shape
carat
color
clarity

First time buyer looking for advice on round 1.5c rock

racer22

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
7
I have been lurking this forum for a while, and am giving in to my temptation to post about my current dilemma. Thanks in advance for your feedback, I've seen may incredibly helpful responses.

I'm in the market to get setup with a round diamond, preferably around 1.5 carat, that I'm going to have set in a 6 prong solitaire (having custom made via family referral jeweler). My dilimma has been in choosing the right diamond to go with. I've seen a lot over the last few weeks and have determined that I am trying to ensure I get a Excellent cut and at least H color. My dilemma has come in when considering the clarity across many stones I have seen. I've been told by some to try to at least go with SI1 (only looking at GIA stones btw), and others that I would be fine with SI2.

One stone I am considering is an SI2 stone, which looks great to me, but I'm not an expert. The GIA report is: 1169868258. http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pag...&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=1169868258 I'm being quoted 10.3K for the stone, but I'm wondering if this is too much. I've been browsing many online diamond sources where I can exceed the specs of the stone I'm looking for and beat the price, but am not sure if there's a catch to those that are not obvious.

I am considering my next steps in determining if this stone is a good purchase. What do you think? I may look to bring it to a gemologist for pre-buy evaluation, but would like to avoid the $100 to have that done if possible.
 

tmot14

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
142
I am new to all of this, so take my advice with a grain of salt. I doubt that stone would be eyeclean as an SI2, and would wonder if the "additional clouds not shown" would affect its performance. I'm sure others with more knowledge will weigh in though. Good luck with your search!
 

racer22

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
7
What is throwing me off is that to me it looks "eye clean" to me and I cannot see the inclusions without a loop (but I am a novice). I've looked at the stone several times and can see some inclusions with a loop, but none seem to jump out significantly. So I'm hoping that this is a "good SI2", but I am still wishing it was a SI1 for piece of mind.

I might go look at the stone again this afternoon and have thought about trying to see it under different lighting conditions. So far I have only looked at it under office type fluorescent lights and under some track lighting conditions. This has made it especially tricky to compare what I think of stones when looking at them at different places under different lighting conditions.
 

tmot14

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
142
It does look pretty clean under the table according to the GIA plot, so you may be right! If the inclusions from the side don't bother you and/or you could hide it with setting, it may be a great find. Definitely a good idea to look at it under other lighting conditions.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
Racer,
It may or may not be a good buy. As you mention, it is a very good idea to take it to an independent gemologist for evaluation before you are locked in.

The S12 category is broad. Inclusions at this level can affect transparency. This report does not have red flags for that problem but it is still worth looking carefully at from that perspective. To do this it would be extremely helpful if you can compare it to a diamond of very similar size, color and cut grade with VS or better plus clarity. You will be able to see with your untrained eye if there is a significant drop off in performance.

If you take it to an expert he will likewise be able to tell you if there is a deficit in this area. And he will be able to tell you if there is any durability concern regarding the feather which is the main grade setting inclusion (listed first under the plot).

Good luck!
 

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
racer22|1418673297|3801649 said:
What is throwing me off is that to me it looks "eye clean" to me and I cannot see the inclusions without a loop (but I am a novice). I've looked at the stone several times and can see some inclusions with a loop, but none seem to jump out significantly. So I'm hoping that this is a "good SI2", but I am still wishing it was a SI1 for piece of mind.

I might go look at the stone again this afternoon and have thought about trying to see it under different lighting conditions. So far I have only looked at it under office type fluorescent lights and under some track lighting conditions. This has made it especially tricky to compare what I think of stones when looking at them at different places under different lighting conditions.

What you can see with your eye is the proof of the pudding. Some here claim that SI2 are always eye visible, but that is not true. Especially if you look at a diamond as a gemologist looks at it, from the top. Some here like to look at all angles and decry any that shows a blemish from any angle with the unaided eye. They are welcome to do so, they simply are not using the GIA grading system when they do. I can tell you this, there is a HUGE price savings when dropping down to an SI2 if there are no disturbing inclusions that you can see with the naked eye.

None of us here can answer your question about the SI2 without actually seeing the diamond ourselves. I have sold many that were completely eye clean in the SI2 category, but I have also sold many that were with eye visible inclusions under very close scrutiny.

My issue with this diamond is the 62.3% depth which is a little deeper than I personally like, and also the very good symmetry, which means that the virtual facets will likely be less defined than they would be with an excellent symmetry and will thus likely be smaller and producing smaller flashes of light than an extremely precisely cut diamond would be. The smaller flashes of light lead to less visible dispersion as well.

