Any thoughts on this 2.3ct RB?

[dmd4ever]

So for those who have seen my other threads, I've been fighting a battle with one vendor over a refund, but meanwhile have nonetheless tried to lock down the perfect stone given the rapid escalation in prices. I had debated long and hard between a 1.73 F VS2 that was an AGS1 cut grade and a BGD Blue 2 carat H SI1 that was an AGS000. I liked the size of the 2 carat and stuck with it, and I think I'm right, given some recent subtle comments by my gf (about size), but the color just bothers me a bit too much...

Enter this stone from a local vendor at the same price point as the last two. I just saw it today and it looks very promising in terms of bang-for-the-buck. It is a GIA certified 2.29 carat H SI2, excellent cut, very good polish/symmetry, faint flourescence. Side-by-side with the BGD stone, this looked at least a grade whiter, despite the fact that they are both H!?!?! (Maybe AGS vs. GIA?) I was apprehensive about the SI2, but I really had to study the diamond with my naked eye to see anything. Could definitely see some inclusions with the loupe, but very difficult otherwise. I plugged the numbers into HCA and it came out excellent across the board except for spread. What do you think?

GIA 5121587560
8.37x8.41.5x24mm
2.29 carat
H
SI1
Cut: Excellent
Polish: VG
Symmetry: VG
Flour: Faint
Comments:
Additional twinning wisps are not shown.
Surface graining is not shown.

Table: 56%
Depth: 62.5%
Crown: 35.5
Pavilion: 40.6
Girdle: Med-Slightly Thk (faceted) 4.0%

 

[Lula]

Diamond color can vary from stone to stone, even within the same color grade, and color differences may be more obvious in larger stones. The impact of fluorescence on a stone's appearance is variable as well. You are looking at 3 well-cut diamonds in the 2+ carat range, so at this point, I think you are in a position to trust your eyes and choose the stone that is most pleasing to your eyes, especially if you are color sensitive, and one of the H stones does not look as white to you. But you also need to balance your sensitivity to color with your gf's tolerance for inclusions (i.e., if she sees the SI2's lab report and/or the stone under a microscope, she may be able to locate the inclusions in some lights, and, if she has good up-close vision, she may be able to locate the inclusions without seeing the lab report). But even if she can locate them, she may not care. Clarity and color are personal preferences, and many people here compromise on color and/or clarity to get a desired carat weight. If she is truly more interested in size than color and clarity, I think the local stone may be the best option, because the color is more appealing to you.

 

[dmd4ever]

Diamond color can vary from stone to stone, even within the same color grade, and color differences may be more obvious in larger stones. The impact of fluorescence on a stone's appearance is variable as well. You are looking at 3 well-cut diamonds in the 2+ carat range, so at this point, I think you are in a position to trust your eyes and choose the stone that is most pleasing to your eyes, especially if you are color sensitive, and one of the H stones does not look as white to you. But you also need to balance your sensitivity to color with your gf's tolerance for inclusions (i.e., if she sees the SI2's lab report and/or the stone under a microscope, she may be able to locate the inclusions in some lights, and, if she has good up-close vision, she may be able to locate the inclusions without seeing the lab report). But even if she can locate them, she may not care. Clarity and color are personal preferences, and many people here compromise on color and/or clarity to get a desired carat weight. If she is truly more interested in size than color and clarity, I think the local stone may be the best option, because the color is more appealing to you.

Thanks, Lula! Great points. She's been all over the map on color, a bit back and forth on size, but always set on wanting a well-cut stone, and always caring little about inclusions unless they really jump out at you.

I know the comparison to the other stones is somewhat personal, but what about the twinning wisps? Don't know much about these. Some posts say good (because can be hard to see) other say this means it was poor quality rough? Should I be worried? Especially at SI2? Also, I haven't looked at many SI2s. Does $21k seem like a fair price for this one? Thanks!

NOTE: In my original post, I said SI2, but then mis-typed SI1 in the list of specs...

