Would love help deciding between 2 stones

[RingRingRingRingRing]

Hi! Trying to decide between 2 stones for the center of the 5 stone ring I’m working on. Both are F, SI1s.

I like both in pictures/videos but don’t know much about inclusions or light return images so I’m posting them here to get your thoughts on which of these to go with.

Thank you!

option A:
(Does say “additional twinning wisps and surface graining not shown” on the report for this one.)



Option B:
(No additional notes on the report for this one.)

 

[Mlh]

#2 looks better to me. Higher crown. Smaller table.

 

[DejaWiz]

#2 looks better to me. Higher crown. Smaller table.

Same for me, for these same reasons. Plus, I prefer 75-76% lowers.

 

[Tourmaline]

Need to see actual diamond pictures.

 

[Diamond_Enthusiast]

Would be good see pictures.

Just based on what you provided, I would prefer #2 because I don't like the inclusions in #1. It is an SI1 with only twinning wisp as inclusions and more that aren't shown. This makes me think it is full of twinning wisp and I would be worried about transparency.

 

[mwilliamanderson]

I prefer the 2nd on paper. Largely due to table facet reflection being smaller and no inclusions under the table. I assume they are ACA's based on their images and either will be amazing.

 

[RingRingRingRingRing]

thank you all! And good point re pictures— here they are. Let me know if it’s better to link to videos from the website… yes, they are both ACAs.

A:



B:

 

[Diamond_Enthusiast]

The picture confirms my preference - I vote for B.

 

[DejaWiz]

The picture confirms my preference - I vote for B.

Same for me! B-eautiful

 

[RingRingRingRingRing]

Thank you! I was leaning to B too but feel much more confident with others saying that is the way to go.

 

[Tourmaline]

Second one!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Thank you! I was leaning to B too but feel much more confident with others saying that is the way to go.

#2 , b/c I'd prefer a 15% or above crown height...that just me.

 

[Double E]

#2 , b/c I'd prefer a 15% or above crown height...that just me.

2nd one also due to first, proportions, though it could be hard to differentiate the optical difference when looking at it in person~ Second is my personal preference only, higher crown, it makes the build of the stone more “3 dimensional”, especially when viewing from the profile, more likely the table of the stone is still / obviously higher than the prongs when set which is more pleasing to me. Definitely these are from Whiteflash, and we don’t need to worry it’ll be like a reverse triangle from the side, as a really flat and bad example, just if I am to choose one~

 

[Double E]

Interestingly I was not sure about the clarity of the 2nd stone when you first posted (I don't have any doubt now, so don't bother to second guess^^). The reason is the inclusion plot looks too clean for a SI1, and without any additional note. However, it shouldn't be an issue for a stone from Whiteflash who vetted their stones. Who knows, may be it could get VS2 if sent to lab the 2nd time~

 

[mwilliamanderson]

B is for Beautiful!