This diamond should still be beautiful, with a predicted AGS grade of 1 using the Diamcalc software. However, careful research should quite likely find you a stone that is a potential AGS 0 light performance grade, which should yield a diamond that is even more beautiful than the one that you are asking about.

You will want to see the stone side by side with the one you are looking at if possible, as that will tell you what YOUR eyes see and like.

Wink
 

racer22

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
7
Texas, thanks for the feedback. I am setting up an appointment with a gemologist for tomorrow to look at the diamond. In my reading about feathers I was concerned about the inclusions noted on the report, so I will be sure to ask and follow-up on it regarding durability concerns.

As far as looking at it side-by-side with a similar sized SI1 or above stone, I haven't been able to do that for this specific stone unfortunately. There is another stone I am interested in that has led me to this dilemma, because the other stone (at another vendor) is a G color, 1.5C, but is TripleX, and SI1, however has medium blue fluorescence. I haven't been able to look at them side-by-side however, so I only go off memory when I look at each separately.

Are there any other questions or metrics that I should be looking at from the gemologist to validate if this is in fact a "good SI2"?
 

racer22

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
7
Wink,

Thanks for the feedback. Your bolded comment validated my predicament further about SI1 to SI2 in pricing. I have been looking at another stone at a different vendor that is nearly the same as the stone in questions, but its SI1 and Excellent all around in cut/polish/symmetry. I've been quoted 11.8K on that stone, so its a fairly substantial jump in price that I am contemplating. From memory, I do recall that stone being especially striking, but it was also under clearer lighting conditions held closely under a fluorescent lamp.

Your remark about the symmetry is good information for me to know, since I wasn't aware of that effect on the sparkle of the stone.

I will read more into the AGS score to learn about what that means in more detail. Would the AGS score be something a gemologist review should be able to yield for me? Are there some specific questions or stats that I could look/ask for when I meet with one?
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
racer22|1418681632|3801721 said:
Texas, thanks for the feedback. I am setting up an appointment with a gemologist for tomorrow to look at the diamond. In my reading about feathers I was concerned about the inclusions noted on the report, so I will be sure to ask and follow-up on it regarding durability concerns.

As far as looking at it side-by-side with a similar sized SI1 or above stone, I haven't been able to do that for this specific stone unfortunately. There is another stone I am interested in that has led me to this dilemma, because the other stone (at another vendor) is a G color, 1.5C, but is TripleX, and SI1, however has medium blue fluorescence. I haven't been able to look at them side-by-side however, so I only go off memory when I look at each separately.

Are there any other questions or metrics that I should be looking at from the gemologist to validate if this is in fact a "good SI2"?
Racer, if you can post the cert for the Si1 (or just the cert number) you might get more feedback. I wouldn't worry about the medium blue in terms of transparency or performance.

As Wink says, the symmetry downgrade is something those of us here get concerned about. Precision faceting definitely has an impact on light performance. Small deviations are not something you will likely notice, but the diamond simply won't give you everything it has the potential to give you. Ever.

That is why cut quality is the last thing that we want to compromise around here. However, as I mentioned, clarity features in the lower range have the potential to undermine performance even more than small deviations in faceting precision. Even Si1 stones have to be vetted for transparency issues as even "eye clean" stones can have inclusions that diminish crispness.
 

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
racer22|1418681949|3801725 said:
Wink,

Thanks for the feedback. Your bolded comment validated my predicament further about SI1 to SI2 in pricing. I have been looking at another stone at a different vendor that is nearly the same as the stone in questions, but its SI1 and Excellent all around in cut/polish/symmetry. I've been quoted 11.8K on that stone, so its a fairly substantial jump in price that I am contemplating. From memory, I do recall that stone being especially striking, but it was also under clearer lighting conditions held closely under a fluorescent lamp.

Your remark about the symmetry is good information for me to know, since I wasn't aware of that effect on the sparkle of the stone.

I will read more into the AGS score to learn about what that means in more detail. Would the AGS score be something a gemologist review should be able to yield for me? Are there some specific questions or stats that I could look/ask for when I meet with one?

The AGS cut grading system is much stricter than the GIA cut grading system and excludes many of the GIA XXX diamonds from its Ideal category (AGS 0 cut grade) and relegates them to AGS 1 or lower. It is possible to get as low as AGS 5 before getting a GIA Very Good rating, which is pretty disturbing to those of us who are cut crazy.

There is a boat load of information about the two grading systems here on Pricescope, it will take you at least an hour to begin to comprehend some of the complexities that have been addressed here.

