What do you think of this RB?

[Kalliope]

Great, they weren't able to find any photo of the 4 diamonds I asked for. So they provided 1 photo out of 8 diamonds overall .

Maybe it is because I'm working with the UK site? I'm disappointed, but given that the diamond above had great numbers but seems to be a bad one, there's no way I'd buy without a pic. I guess I'll have to look in their signature ideal inventory and sacrifice those 0.22mm.

 

[Kalliope]

Update:

A very nice BN employee based in the EU office offered me to provide images of 3 diamonds! So now I have to choose and hope you'll help me (all confirmed eyeclean):

1.
H SI1
GIA 3x excellent
Depth: 61.7%
Table: 55%
Girdle: medium-slightly thick
Crown Angle: 35°
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Height: 43%
Fluor: none
Inclusions: twinning wisp

HCA: 1,5
AGA/NAJA: 1A

2.
I VS1
GIA cut+symm: excellent, polish: very good
Depth: 62.2%
Table: 56%
Girdle: medium-slightly thick
Crown Angle: 34.5°
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Crown Height: 15%
Pavilion Height: 43%
Fluor: none
Inclusions: crystal, needle, pinpoint

HCA: 1,3
AGA/NAJA: 1A (all categories)

3. (little over budget)
H SI1
GIA 3x excellent
Depth: 61.6%
Table: 56%
Girdle: thin-medium
Crown Angle: 34.5°
Pavilion Angle: 40.6°
Crown Height: 16%
Pavilion Height: 42.5%
Fluor: none
Inclusions: knot, cloud

HCA: 0,9
AGA/NAJA: 1A

4.
I VS2
GIA 3x excellent
Depth: 62.3%
Table: 56%
Girdle: medium-slightly thick
Crown Angle: 35°
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Height: 43%
Fluor: none
Inclusions: twinning wisp, crystal

HCA: 1,6
AGA/NAJA: 1A

5.
G SI1
GIA 3x excellent
Depth: 61.4%
Table: 56%
Girdle: medium-slightly thick
Crown Angle: 34.5°
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Height: 43%
Fluor: medium blue
Inclusions: twinning wisp, crystal

HCA: 0,5
AGA/NAJA: 1A (all categories)

6.
H SI1
GIA 3x excellent
Depth: 61.7%
Table: 55%
Girdle: medium
Crown Angle: 35°
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Height: 43%
Fluor: none
Inclusions: twinning wisp

HCA: 1,5
AGA/NAJA: 1A

PLEASE help me to choose 3 of those to ask for pictures. I'm a little worried about the medium fluorescence in nr. 5; nr.1 and nr. 3 do have the biggest diameter. We're talking about a carat range < 3/4ct if this matters (regarding color or clarity).

 

[TitanCi]

A lot of those have similar numbers. Personally, since there are a lot of great depths, I would skip the ones above 62. Just cuz you have some in the 61-ish range. But then I guess it comes to where the inclusions are.

All seem promising. Good luck

 

[Diamondbug]

2,3 and 5 because of the very safe CA and PA combo and lets keep our fingers crossed it comes back good. Medium blue should be fine but have them confirm it. Post photos when you get them

 

[Dancing Fire]

Going by the #s I'll pick #1 or #6

 

[Kalliope]

Thanks for your help!

#1 (my favourite regarding diameter) has been put on hold by a fellow pricescoper and #3, which was already over budget, went up in price. So I guess I should choose asap and not wait until another one is gone?

 

[Kalliope]

Yay, the three diamonds I chose (#2, #4, #6) have been put on hold and I'll get the pictures within the next 72hours. I'm excited .

 

[yssie]

Kalliope - if fluor (or absence of fluor) is important to you please be sure to have your rep check the stone in-person!! GIA fluor assignments can be unreliable, so if it's something that particularly matters to you definitely have whatever's noted on the report confirmed by someone you trust.

 

[Kalliope]

I am so disappointed, one of the diamonds that was put on hold for me is "not available" and the other one, which was confirmed as eyeclean turned out not to be! It's this one:

#6

And the last one I requested was the one I already got the picture of (my bad, I messed up the stock #).

So I guess I have to start again with my search - or I'll just go with the BN signature ideal...

Anyway, thanks for your help !

 

[Diamondbug]

OH Sorry about that my dear but no worries. Don't give up. The journey and the hunt is the fun part. I am actually sad that my hunt is over so I go diamond hunting through others Come back with more stones that we can scrutinise together

 

[Kalliope]

Thanks diamondbug, that's nice of you!

Unfortunately DBF doesn't see the fun part (and would rather purchase the ring himself without me knowing anything about the stone or the setting ) and wants to buy from a local jeweler or a pawn shop (which I'd be perfectly fine with if we'd find a great stone!).

I also don't know if Bluenile will let me ask for additional photos .

 

[Kalliope]

That was diamond #6 (just realized that the link is not working).

 

[Diamondbug]

Hi Kalliope, that is not a good photo at all and leaves much to be desired.

When I was on my search I spoke to Tia Walker. She is based in Ireland and is super awesome to work with. Maybe you can ask for her when you call to ask for photos. She was very helpful when I was second guessing my stone after the purchase and requested for additional photos for other stones (after the purchase) and she even extended the exchange time incase I found one cheaper ( BN kept sending me email alerts about dropping prices on stones that I was looking at ) or liked better.....which I did not!! But she was very prompt forwarding photos and confirming eye clean of stones I was interested in. I highly recommend asking for her.

