shape
carat
color
clarity
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. PriceScope Upgrade Completed
    For issues, questions and comments click the link below
    https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pricescope-upgraded-comments-and-issues.229551/

    Dismiss Notice

1.71 I1 eye clean. hmm.

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by melz, Jun 16, 2010.

  1. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    It arrived at 10:30 and I''ve been trying to take a few good pictures. First thing I will say, is when I opened the box and took the diamond out, I could immediately see the inclusion that goes into the table. Shortly thereafter in certain lighting, I right away spotted the inclusion that does not make it to the table. Probably I was holding the stone about 8 inches away. Anyway, here''s a few pics which clearly shows the inclusions - much more clearly than in real life, actually.

    another  close up clealry showing incl.jpg
     
  2. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    And another.

    close up jlkjkjk.jpg
     
  3. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    Sitting next to my existing ring.

    compairsonldjflkds.jpg
     
  4. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    and on its own in the sun.

    in sun showing incl.jpg
     
  5. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    so, the jury is out. as i said, although the inclusions look blindingly horrific in the photos, they don''t in real life, but they are noticeable. i will try to upload another pic that gives a fairer shot of what i see.
     
  6. Lula
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,448
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    by Lula » Jun 16, 2010
    Wow -- the color and size of that stone are incredible [​IMG]

    It looks pretty much how I expected it would. The inclusion on the table wouldn't bother me, even though I know I'd be able to see it, too, from some angles. But from normal viewing distance, do you notice it much? And the inclusion on the edge -- shrugs shoulders -- a bezel, fishtail prong, or halo setting will take care of that puppy.

    I couldn't tell anything from the plot diagram on the cert -- are these feathers? Clear crystals?

    I guess it depends on what you want to do with it -- it certainly has three major points in its favor in my book -- size, color, and price!
     
  7. slg47
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,668
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by slg47 » Jun 16, 2010
    do you have any pictures from farther away/less magnified? I''d be curious to see what it looks like then...
     
  8. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    here''s a try at that

    smaller hand shot to post.jpg
     
  9. clgwli
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    by clgwli » Jun 16, 2010
    I''d love to see more pictures of the stone. I would have issues with a visible inclusion on the table. The other one doesn''t bother me much even in the photos. Otherwise it is a very pretty stone!
     
  10. slg47
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,668
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by slg47 » Jun 16, 2010
    yeah, see, from far away I can''t see it. I can''t remember from the other thread...do you know what you are going to use it for? ring, pendant, other...
     
  11. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    So the cert shows mostly crystals and one or two feathers. The one that leaks into the table looks like 2 black bits of lint to me from one angle, and more of a clear crystal from another. The other major one looks like a white blob - something that''s not sparkly like the rest.
     
  12. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    I would use it as a ring.
     
  13. impatiently_waiting
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    by impatiently_waiting » Jun 16, 2010
    I would be hesitant to purchase a diamond and use it as a ring, with the visible inclusions you have described and shown. Chances are, if you notice the inclusions now, you will increasingly notice the inclusions as time goes by.

    I would not spend that kind of money, even if it is a great deal, on a diamond, and risk regretting it within a few weeks, or even months. I realize it has the lifetime policy through GOG, but why not buy a great diamond now, instead of compromising clarity to get one now.
     
  14. clgwli
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    by clgwli » Jun 16, 2010
    Well in that picture from further away and out of focus it looks fine. But how do you look at your rings? Do you try to nit pick it from just inches away? I know I couldn''t deal with a table inclusion like that, but my tolerance levels for color and clarity are not very high.
     
  15. Lula
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,448
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    by Lula » Jun 16, 2010
    *disclaimer* lover of SI2 and I1 clarity stones (of superior cut quality) *end disclaimer*

    I know I am a rarity around PS, and I would never recommend this stone to a newbie for a first diamond or to someone looking for a stone to give to someone as a "surprise" gift. And it would not be my first choice for a tension setting or an open solitaire setting (or, actually, any kind of solitaire setting). But I feel I have to put in a good word or two for this diamond. Melz, you say that the stone is for a ring, but it's for a rhr, right? Not your primary engagement-wedding set?

    So this is exactly the type of stone you can go a little wild with -- it's big, it's white, and if you do not have any concerns about the inclusions affecting its performance (dead spots, cloudy spots), then I say it's a great candidate for a wonderful ring. It would look great with colored stones or in a vintage setting with a lot of engraving and filigree. It would look great in a bezel setting (check out Coati's incredible yellow gold bezel -- photos in the Timeless Classics forum of PS).

