Image Opinion

[dneal12]

I found a diamond that is at a great price for the specs I have been looking for. The vendor doesn't have IS or any other imaging available except this one image which isn't the best looking. It isn't a lot to go off of but I will list the specs that I do know and post the pic and see if I can get any opinions. This diamond is $400 cheaper than anything comparable I've seen over the last 2 months (which excites me as a deal but gives me concern as to why...)

Carat: 0.83 (6.16mm diameter)
Color: I
Clarity: SI1 (eye-clean)
Cut: Excellent (HCA: 0.
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Medium



So what do you think?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There is not enough visual info to make a decision to consider it. But the huge inclusion right in the center is a good reason to eliminate it. I would hope any vendor could do a better picture than that, although it is effective in showing the location of the inclusion. I'd keep looking.

 

[dneal12]

Even though two different vendors assured me that it was eye-clean? The color also concerns me but that could just be the lighting? Unfortunately a lot of the diamonds I am finding don't offer any more imaging until I put down a deposit.... :/

 

[dneal12]

Oh and my original post was supposed to be HCA: 0.8

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There are so many vendors who offer pictures and many of them also offer idealscope images, so I would just not take a chance on a diamond like that unless they supplied me with better pictures and possibly an idealscope image.

Do you know what the inclusion is in that picture?

 

[dneal12]

The only clarity characteristic listed on the report is a feather.

 

[dneal12]

Just for future reference when looking at a picture with an inclusion such as the one above, even if eye-clean, I should keep looking? (I know that not all eye-clean definitions are equal) Just so I can get a better idea how to judge SI1's.

 

[dneal12]

,

 

[tyty333]

What is your budget? Have you checked b2c or james allen?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I just think a SI feather right under the table would be an automatic elimination factor. I think it is impossible to buy an SI diamond without very good images and preferably video. Some are so much better than others. I can handle certain well placed inclusions in SI stones, but black carbon specs and one primary feather under the table are not acceptable to me. James Allen has good videos but you have to narrow down your options to 3 stones and then request idealscope images. Enchanted Diamonds offers video on some of their stones.

 

[dneal12]

b2c is where I found this diamond. Enchanted and b2c are the two primary places that I have been looking as they both have the best selection for my parameters. In this thread I am just trying to get an idea of how to judge an SI1 stone for what is or isn't acceptable. For me, if I can see an inclusion with the naked eye, it would be a deal breaker to me. Here is picture of another potential stone. It has a smaller inclusion and it is a crystal rather than a feather, it is smaller and less noticeable it seems, however it is on the table which worries me. Maybe you could give me your opinion on whether this should be eliminated. For now, this is the only image that I have. I was told that the supplier doesn't have the tech to provide an ASET or IS image....



Carat: 0.85 (6.17mm diameter)
Color: I
Clarity: SI1 (eye-clean)
Cut: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Medium

 

[dneal12]

Oh and to answer the question of my parameters and budget:

Minimums:
Carat: 0.80 (6.10mm diameter)
Color: I
Clarity: SI1 (eye-clean)
Cut: Excellent
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Medium or less
I would like to be around $2750

 

[JulieN]

You can't judge eye-cleanliness on photos. Call the vendor and ask if it is eye-clean.

 

[dneal12]

The vendors assured me that both of these diamonds are eye-clean. However, diamondseeker2006 had said that despite that fact, the inclusion on the first diamond would warrant me passing on it. So I was just trying to get a better indication on what warrants a pass and what would be a more acceptable SI1. My standard at the current moment are such that all VS2 are acceptable and SI1s should be a case by case basis. Is eye-clean a good enough standard for SI1, after what diamondseeker2006 says about the first diamond, I am not sure. But I am curious to hear more opinions on both of these diamonds as well as diamondseeker2006's opinion on this second diamond.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

All I am saying is that when there are SI stones that have inclusions on the sides rather than right under the table, it seems to be a better choice as long as they are totally eyeclean. Having a feather (crack) right at the center of a stone possibly reaching the surface is just something I would personally eliminate whether it is eyeclean or not. I'd rather go to a smaller stone, personally. But there are other people who just don't care about inclusions and maybe it wouldn't bother them. I think there are better choices, but this is my personal opinion.

I will see if I see anything that has decent pictures.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Here...gorgeous stone...ask for idealscope image if you can get it, but the numbers are excellent and the stone is clean!

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/Round/GIA-Certified-0,81-Carat-I-Color-VS2-Clarity-Diamond-Q43TRK

 

[dneal12]

That stone does look gorgeous. It is about 0.2 mm smaller than the two I posted though, but it does help me in terms of what is out there. I was wondering what your opinion was of the second stone's picture with the small crystal inclusion in the table, still too much?

 

[JulieN]

can you post the proportions of both stones?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The 2nd inclusion is smaller. I would also like to see the measurements on the stone. The I VS2 has such good numbers. I did look at several SI1s and did not see any that I liked as well.

 

[dneal12]

The second is inclusion is smaller, but I'm still unsure as whether it is passable or not.

Stone 1:
Depth: 59.6%
Table: 58%
Crown: 35.0
Pavilion: 40.6

Stone 2:
Depth: 59.5%
Table: 61%
Crown: 32.5
Pavilion: 41.2

And a third option as well: https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R83-GZE98N

 

[JulieN]

I'm not very interested in #2.

 

[dneal12]

Which parts make you uninterested in #2 if you don't mind me asking?

 

[JulieN]

From the picture: steep pavilion angle, arrows going white, brown splotches on the girdle.

 

[tyty333]

From the picture: steep pavilion angle, arrows going white, brown splotches on the girdle.

Looks like lots of leakage under the table On 2.

That one diamond seeker pick is really nice.

 

[enbcfsobe]

IMHO .2 mm is going to be less likely to be visible to a casual observer than a feather under the table. That would be my approach if buying sight unseen.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ditto...do not care for #2 for several reasons including the cut..I wouldn't consider 32.5 crown angle, etc.

The last ED stone link is a possibility. I looked at it when I was looking but did not feel that it was as nice a stone as the one I already posted.

 

[dneal12]

I know that the difference between 5.95 and 5.15 mm probably isn't noticeable but eventually you run into the allais paradox. Which is to say that 6.35 isn't noticeably different from a 6.15 which isn't noticeably different from a 5.95, however a 5.95 is noticeably different from a 6.35. So there is a difference in that a 6.15 is not that different from 6.35 while a 5.95 is.

I'm not sure if any of that made sense but it is my logic in wanting the larger (albeit slightly) face-up value of diamond #3.