More research - would the cloud on this be impactful?

[optimizedlife]

http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-search?stockno=LD04091290

HCA of 0.7, looks like a nice stone.

 

[ecf8503]

In a VS2, likely not a problem, but it needs to be seen. An idealscope image would be helpful as well, but BN doesn't do them.

 

[optimizedlife]

Is there any way around that (I'm mostly looking at BG and WF anyways) other than just not looking at BN?

 

[drk14]

Is there any way around that (I'm mostly looking at BG and WF anyways) other than just not looking at BN?

Purchase and evaluate in person during the return period.

My guess would be the that cloud is not a big deal, because it's GIA-VS2, because it's third on the list of clarity characteristics, and because it's not noticeable in the 10X photo provided in BN's GCAL cert.

 

[RockyRacoon]

Is there any way around that (I'm mostly looking at BG and WF anyways) other than just not looking at BN?

Unfortunately not. The only option would be to see if one of the Pricescope vendors has access to the stone (some stones are part of a shared database) and can call it in. In that case, you would have to pay an upfront fee for the light analysis data, but would be able to purchase the stone with all of the details that you need to make an informed decision.

This is why I would never buy from BN (even with their return policy).

Here are a couple of good options from GOG:
1.83ct, H, SI1 (ask about how eye-clean the stone is)
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/12390/

1.7ct, H, VS2 (only SLIGHTLY smaller than the BN stone, for the same price - but with proven light performance AND fluorescence)
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/12213/

To make it really easy to see why the BN stone is not the right choice, look at this example:
1.79ct, H, SI1 - ACA
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3183456.htm

Almost $1k LESS expensive than the BN stone, cut to exacting standards, and has been verified eye-clean. This is easily better than the originally linked stone.

If I were you, I would probably go for the Whiteflash ACA stone and call it a day.

 

[optimizedlife]

Thanks RR. I have that 1.79ct on my list on WF, however the inclusion diagram of it looks horrible plus there are additional "not shown". Would those not be things to be concerned about? I do have a thing about being 'mind clean'.

FYI It's research right now, not purchasing right away...but want to know what matters for when I do...which should be soon-ish hopefully

 

[RockyRacoon]

Thanks RR. I have that 1.79ct on my list on WF, however the inclusion diagram of it looks horrible plus there are additional "not shown". Would those not be things to be concerned about? I do have a thing about being 'mind clean'.

FYI It's research right now, not purchasing right away...but want to know what matters for when I do...which should be soon-ish hopefully

This may seem a bit contradictory, but I often look for 'busy' inclusion plots as a positive, with SI1 and higher clarity.

Why?

If the stone only has one inclusion (feather or crystal for example) and the stone received an SI1 grade, then that one grade-setting inclusion would have to be pretty major (dark crystal, large feather).

Now, if there are a bunch of small inclusions, of different sorts, then it would be less likely that any one of these individual inclusions would contribute to setting the grade of the stone, and would be less likely to dramatically affect the appearance of the stone.

This is just based on personal experience, but that's why I wouldn't use the inclusion plot for anything other than identifying the stone and distinguishing it from others. Don't get scared away by a crowded plot!

 

[optimizedlife]

So you wouldn't take the "Additional twinning wisps and surface graining not shown" to be a trouble sign?

 

[RockyRacoon]

So you wouldn't take the "Additional twinning wisps and surface graining not shown" to be a trouble sign?

I would not. This is simply a notation, for sake of completeness.

If it is listed this way on the certificate, it means that the lab does not feel the additional features affect the grade of the stone in a significant way. These were taken into consideration at the time of grading, and were deemed to not introduce any detrimental characteristics, or to already be accounted for in the grade.

'Grade based on additional twinning wisps not shown' or something to that effect is what you need to watch out for. If you see that, it is definitely a much bigger issue that would involve inspecting the stone in person before purchase.

 

[optimizedlife]

I got them to pull it and take a quick look for me. There was an inclusion visible at a 4-5" distance when viewing from the top

Even if I had to look carefully to see if it was there, my mind would know.

 

[RockyRacoon]

I got them to pull it and take a quick look for me. There was an inclusion visible at a 4-5" distance when viewing from the top

Even if I had to look carefully to see if it was there, my mind would know.

If it isn't eye-clean to your standards, don't even consider the stone. Not worth second-guessing yourself or any regret.

Did WF give you any alternatives?

Here's another nice option from them, only .1 of a mm smaller in diameter, and $1k less expensive:
1.704ct, H, VS2
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3137124.htm

Here's another VERY solid alternative:
1.828ct, G, SI1
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3075971.htm


Talk to Whiteflash about the eye-cleanliness of those two stones. Either of them would be a solid winner, if they are eye-clean to your standards!