    And if you look at Glitterata's old threads about her two I1 stones, you'll see she embraced the lower clarity and chose settings that worked with each stones' beauty. She's one of the PS'ers who gave me the courage to consider lower clarity diamonds. The inclusions are really part of the stone's personality and you either love that or hate it, but only you can decide how much you'll focus on the inclusions versus the overall beauty of the stone.
     
  16. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    well no, now i am leaning toward replacing my existing engagement stone. and so it would be in a solitaire setting. i really wish i could take a picture that would give a perfect impression of what i'm seeing, but i can't. i guess i am disappointed because when i heard "eye clean" i thought it would be really difficult for me to see the inclusions, and it's actually pretty easy to find them.

    ETA: i really am liking the G color though ....
     
  17. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    18,151
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » Jun 16, 2010
    What about a design that would cover the inclusions? Like the metalwork on this morganite ring I lust after, vastly overpriced as it may be:

    morganite ring.gif
     
  18. Lula
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,448
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    by Lula » Jun 16, 2010
    Oh, wow, yssie -- who did that design? It''s stunning.

    Melz, is the GOG stone that much larger than the stone in your existing ring (which I am assuming is the ring in the photo above?).
     
  19. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    yssie that is amazing ......... i think it would require a huge ROCK to carry that design ... but i get your point. how beautiful.

    sara the GOG stone is smaller than my existing stone (which is pictured yes), which is around 2 ct or 8.10 mm. the new stone is 1.7 but faces up like a 1.6 (7.55 mm). does it look bigger? bear in mind the GOG stone is in a temporary holder which pushes the stone up unnaturally high.
     
  20. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    18,151
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
  21. Snow_Miser
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    126
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    by Snow_Miser » Jun 16, 2010


    Melz--Would you be able to use your existing setting? I know you said your FI was hesitant (um... putting it nicely?) to changing the original diamond he bought, has he come around to the idea yet?

    I think you should show him the new diamond and ask which one flatters you more? He will have to say the one you like better...

    You had also mentioned that there might be a desire to change the setting all together. (I can''t remember which post that was in.) Is that still an option?
     
  22. Lula
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,448
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    by Lula » Jun 16, 2010
    Thanks, yssie -- okay, I'm back again after spending a little time being amazed at the beauty of their rings! I love how they have them arranged by color...I'll take one in blue, oh, and that one in pink, and I must have a yellow one...

    But, yes, many of their designs require large diamonds/gems.
     
  23. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010

    oy. see, i was hoping people would forget the craziness that is my diamond situation! haha. i know dreamer has the memory of an elephant she is not alone!

    this was intended for a RHR but, instead i''ve got a plan in the works for making this my engagement ring. i''m wearing this one now in its temporary setting and i''m really liking it. oh it''s just so beautiful the more i look at it i dont care about the inclusion. wow. i''m loving it.


    and from 12 inches away i cant see the inclusions. well okay ya i can but i think i''m okay with it. it''s like a little clear bubble. but hey, it''s a $7000 1.7 G beautifully performing stone. if a bubble is the price i pay ...


    i dont think comparing the stones to show him how badly the one he picked for me performs is going to work here. but dont worry, i''m on it ..........
     
  24. Lula
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,448
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    by Lula » Jun 16, 2010
    Okay, I think I''m up to speed -- I took a look at some of your old threads. So I think I can give you a more informed opinion now! Yes, the GOG stone does look very large in the photo, but I''m sure in real life the GOG stone does look a little bit smaller than your current 2 carat. The ring holder is causing an optical illusion.

    The difference in cut quality is pretty obvious in the photo -- is it obvious to your eyes?

    I see that your current stone is an I-J, I1 (hey, that''s the same as my stone [​IMG] ) and that the clarity of this stone is causing it to look cloudy in the sun. What are your impressions of the GOG stone (also an I1) as far as its overall performance in different lighting conditions? Are the inclusions such that the GOG stone looks better overall than your current stone?

    I know you said that you love the higher color.

    I guess what I''m wondering is, if you''ve already got an I1 stone, is this I1 better in terms of appearance (some inclusions are less bothersome than others) than your current stone?

    And if you do decide to replace your current stone with this stone, is your plan to upgrade in size and clarity later on? Because this stone would certainly be a great "jumping off point" for that plan, if indeed you can be happy living with this stone until you save up enough for your upgrade. But even then I''d say better to love this stone on its own merits than think of it just as a stepping stone (pun intended) on the way to the upgrade. Life happens. I say this as a person who has owned four diamonds in less than a year! I''m finally at a point where if I could never trade in my stone again, I''d be perfectly happy with this stone. Though I still plan to upgrade in the future, I just don''t feel compelled to do so because I dislike my current stone. That''s a tough spot to be in.
     
