Another diamond set for earrings

[eks6426]

Both diamonds are SI2 so that concerns me.

Diamond 1 .464
G
SI2--This beautiful eye-clean 0.464 G SI2 has a group of black crystals under the table, a small black crystal under a main facet and a pinpoint under an upper girdle facet.
Depth 62.3
Table 54
Measurements 4.94X5.00X3.1
Crown Angle 34.1
Pavillion Angle 40.9
P/S Idea
HCA 1l

Diamond 2 .464
G
SI2-This beautiful eye-clean 0.464 G SI2 has two feathers at the edge of the stone.
4.95X4.96X3.07
Depth 61.9
Table 57
Crown Angle 33.8
Pavillion Angle 41
P/S Ideal
HCA 1.4

Picture of diamond 1 attached. More to follow. I don't know how to post multiple pics in the same message.

Should I be concerned about the black crystals and feathers?

 

[eks6426]

Another diamond 1 picture

 

[eks6426]

Picture # 3 of diamond 1

 

[eks6426]

Picture # 3 of diamond 1

 

[eks6426]

Picture # 4 of diamond 1....

 

[eks6426]

Ok, here come pictures of diamond # 2. Sorry about so many posts...

 

[Kaleigh]

I would not be comfortable with black chrystals, but thats just me. I don't like diamond number one, I don't think it's a good SI2.

 

[eks6426]

Picture # 2 of diamond 2

 

[eks6426]

Picture # 3 of diamond 2

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Ditto. I know we''re not talking overly large rocks by Us standards... SI2 - i wouldnt be comfortable with - specially with the ones under the table... #2 a maybe.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/1/2005 1:23:13 PM
Author: Lord Summerisle
Ditto. I know we''re not talking overly large rocks by Us standards... SI2 - i wouldnt be comfortable with - specially with the ones under the table... #2 a maybe.

I hate to say it, but arbitrary cut-offs like this really close the door on many opportunities.

Not all SI2 stones are created equal. My 1.25 e-ring is an SI2 stone. In that case, ALL the inclusions are white.....and completely CANNOT be seen without magnification.

If I had been close-minded just because it said "si2" on paper, I''d have missed a GREAT opportunity. This allowed me to go from 1.0 to 1.25 ct with NO visual sacrifice.

The elements of a diamond are important, of course, but smart shoppers would do well to keep in mind that these designations are *arbitrary* and subjective. Those who are willing to keep an open mind can get GREAT buys that others pass by because they are fixated on the *label*.

Bottom line: Both vendors are very honest and candid about their stones. If either of them says "this is eyeclean", then it''s likely eyeclean, and as long as that''s true, you shouldn''t have reservations. Add in the fact that you can do a COMPLETE return for full refund if *your* eyes disagree with theirs, and it''s really hard to go wrong.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Oh apsolutely... but i would tread more carefully if i was looking at a SI2 - IE i would want to eyeball it myself to decide, rather than trust someone else - how ever reputable they may be - its a personal thing i guess.

the description of 1 - with its inclusion under the table - and the accompanying picture show it quite clearly, hence my reservations on that stone - im sure there is another stone out there that is better for the money - but probly still worth a look to decide. As i said - #2 seems ok on spec and pictures.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Sorry was only a little bit of gentle leg pulling over size... and i did say ''not overly large''

And i did say it would be my personal choice to want to see em first to make my own decision.

just the humble opinion of this mop

 

[aljdewey]

Believe me, LS.....we weren''t trashing your opinion at all.

You *did* say that it was your personal preference, and I read that loud and clear.

My reason for offering the devil''s advocate position: it''s tough to be a newbie, and it''s hard to take the information people give you in context. I''ve seen instances where *one* person says "Oh, I''d NEVER drop down to an I colored stone".... and all of the sudden, everyone''s deathly afraid of I-colored stones. (Of course, no one knows that the person who may have said it has only seen I-colored stones by a crappy lab or crappy cut stones and may never have seen an ideally cut stone graded by a reputable lab, so the comment doesn''t have context.) I''ve seen people say "I''d never go below a G", and then realize that their experience is in emerald cuts, which show color more readily than RB stones. Someone who may not go below a G in emerald cut may be totally fine with an I colored RB.

In this environment, it''s very easy for casual, preference comments to be interpreted as or morph into "rules of thumb" that are too broadly applied, and that may limit options.

In your case, I can see why you''d buy a bit more cautiously. You are not here in this country, so it''s not a "simple return" process for you and therefore not as practical to perhaps gamble on the eye-clean thing. Shipping back and forth can be quite expensive from the US to you in the UK.

I was gently trying to point out that there is no *one* right answer that fits everyone. What may not work for you in the UK may work just fine for Jane or John here in the U.S....and it''s helpful sometimes to remind Jane or John of that.

I''m also pretty passionate about it because I went through this myself, too. When I was buying, I wanted H, SI1....DEFINITIVELY. It''s SO easy to help with other people''s stones, but when it''s one''s self angsting over making the RIGHT CHOICE, it''s hard to be objective and sane about it.

When Brian Gavin suggested the stone we bought....the H, SI2.....I immediately said "eeeeeeehhhhhhh, I reeeeeeeally don''t want to go down to SI2." But the stone that AGS called an SI2, Brian thought was really more an SI1. The other stone I wanted.... the one that said SI1 on paper.....that stone was not as clean as the SI2 we bought! He felt the clarity grades on the stones should have been reversed.

If I hadn''t been willing to hear him out, I''d have missed a great opportunity. I got a stone that''s just as clean as many SI1 stones......for an SI2 price! Woo-hoo!
Now, if I''d been living in Australia at the time, it may not have been the right choice for me to take a gamble, but my circumstances at that time made it a good choice for me.

What I''m trying to say is, picking the right stone for one''s self is just as much about that person''s situation (geographic location, price range, color/clarity sensitivity, payment options, financing options, whether or not they give a hoot about "name" brands, etc.) as it is about the stone itself.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

group hug?

 

[Jennifer5973]

I agree that discounting that SI2 (#1) might be a mistake--at least look at it. I''ve seen an SI1 1.5 ct with crystals under the table and you can''t see them without a loupe--at least I coudn''t and it was 5 inches from my eyes in bright lights.

We all have different levels of color and clarity tolerances but this stone might be a great find, especially for earrings.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Hi,

The diamond Alijdewey posted looks better. I don't think the inclusion in the above diamond will be an issue once set into an earring, but personally, I'd probably hunt around for another stone.

I DO admit however that I'm a clarity snob

, but I ALSO admit that I do have one stone with an inclusion like the table one in the stone above and you CANNOT see it!