As daunting as this might sound, it will end up with you getting both a more beautiful diamond, and a better value for your hard earned dollars.

Wink

P.S. Just seeing Texas Leager's excellent post. He is one of the people here that you will learn much from. Also look for posts from Paul Slegers (Paul Antwerp) and John Pollard. John is a former teacher at the college level in music, and is now one of the most well respected gemologists that I know. He has an incredibly gifted way of making complex concepts seem simple to grasp.
 

racer22

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
7
The responses have been helpful. I have an appointment with a Gemologist today to look at the diamond and provide some more insight. I'm going to follow up on questions based on feedback I got on here and get a better sense of my comfort with the stone.

Unfortunately, the other SI1 stone with similar color characteristics, but a better cut quality is no longer available and has sold.

This leads me to my other predicament... Having 2 very good referral sources that I am working with and being unsure which path to take. Both paths can build a custom ring that I am looking for, one is more "old school" jeweler, and the other is a little more modern (does CAD drawings, more hands on, etc.), and I can't decide which path is right for me.

I'll follow-up with what I learn after the gemologist meeting.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
racer22|1418825889|3802921 said:
The responses have been helpful. I have an appointment with a Gemologist today to look at the diamond and provide some more insight. I'm going to follow up on questions based on feedback I got on here and get a better sense of my comfort with the stone.

Unfortunately, the other SI1 stone with similar color characteristics, but a better cut quality is no longer available and has sold.

This leads me to my other predicament... Having 2 very good referral sources that I am working with and being unsure which path to take. Both paths can build a custom ring that I am looking for, one is more "old school" jeweler, and the other is a little more modern (does CAD drawings, more hands on, etc.), and I can't decide which path is right for me.

I'll follow-up with what I learn after the gemologist meeting.
Nothing wrong with an old school jeweler. A seasoned professional craftsman is a better bet than a newbie with a fancy computer and some wiz-bang software. For some designs CAD is the only way to go. For others it is not necessary or even useful. I would seek out reviews on both jewelers and look at samples of their work to make my decision.

One big advantage of CAD is the ability to view renderings (photorealistic digital images) and make tweaks to the design before going to production. This is especially helpful on more complex designs, and especially if it is a pure custom creation and there is not a sample or good picture of a previously crafted piece available for review.
 

mrg1

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
11
I've got a 1.50 G SI2 RB and it's gorgeous. I think it's graded as your report shows, but the only flaw is a small inclusion that miraculously doesn't show in the setting. Our old-school jeweler who custom-made the ring explained what put the stone on the higher end of "very good" symmetry, so that grading ended up being in our favor, financially.

If you like it in person, do not pass it up! Remember, no one ever asks for a report when they are admiring a ring on the hand. I'm very picky but found that this stone allowed us to go bigger than we thought would be possible.

Good luck!
 

racer22

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
7
I visited the gemologist with the stone yesterday and things went well, I think it was money well spent for piece of mind. I learned more about the diamond I'm looking at and some history on diamonds as well.

The consultation went over much of what I already knew about the stone VIA the GIA report and validated things. We then talked a lot about the inclusions to get his opinion on them (effecting transparency, reflections, durability, etc.). He indicated that he had no concerns about any of the above. He indicated that the depth was slightly out of "ideal range", and that there is a very slight misalignment on one of the facets that is likely why the stone got "very good" on symmetry. In his opinion, these would have little/no visible effect on performance of the stone, especially if the setting ends up covering the inclusion and facet.

The primary inclusion that is a feather, is in the middle of the stone about halfway down the pavilion. It's difficult to see when looking down directly on the stone unless its tilted 30 degrees or so, and then you can see it through the table. He wasn't concerned about it effecting the durability of the stone and indicated it would likely take repeated excessive force to damage the diamond, and at that point damage would be done regardless of the feather inclusion. I viewed the stone under a microscope at various levels of power (mostly 10x). The other inclusions are difficult for me to see without really trying to look for them, so even though there are many noted on the plot, only one is distinct and easily noticeable under 10x.

In his opinion (he's fully independent and has no affiliation to the jeweler I'm working with), the price I am looking at for it is more than fair, and likely a lot better than what I would see in the neighborhood and of stones with the attributes of the one I'm looking at (G, 1.5, SI2, X X VG). In my many visits to various jewelers I have made, I feel good about this being true, because stones I've compared this to have been at least 1K more (although usually have slight grading differences).