  25. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    okay sara you can really help me here. when i got my existing ring, i was like oh it's wonderful and beautiful i love it nice job hun. and then as i wore it and saw it in different lighting (especially direct sunlight when i was driving my car and had my hand on top of the wheel with the ring exposed, and my work bathroom for some odd reason) it just looked awful. really horrible and i was super bummed.

    so when i opened the package for this ring, i put it next to my existing ring and i was like hmmm .... can i really see a difference? is there a difference? i'm not so sure. now i am wearing it as i type and i'm thinking yes it's sparklier and prettier and whiter definitely i would be happier. but i am doubting my own judgement. so when you say that looking at that picture you can tell the GOG diamond is obviously better cut, can you give me details as to what tells you that? b/c that would be really very helpful.

    ETA: it's like when i stare at them both long enough my eyes start to cross!
     
  26. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    oh gosh and please let me add that the j color of my existing diamond really doesnt bother me at all and in fact, if it was better cut i probably wouldnt even notice. the G in the new one is just a nice bonus but i know that it's really just personal preference.

    4 changes in one year? can you please talk to my DF? [​IMG]

    ETA: with regard to upgrade, i'm not even thinking that. i would be very happy with this stone. (famous last words).
     
  27. Rhino
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    6,065
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    by Rhino » Jun 16, 2010
    Hey Melz

    Just caught this thread and wanted to let you know I''m with you 110%. You have my full support and help regardless of what you ultimately decide. You have time to play so no rush. [​IMG]
     
  28. melz
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    by melz » Jun 16, 2010
    Oh Jonathan how did you know exactly what is weighing on me! That is perfect of you to respond in that way thanks so much. I feel so guilty tying up stones that could be bought by someone else as I waiver.
     
  29. Lula
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,448
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    by Lula » Jun 16, 2010
    Ha-ha, yes, your last sentence sounds a lot like something I''ve said in the not-too-distant past (somewhere Dreamer is rolling on the floor laughing hysterically). I had a hard time deciding on size, color, clarity -- in the end I ended up with a stone that was a lot -- a lot -- lower in clarity than I originally planned on buying (VS2 to an I1!). But I realized I just don''t care what my diamond looks like blown up on a screen or under a microscope or loupe (as far as inclusions go). I don''t care if I can see the inclusions up close or at certain angles. I would care if other people (normal people, not PS''ers) could see the inclusions from normal social distances (across a table, e.g.)

    I do care about cut quality because I can see that, and others can see that. I don''t have time to go into a lot more detail, because I''ve got to leave for the evening, but I''ll come back and post some more on what I see in terms of differences between your current stone and the GOG stone. In short, look at the outer 1/3 of your stone and compare it to the outer 1/3 of the GOG stone -- do you see the more "complex" look that the GOG stone has? Now, I''m not Karl with his his computer-generated images, but I do notice that the ideal cut stones I see photos of have this additional pattern of colors and shapes on the outer edge of the stone -- is this due to the reduced light leakage ideal cut stones have at the girdle edge? Heck, I don''t know. Is it due to the additional virtual facets generated by a properly proportioned stone? Don''t know. But whatever the reason, the outer edge of the GOG stone has more colors and patterns and is in general less "flat" in appearance in the photo than your current stone. I also see a similar effect when comparing the centers of the two stones. The GOG stone looks more 3-D and has many more colors and patterns --- it''s less flat looking and more "complex" in appearance. I do not have technical words for this, and I''m sure our resident math and physics folks will say that what I''m seeing has more to do with the camera angle, but whatever! What I can tell you for sure is that in real life my ideal cut stones are much more lively than are the non-ideal cut stones I see on other people. So the difference in cut will show up in lighting conditions that are less than ideal -- for example, my diamond sparkles and catches the light even in low light conditions -- it does not go "flat."

    Live with the stone a few days and see if you can notice a difference in the two stone''s appearance under different lighting conditions. You mention that your current stone looks unattractive in the car and in a bathroom at work -- spend some time in those lighting conditions wearing just the GOG stone and take note of your reactions to its appearance under those lighting conditions. Put your current diamond away for awhile and just try living with the GOG stone and pay attention to your response. Are you focusing on the inclusions and ignoring the beauty of the cut? Or is it the beauty of the cut and color that catches your eye and you tend to ignore the inclusions? Then put the GOG stone away and wear your current ring for a while. Note your impressions. Put your current ring away and take the GOG stone out...repeat as necessary. It will take a few days to really adjust to the looks of the new stone.
     
  30. marcy
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    20,128
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    by marcy » Jun 16, 2010
    Tough decision. I like the suggestions to wear it for awhile and check it out in different lighting and see how it performs compared to your current ring.
     

Share This Page