Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Any clarity red flags here?

jcizl1986

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
24


2nd one is 600 dollars more than the first one. Both ideal/excellent proportions. Is there a red flag for clarity in the cheaper one or why do you think its cheaper (bar the medium blue fluor)?

cert1.jpeg

cert 2.jpeg
 

distracts

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,446
Is the second GIA report the first video, SKU:7824777 ? I do think that one is a bit worrying. The first stone, with the feather as the grade-setting inclusion, I like the clarity plot of better, and I think it is the second video you linked.
 

jcizl1986

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
24
Is the second GIA report the first video, SKU:7824777 ? I do think that one is a bit worrying. The first stone, with the feather as the grade-setting inclusion, I like the clarity plot of better, and I think it is the second video you linked.
Well spotted. Wont let me edit past 45 mins. but yes the certs are the wrong way around in the post

With 7824777, in your opinion is it peppered with too many twinning wisps etc that it almost goes hazy?, and not eye clean
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
21,296
I'm pretty sure they would both be eye-clean to my* eyes. I* dont see any haziness. Would be nice to know if the grade setting inclusion is the
twinning wisp that is on the table or if its ALL the twinning wisp in general.

I dont know if its the photo setup, or if the stone might be tilted, or if its actually the cut of the stone, but I dont really like how the not-available stone looks.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
4,350
I prefer the proportions of the 34/40.8 but the whisps are concerning. The JA page won't load for me so I can't confirm its hazy or not, but that would be my concern.

Also not that I am overly worried with medium fluor but you need to check for that being hazy or milky as well. Sometimes fluor combined with certain inclusions can magnify the issue.

With the 41 pavilion you risk GIA rounding and averaging you taking one or more of the actual PA values over 41.2. Also some of the actual CA values are likely less than 33.5.

I'd want to see an IS image before committing to either stone assuming no clarity issues.
 

jcizl1986

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
24
The JA page won't load for me so I can't confirm its hazy or not, but that would be my concern.
Here is an image if link still not working for you.

1579707181304.png

and here is a IS image for it

1579707653780.png
 
Last edited:

lovedogs

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
9,605
I'm pretty sure they would both be eye-clean to my* eyes. I* dont see any haziness. Would be nice to know if the grade setting inclusion is the
twinning wisp that is on the table or if its ALL the twinning wisp in general.

I dont know if its the photo setup, or if the stone might be tilted, or if its actually the cut of the stone, but I dont really like how the not-available stone looks.
Agreed. I dont know what's going on with the second stone that's linked, but the cut looks weird to me, and the video doesnt make it look better.
 

jcizl1986

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
24
Agreed. I dont know what's going on with the second stone that's linked, but the cut looks weird to me, and the video doesnt make it look better.
Thanks, what do you think of the first stone, with the IS image provided
 
Last edited:
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top