Jump to content

This Is It…ordering 1.3Ct/si1/h Online, But Which Of These Two Ags/gia?


austin_mck
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guys

 

I was originally in the market for a 1.54ct/SI2/H (as mentioned in an earlier post), but was disappointment when I noticed a bigger black inclusion than I thought. Plus, my gf shared her preference for a smaller, but clearer stone. I've decided to play it safe and go at least SI1. I'm deciding between two diamonds, one is GIA, the other is AGS (both ~1.3ct/SI1/H):

 

1) GIA from B2C - HCA score of 0.8 and, what appear to be, good ASET images (please see attached pictures). 

 

2) AGS from WhiteFlash - HCA score>3.5 and, what also appear to be great ASET images (Item AGS-104065987027 -- see WhiteFlash website).

 

If you had to order one, which would it be (comparing HCA and images, etc.)? Thanks SO much!

 

AM

 

post-133921-0-75891400-1389245951_thumb.jpgpost-133921-0-97413200-1389245931.jpgpost-133921-0-96479200-1389245963_thumb.jpgpost-133921-0-79287100-1389245984_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The B2C 1.30 is less symmetrical but quite a bit brighter.

The WF 1.31 probably has a touch more fire. It also seems the inclusions are less visible, but that's based on a single photo for both stones.

 

One interesting factor is the price: assuming they are the same... I'd be in a quandary. Given the recent emphasis on (some better) clarity, I'd probably stick with the WF. It's likely to be a safer bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input. BTW- I'm posting on this site as well as PS to get a variety of opinions. I keep posting here bc both you and Neil seem to provide a slightly different, but very valuable take as I make a huge purchase.

 

After much back and forth, I ended up going with the 1.3ct from B2C online…WF didn't sound too convincing re: this diamond. I am now waiting for the B2C one to arrive. In the meantime, a reputable, local vendor found me a AGS0 1.5ct (haven't seen it yet, but will later this week). The 1.5ct is $2k more and is SI2 (instead of SI1, which the 1.3 is). Based on the following information (see ASET images with caption below)...which would you go with (#1 or #2 and why? Is the difference worth $2,000? My biggest priority is light performance (and of course size and price play a role). Thank you for your input!!

 

post-133921-0-46277000-1389676787_thumb.jpg

 

The B2C 1.30 is less symmetrical but quite a bit brighter.
The WF 1.31 probably has a touch more fire. It also seems the inclusions are less visible, but that's based on a single photo for both stones.

One interesting factor is the price: assuming they are the same... I'd be in a quandary. Given the recent emphasis on (some better) clarity, I'd probably stick with the WF. It's likely to be a safer bet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ASET both look good; it's interesting that the GIA stone seems to have a little more outright contrast (blue) and a brighter centre, but that's subject to so many caveats (starting from the way in which the ASET images were taken...) that I wouldn't bet much on it.

 

It's a decision that is largely going to be based on your "value" for size and - possibly - clarity; without seeing the diamonds, there isn't much one can say. I don't think you'll see much difference on cut/light return, provided the two images are comparable.

 

Sorry, not much help sitting on the fence, am I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries! Thanks for your help. I just received the 1.3ct today in the mail (pic attached). I like it a lot, but want to make sure its light performance would be good even in lower light situations. I'm going to try to schedule some time to view the 1.51ct diamond tomorrow. In the meantime, thoughts on the attached pics (sorry about the poor quality phone pics)? First pic was taken under an office desk to simulate lower light conditions. Thanks!

 

post-133921-0-40892200-1389939946_thumb.jpgpost-133921-0-47064500-1389939959_thumb.jpg

 

The ASET both look good; it's interesting that the GIA stone seems to have a little more outright contrast (blue) and a brighter centre, but that's subject to so many caveats (starting from the way in which the ASET images were taken...) that I wouldn't bet much on it.

It's a decision that is largely going to be based on your "value" for size and - possibly - clarity; without seeing the diamonds, there isn't much one can say. I don't think you'll see much difference on cut/light return, provided the two images are comparable.

Sorry, not much help sitting on the fence, am I?

Edited by austin_mck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your eyes are the best tool - no amount of advice based on photos (even brilliantly taken, professional shots) is a good replacement. See if you can spot differences in size cut colour clarity with the stones next to each other and away from each other in different kind of lights: spots, direct sunlight, shade, fluorescent etc.

Good use of chopsticks, BTW!  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol…chop sticks did the trick!

 

So, I was able to check out the 1.51ct diamond at my local jeweler. I even took my mom to get her opinion (which she and I appreciated). The jeweler was so accommodating. I was able to compare them side-by-side. To my eyes, the 1.51ct had very slightly better light performance and the size difference was noticeable. My mom thought they both sparkled great and that the size difference was very hard to tell. I revisited the pictures and got even more confused. Geez this is not easy. Here's a pic…is it just me or is the stone on the right a little less reflective in the lower half? Or is it really just the angle? Noticeable light/size discrepancies? Man I'm obviously over thinking this! Thanks for the patience and guidance!

 

post-133921-0-33863400-1390030103_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the photo the stone on the left is brighter, but I believe it's an artefact of the photo (non-uniform lighting and angle differences). The size difference is clear with the two stones loose and right next to each other; I suspect once you set them and you take them apart it will be far less noticeable.

 

How about eye-cleanness? Are both OK for you?

 

If so, it really comes down to the price. What would you do with the $2k if you didn't spend them on the ring? Saving them for a house purchase or a rainy day is a perfectly valid reason - I'm not suggesting you must spend them on something.

 

Or, seen from the other side, and since you seem to prefer the 1.51, will you regret not spending them on it and would you feel you have a "lesser" stone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Just wanted to give a quick update. So, I took all of your points into consideration and, after some last minute negotiation, I got the 1.5ct at a low enough price that the price difference no longer bothered me (became a $1,600 price difference) as I wanted to give my girl the best possible stone.  

 

BUT, I don't think the saying about "you'll know when you find it" holds true for me. I literally had both stones side-by-side and at times the 1.3ct looked better than the 1.5ct, while at other times the opposite held true…I looked at them until I was feeling cross-eyed. Something I noticed was that the 1.5ct seems to reflect more light, while the 1.3ct had less, but the "beams" of light were wider, if that makes sense.  

 

Regardless, I decided to rely on the AGSL 0 cut designation (which is something that really caters to my "scientific" nature/perspective) and went with the 1.5ct.  Attaching the cert for reference. The stone looks eye clean to me, but I suspect (and sort of fear) a trained eye could spot the white inclusions (mostly twinning wisps)….I mean it's a SI2 (AGS 7)…but who knows. I figure I'll take a look at it when it's set and then work with the jeweler to exchange it if my gf sees issues with it. I suspect there's not much more to advise on at this point, but any additional wisdom would be appreciated.  Thanks and have a great evening!

post-133921-0-90043300-1390456136_thumb.jpg

 

AM

Edited by austin_mck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...