Overall, I'm making my decision today. I feel good about pulling the trigger on the stone. I have a meeting with the jeweler to talk about the setting and debrief following my review of the stone yesterday. If it goes well I'll be placing an order today!
 

racer22

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
7
Texas Leaguer|1418844058|3803088 said:
Nothing wrong with an old school jeweler. A seasoned professional craftsman is a better bet than a newbie with a fancy computer and some wiz-bang software. For some designs CAD is the only way to go. For others it is not necessary or even useful. I would seek out reviews on both jewelers and look at samples of their work to make my decision.

One big advantage of CAD is the ability to view renderings (photorealistic digital images) and make tweaks to the design before going to production. This is especially helpful on more complex designs, and especially if it is a pure custom creation and there is not a sample or good picture of a previously crafted piece available for review.

The big advantage you mention is why I like the idea of adding a CAD step to the process. I don't think the design I am looking for is especially complex, but it would add some piece of mind to validating some exact characteristics I'm looking for. I am actually wondering if it would be reasonable to have a CAD done by someone else independently to create some renderings of exactly what I am looking for to bring it. Would this be considered rude or unreasonable? Otherwise I'm planning on brining in various pictures and pointing out what attributes I like of each to go into the creation of what I'm looking for.

To describe what I'm planning on doing (in likely incorrect terms...):
- 6 prong solitaire mount
- rounded prongs with no sharp edges
- looking for minimal prongs overlapping the edges of the stones, want them to have a slight point/claw to them
- Inspired by classic Tiffany 6 prong solitaire look
- Shank that maintains rounded characteristics, not looking for knife edge, but no sharp edges
- Diamonds on the shank ~3/4 down on each side
- Looking to have stones mounted so they are visible from the sides someone and net set too deep. GF calls it a "Scalloped look" where the space around the side stones is slightly cut out when viewed from the side
- Stone size on shank is something I'm trying to determine, jeweler has showed me some 3pt stones that look about right, but really hard to tell without seeing how wide the band gets when its mounted.
- Unsure about if the mount should be soldiered or cast into the overall ring. Since I'm trying to go for a sleek and clean look, it sounds better to me to have it cast as 1 piece so there are no joints.

My next step is to assemble pictures that point of all this out, because its all in my head right now and I'm pulling this from feedback I've gotten from the GF and the countless pictures I've seen!
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
racer22|1418909167|3803565 said:
Texas Leaguer|1418844058|3803088 said:
Nothing wrong with an old school jeweler. A seasoned professional craftsman is a better bet than a newbie with a fancy computer and some wiz-bang software. For some designs CAD is the only way to go. For others it is not necessary or even useful. I would seek out reviews on both jewelers and look at samples of their work to make my decision.

One big advantage of CAD is the ability to view renderings (photorealistic digital images) and make tweaks to the design before going to production. This is especially helpful on more complex designs, and especially if it is a pure custom creation and there is not a sample or good picture of a previously crafted piece available for review.

The big advantage you mention is why I like the idea of adding a CAD step to the process. I don't think the design I am looking for is especially complex, but it would add some piece of mind to validating some exact characteristics I'm looking for. I am actually wondering if it would be reasonable to have a CAD done by someone else independently to create some renderings of exactly what I am looking for to bring it. Would this be considered rude or unreasonable? Otherwise I'm planning on brining in various pictures and pointing out what attributes I like of each to go into the creation of what I'm looking for.

To describe what I'm planning on doing (in likely incorrect terms...):
- 6 prong solitaire mount
- rounded prongs with no sharp edges
- looking for minimal prongs overlapping the edges of the stones, want them to have a slight point/claw to them
- Inspired by classic Tiffany 6 prong solitaire look
- Shank that maintains rounded characteristics, not looking for knife edge, but no sharp edges
- Diamonds on the shank ~3/4 down on each side
- Looking to have stones mounted so they are visible from the sides someone and net set too deep. GF calls it a "Scalloped look" where the space around the side stones is slightly cut out when viewed from the side
- Stone size on shank is something I'm trying to determine, jeweler has showed me some 3pt stones that look about right, but really hard to tell without seeing how wide the band gets when its mounted.
- Unsure about if the mount should be soldiered or cast into the overall ring. Since I'm trying to go for a sleek and clean look, it sounds better to me to have it cast as 1 piece so there are no joints.

My next step is to assemble pictures that point of all this out, because its all in my head right now and I'm pulling this from feedback I've gotten from the GF and the countless pictures I've seen!
Sounds like you have done your due diligence quite well. Regarding having a third party do a CAD, I think that is overkill. With your list of requirements and some photos illustrating with those particular design elements, you can adequately communicate your vision to an experienced jeweler.

Good luck!
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top