 

[Amys Bling]

Have you used the HCA tool o see exactly how well this stone is cut- a GIA grade of excellent can be a wide range of cut quality.

 

[stone-cold11]

Numbers could work but check for obstruction issue.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I agree that GIA is stricter on color having had both AGS and GIA H color stones. I am kind of clarity conscious and don't really like SI2's for e-rings. Yet I do have to say that twining wisps can be some of the better inclusions. My daughter has an SI1 diamond and it also has twining wisps and you can't see them. The spread is probably hurt a little by the depth being at 62.5. I try to find stones that are no more than 62.0. But that stone is large, regardless, so if size her her primary criterion, I can see it winning over the other two. Of course, it is hard to tell how well cut it is without an idealscope or ASET. But if you were able to look at it with a loupe and compare it to the BG stone, that probably was helpful just to see if the arrows looked good.

 

[dmd4ever]

Have you used the HCA tool o see exactly how well this stone is cut- a GIA grade of excellent can be a wide range of cut quality.

It gets a 1.4 on the HCA, right in the middle of both AGS0 and GIA Ex areas of the chart.

 

[dmd4ever]

I agree that GIA is stricter on color having had both AGS and GIA H color stones. I am kind of clarity conscious and don't really like SI2's for e-rings. Yet I do have to say that twining wisps can be some of the better inclusions. My daughter has an SI1 diamond and it also has twining wisps and you can't see them. The spread is probably hurt a little by the depth being at 62.5. I try to find stones that are no more than 62.0. But that stone is large, regardless, so if size her her primary criterion, I can see it winning over the other two. Of course, it is hard to tell how well cut it is without an idealscope or ASET. But if you were able to look at it with a loupe and compare it to the BG stone, that probably was helpful just to see if the arrows looked good.

Not to open a can of worms, but do clearly defined arrows matter if she is not conerned with clearly seeing that pattern? I don't have an idealscope or ASET to use, but it looked good next to the BGD in various lighting and the HCA score was good. The BGD is beautifully cut, but my only real option for a whiter one is a BGD H&A G 2 carat that is now priced at almost $8k more than I paid for my 2ct H BGD Blue! Thanks for all the advice

 

[slg47]

I agree that GIA is stricter on color having had both AGS and GIA H color stones. I am kind of clarity conscious and don't really like SI2's for e-rings. Yet I do have to say that twining wisps can be some of the better inclusions. My daughter has an SI1 diamond and it also has twining wisps and you can't see them. The spread is probably hurt a little by the depth being at 62.5. I try to find stones that are no more than 62.0. But that stone is large, regardless, so if size her her primary criterion, I can see it winning over the other two. Of course, it is hard to tell how well cut it is without an idealscope or ASET. But if you were able to look at it with a loupe and compare it to the BG stone, that probably was helpful just to see if the arrows looked good.

Not to open a can of worms, but do clearly defined arrows matter if she is not conerned with clearly seeing that pattern? I don't have an idealscope or ASET to use, but it looked good next to the BGD in various lighting and the HCA score was good. The BGD is beautifully cut, but my only real option for a whiter one is a BGD H&A G 2 carat that is now priced at almost $8k more than I paid for my 2ct H BGD Blue! Thanks for all the advice

no.

I remember reading in one of your earlier threads that your GF said she did not want larger than 2 carats?

 

[dmd4ever]

I remember reading in one of your earlier threads that your GF said she did not want larger than 2 carats?

Haha, and this is the madness that has driven me to insanity She started out saying "size and sparkle" (and forget color/clarity) and then at one visit to a local store she commented that she like an F over an I (both upside down on white paper) and that she thought perhaps an 8.5mm stone was too large but an 8mm diameter was about right. Since then she "hasn't" wanted to be involved, but she's dropped some (not always) subtle hints that "size and sparkle" was still the priority, and that she would love for it to be as big and sparkly as possible. She can be very indecisive about stuff like this but the bigger is better theme seems to keep coming back...