 

[Kalliope]

When I was on my search I spoke to Tia Walker. She is based in Ireland and is super awesome to work with.Maybe you can ask for her when you call to ask for photos.

It's so nice to hear that you had a great experience with your rep!

As English is not my first language I am hesitant when it comes to calling and would rather communicate via email. I've found 3 more diamonds that look good according to the numbers, maybe the rep I had been writing to will try to get pics of them...

 

[Kalliope]

Got pictures of 2 diamonds- what do you think?

I VS2
Cut excellent
Polish very good
Symmetry excellent
Depth: 61.4%
Table: 55%
Crown Angle 34°
Crown Height 15%
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Pavilion Depth 43%
Girdle thin-medium
Fluorescence none
HCA 1,0
AGA 1A

#1

I VS2
GIA 3x excellent
Depth: 61.5%
Table: 56%
Crown Angle 35°
Crown Height 15.5%
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Pavilion Depth 43%
Girdle medium
Fluorescence Faint
HCA 15
AGA 1A
Inclusions: Crystal, Knot, Cavity

#2

 

[yssie]

Can you post the report number for #6 (the one with the image you were disappointed in)?
I want to find this info:
LGF%
Inclusions list (I see the grade-making wisps, but I also see crystals, and those should be listed on the report)

Gut reaction... table listed at 55% looks bigger in that pic than I would expect to see (but table reflection size looks appropriate for table size/pav depth), and there are inclusions not listed in your writeup. I am wondering if the stone photographed is not the stone described in #6.

 

[Kalliope]

Can you post the report number for #6 (the one with the image you were disappointed in)?

Sure- it's GIA 7188446769.

Gut reaction... table listed at 55% looks bigger in that pic than I would expect to see (but table reflection size looks appropriate for table size/pav depth), and there are inclusions not listed in your writeup. I am wondering if the stone photographed is not the stone described in #6.

I double checked, they sent me this picture with the diamond stock number as file name. But then again, it would explain why it was first described as eyeclean and then they said it was not .

 

[yssie]

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?reportno=7188446769&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&pagename=GIA%2FDispatcher&c=Page&cid=1355954554547

Okay, LGF looks reasonable.


Re. "eyeclean" - unfortunately different vendors and manufacturers use different definitions of the term, so what they consider clean might not meet your requirements. In this case - given the size of the stone and the picture they sent - the main inclusions at the girdle at 12o'clock, 6o'clock, and 9o'clock should be prongable w/ 4 or 8 prongs (or at the very least the prongs will completely distract from the inclusions)

... I'm still not confident that's the right picture - the lack of additional commentary on the report re. inclusions is perplexing, and the table pictured still seems awfully large. Could you have them double-check that they photographed the correct stone? It should have a girdle inscription that matches the report.

 

[Diamondbug]

The link is not working for me. It says internal server error

 

[Kalliope]

I'll add the photos from above and am going to rename those diamonds since they are not #1 and #2 from my first inquiry.

#7
I VS2
Cut excellent
Polish very good
Symmetry excellent
Depth: 61.4%
Table: 55%
Crown Angle 34°
Crown Height 15%
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Pavilion Depth 43%
Girdle thin-medium
Fluorescence none
Inclusions: Feather, Crystal
HCA 1,0
AGA 1A



#8
I VS2
GIA 3x excellent
Depth: 61.5%
Table: 56%
Crown Angle 35°
Crown Height 15.5%
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Pavilion Depth 43%
Girdle medium
Fluorescence Faint
HCA 1,5
AGA 1A
Inclusions: Crystal, Knot, Cavity

Re. "eyeclean" - unfortunately different vendors and manufacturers use different definitions of the term, so what they consider clean might not meet your requirements. In this case - given the size of the stone and the picture they sent - the main inclusions at the girdle at 12o'clock, 6o'clock, and 9o'clock should be prongable w/ 4 or 8 prongs (or at the very least the prongs will completely distract from the inclusions)

Since I want an eyeclean stone I don't think I'd go for this one even if the inclusions are prongable .

I'm still not confident that's the right picture - the lack of additional commentary on the report re. inclusions is perplexing, and the table pictured still seems awfully large. Could you have them double-check that they photographed the correct stone? It should have a girdle inscription that matches the report.

I already told them I wasn't interested in that stone so I don't know if they'd double-check for me.

 

[Diamondbug]

I like #7 but holly molly, someone needs to tell these people to clean the stone before taking photos coz that is one dirty diamond.

I can't say much about #8 because that is horrible photo taken at an awkward angle.... do these people even want to sell their diamond? .... sigh.

So I guess I will go with #7. Greats numbers with a beautiful photo (albeit a dirty one ).

 

[yssie]

So I guess I will go with #7.

Yes, this is me, too.
Dirty diamond and terrible photo but nothing jumps out at me, and the numbers fill in the blanks to a large extent.
So... with the info we've got... #7 it is.

 

[Kalliope]

Thanks for your responses!

Number 7 does have great numbers plus 1A (all categories) on the AGA/NAJA, so I guess it WILL be a sparkly stone, right (I know you can't say for sure without an idealscope)?

I'm still awaiting 2 more photos, one of a larger stone which has just become available again. And I have to say I'm still tempted to go with a signature ideal I found since the diameter difference between Nr.7/8 and the signature is just 0.1mm.

 

[Kalliope]

New picture of #1 (H SI1), what do you think?

 

[Kalliope]

*bump