Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image included)

[rladntjr96]

I am searching for a 2.00 carat diamond... can you guys give me some feedback on this diamond please ?
They are saying it is eye-clean...

**SCORES 1.1 ON HCA**

Carat Weight:2.06
Cut:Excellent
Color:G
Clarity:SI1
Depth:60.70
Table:59.00
CROWN ANGLE : 34
PAVILLION ANGLE: 40.6

Polish:Excellent
Symmetry:Excellent
Girdle:STK Culet:None
Fluorescence:Medium
Ratio:0.00
Measurements:8.14x8.19x4.96

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

The clarity looks a little scary. Can you post the inclusion plot or give us a link to the GIA report? The diamond looks good from the IS image if you like those proportions.

 

[rladntjr96]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pag...&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=3205675526

This is it... is this proportion bad for the ring diamond ??

 

[gr8leo87]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

Since you haven't mentioned a supplier:

I can tell you with great authority that those proportions are not bad at all. It also has a very good crown height (uncommon for a 60 depth 60 table stone) . The stone does not have a deep pavillion, pav depth > 43.5%( a common feature of 60/60 stones).

It also has a lower girdle facet at 75s. Would be 77ish (reported as 75 because of GIA rounding). And looking at the picture it does appear to have superior symmetry and you will likely get symmetrical bold flashes under light.

Only needs to make sure the fluorescence doesn't have a negative impact.

The stone's inclusion pattern is spreaded with clouds and twining wisps. It can be eye clean. You gotta view it your self to be able to judge that.

 

[babydoll_mini]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

ah ah ah ah ah, i have a diamond that has very very similar idealscope image, and I have a boiling question about it - Doesn't it look like slight light leakage under the table? I thought leakage only happens to stone with steeper pavilion angle (e.g > 40.9), but not to shallower stones (mine is 40.6 PA as well, pairing with 35 CA)? Maybe I'm reading the IS wrong? Expert, please educate me... thank you!!

 

[rokim99]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

The supplier is b2cjewels.. so when they say it is eye clean it is not always true ? They said it was inspected by gemologist to be eye clean.. what do yo u guys think from looking at the picture ?

 

[telephone89]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

The supplier is b2cjewels.. so when they say it is eye clean it is not always true ? They said it was inspected by gemologist to be eye clean.. what do yo u guys think from looking at the picture ?

Anything can be eye clean - if you look at it far enough away lol. You might want to ask from what distance they say it's eye clean. Some test at 6", others base it off 10-12".

 

[babydoll_mini]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

I'm bumping this thread up, could some expert help to explain why we are seeing slight leakage under table when the pavilion angle is actually shallow rather than steep? Thank you!

 

[rladntjr96]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

babydoll mini , i did some research to figure out why , and it seems like light leakage only occurs when it is completely "white".. the area on the table is pinkish red , meaning that there is light return... Does your diamond have good sparkle ?

 

[babydoll_mini]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

yes, mine has good sparkle. But afaik, the pinkish is considered "partial leakage", not as bad as 100% leakage, human eye may not be able to tell either. But doesn't look as perfect under inspect scopes, I'm just being technical...

 

[solgen]

Re: Some feedback on this diamond plz (IS+actual image inclu

yes, mine has good sparkle. But afaik, the pinkish is considered "partial leakage", not as bad as 100% leakage, human eye may not be able to tell either. But doesn't look as perfect under inspect scopes, I'm just being technical...

It could just be a result of the photography techniques used as well. I've read some older threads here discussing how to take consistent pics. I think it was denverappraiser who posted examples of how slight changes in position or even aperture could affect images.