I am generally looking for is a nice overall scintillation, not necessarily uniform and even. I kind of like the randomness, but plenty. Hope this helps.

That X is made by the pavilion main facets - can be "thick" or "thin" X, will be visible IRL as part of the faceting but has no more direct impact on scintillation* or any other type of light return than any other facet - it is all in how everything works together. The 0.77 is a 2chevron princess (old but interesting article here: https://www.pricescope.com/journal/grading_princess_cut basic outline on princesses here: https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/princess-cut-diamond/), fewer facets (most often) results in fewer but larger virtual facets, which permit big bold flashes of light; multi-chevron types (3, 4) have more facets - more but smaller virtual facets - lots of twinkle and quick sparkle but few big bold flashes. It is largely personal preference. Also to consider is the fact that smaller stones will inherently have smaller facets and therefore smaller virtual facets, and so will excel at twinkle & fast sparkle and will have less ability to output those bold blinding flashes - in the size you are looking at I personally would not choose a 4chevron type as so many of the twinkles will be too small for the eye to resolve, but there will be little in the way of bold flash to compensate. WF's ACA line is primarily 3ch I think - and I have seen some 4ch, and some 2ch, Infinities (available at PS vendor www.highperformancediamonds.com) are 2ch..

When you view the diamond in spotlighting all you will see is the coloured light outputs, but in diffuse lighting (offices, etc) you will see the stone's patterning very clearly as you move the stone as virtual facets turn "on" and "off" from [weaker, relatively] white light reflections and refractions and contrast from both obstruction and light escape through the pavilion - what we call "leakage".

 

[Valjean]

That X is made by the pavilion main facets - can be "thick" or "thin" X, will be visible IRL as part of the faceting but has no more direct impact on scintillation* or any other type of light return than any other facet - it is all in how everything works together. The 0.77 is a 2chevron princess (old but interesting article here: https://www.pricescope.com/journal/grading_princess_cut basic outline on princesses here: https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/princess-cut-diamond/), fewer facets (most often) results in fewer but larger virtual facets, which permit big bold flashes of light; multi-chevron types (3, 4) have more facets - more but smaller virtual facets - lots of twinkle and quick sparkle but few big bold flashes. It is largely personal preference. Also to consider is the fact that smaller stones will inherently have smaller facets and therefore smaller virtual facets, and so will excel at twinkle & fast sparkle and will have less ability to output those bold blinding flashes - in the size you are looking at I personally would not choose a 4chevron type as so many of the twinkles will be too small for the eye to resolve, but there will be little in the way of bold flash to compensate. WF's ACA line is primarily 3ch I think - and I have seen some 4ch, and some 2ch, Infinities (available at PS vendor www.highperformancediamonds.com) are 2ch..

When you view the diamond in spotlighting all you will see is the coloured light outputs, but in diffuse lighting (offices, etc) you will see the stone's patterning very clearly as you move the stone as virtual facets turn "on" and "off" from [weaker, relatively] white light reflections and refractions and contrast from both obstruction and light escape through the pavilion - what we call "leakage".

Thanks Yssie! Your explanation is simple and clear enough for someone new to this like myself to understand. I'm having WF bring in the 0.85 IGS000 I initially posted so I should be getting the images either tomorrow or the next. They will do a side by side comparison with the 0.77 ACA. I will share all the info here when I get them. Thanks again!

 

[yssie]

np, looking forward to hearing what they have to say

 

[Valjean]

Hello again! So the images for that 0.85 I mentioned at the beginning of the post just came in. From my limited knowledge, the pictures look pretty good. I would love your opinions on it! Here they are:


Shape and Style: Square Modified Brilliant
Measurements: 5.16 x 5.15 x 3.85 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Light Performance: 0
Proportion Factors: 0
Finish: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Color Grade: AGS 1.0 (F)
Clarity Grade: AGS 3 (VS1)
Carat Weight: 0.850
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments: "AGSL 7889804" has been inscribed on the girdle of this diamond.
Table: 61.0%
Crown Angle: 38.8
Crown Height: 15.0%
Girdle: 1.4% to 2.3%
Pavilion Angle: 39.5
Pavilion Depth: 57.9%
Total Depth: 74.8%
Culet: Pointed

 

[D&T]

Hello again! So the images for that 0.85 I mentioned at the beginning of the post just came in. From my limited knowledge, the pictures look pretty good. I would love your opinions on it! Here they are:


Shape and Style: Square Modified Brilliant
Measurements: 5.16 x 5.15 x 3.85 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Light Performance: 0
Proportion Factors: 0
Finish: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Color Grade: AGS 1.0 (F)
Clarity Grade: AGS 3 (VS1)
Carat Weight: 0.850
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments: "AGSL 7889804" has been inscribed on the girdle of this diamond.
Table: 61.0%
Crown Angle: 38.8
Crown Height: 15.0%
Girdle: 1.4% to 2.3%
Pavilion Angle: 39.5
Pavilion Depth: 57.9%
Total Depth: 74.8%
Culet: Pointed

OOOOOHHHHH THats GORGEOUS!!!! totally would pick this over the G!!!!

NOW THAT's and ASET!!!

 

[Valjean]

Sarin

 

[Valjean]

Hello again! So the images for that 0.85 I mentioned at the beginning of the post just came in. From my limited knowledge, the pictures look pretty good. I would love your opinions on it! Here they are:


Shape and Style: Square Modified Brilliant
Measurements: 5.16 x 5.15 x 3.85 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Light Performance: 0
Proportion Factors: 0
Finish: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Color Grade: AGS 1.0 (F)
Clarity Grade: AGS 3 (VS1)
Carat Weight: 0.850
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments: "AGSL 7889804" has been inscribed on the girdle of this diamond.
Table: 61.0%
Crown Angle: 38.8
Crown Height: 15.0%
Girdle: 1.4% to 2.3%
Pavilion Angle: 39.5
Pavilion Depth: 57.9%
Total Depth: 74.8%
Culet: Pointed

OOOOOHHHHH THats GORGEOUS!!!! totally would pick this over the G!!!!

NOW THAT's and ASET!!!

Thanks! It's beautiful indeed. So good buy for $3600?

 

[D&T]

I think so, you got three things going or maybe even four. its a VS1 vs VS2, it is one color grade higher, and carat weight is larger spread might be a titch larger, and the ASET looks fantastic! I have a bit more green in my Stone and far more concentrated areas of blues- wished it was more spreadout like yours, and I think its an absolute stunner! this will surely blow you away imo. also I have the same ring size as your GF, but I ordered a size 4 since I like wide bands, so I think it will look stunning on her tiny finger. almost perfect square to boot as a PC should be imo

but if you do want a second opionion from the WF team, do ask still, I understand you may be hesitant, but they really are concerned with getting you the best diamond possible that will make you happy. I really believe that, and I buy from many vendors here.