 

[yssie]

My kind of numbers - love the high crown

Numbers are fine, but you already know that numbers don't tell the whole story. In cases like these I will always say trust your eyes - they are the best tools you have to judge by, especially since A) you know you can't go horribly wrong and B) since you have a Cream-Of-The-Crop Branded Top-Of-The-Line AGS0 etc. etc. to compare with!

Do be sure to thoroughly vet both in various lights before you pull the trigger, see which one you find more pleasing across a variety of lighting conditions, and make sure that this SI2 is sufficiently eyeclean in different light types

 

[dmd4ever]

My kind of numbers - love the high crown

Numbers are fine, but you already know that numbers don't tell the whole story. In cases like these I will always say trust your eyes - they are the best tools you have to judge by, especially since A) you know you can't go horribly wrong and B) since you have a Cream-Of-The-Crop Branded Top-Of-The-Line AGS0 etc. etc. to compare with!

Do be sure to thoroughly vet both in various lights before you pull the trigger, see which one you find more pleasing across a variety of lighting conditions, and make sure that this SI2 is sufficiently eyeclean in different light types

Thanks, Yssie! Now that I think about it, is it strange that this diamond scores so well on HCA with a 35.5 degree crown?

 

[yssie]

Not at all

It's not what any one number is so much as how the four inputs work together - I don't think Garry published charts but if you play with it for twenty minutes you'll start to see some trends. The shallower pavilion number compensates for the steeper crown number.

The HCA is a blunt weeding tool though, so once a stone is deemed "likely worth further investigation" you have a host of other tools - photos, video, IS/ASET/H&A pics, better still professional evaluation/opinion and what your eyes think of it in-person..


ETA - my old stone had a 35.8crown and 40.5-40.6pav (80lgf). I loved it, so I am biased - sadly there weren't any similar stones when I was looking to go bigger! If you like coloured light I would expect you to fall head-first for this one - all stones throw off colour in some types of lighting (spotlights, sunlight), white in diffuse office lighting - but then there are those in-between types of lights where they can err toward white over coloured or vice versa depending on proportions, and my old stone was a fireball! Also visibly less 'bright' than a shallower crown/steeper pav type in terms of sheer white light return though (had one of those, too, so I speak from experience on that front ).

 

[dmd4ever]

Any other input on this stone? I've been all over the map, but I looked at this one in person again today and think it's the one. I couldn't compare in every conceivable light situation, but it seemed to hold it's own, and while I can faintly see some inclusions now that I've studied the stone and looked at it so many times under the loupe, I really don't think she will see them or care if she does based on what she's said in the past. Any other reason to be concerned here...? The size of the 2.3 is really tempting even though this isn't a "branded" stone, etc.

 

[slg47]

Any other input on this stone? I've been all over the map, but I looked at this one in person again today and think it's the one. I couldn't compare in every conceivable light situation, but it seemed to hold it's own, and while I can faintly see some inclusions now that I've studied the stone and looked at it so many times under the loupe, I really don't think she will see them or care if she does based on what she's said in the past. Any other reason to be concerned here...? The size of the 2.3 is really tempting even though this isn't a "branded" stone, etc.

nothing wrong with not being a branded stone. numbers look good and if you have seen it in person and like it, seems like a winner

 

[dmd4ever]

If you like coloured light I would expect you to fall head-first for this one - all stones throw off colour in some types of lighting (spotlights, sunlight), white in diffuse office lighting - but then there are those in-between types of lights where they can err toward white over coloured or vice versa depending on proportions, and my old stone was a fireball! Also visibly less 'bright' than a shallower crown/steeper pav type in terms of sheer white light return though (had one of those, too, so I speak from experience on that front ).

Yssie, I remember you making a similar comment about the 1.73 I was looking at (but it would have been more on the bright white side). I kind of thought she would go for brilliance over fire, but I'm honestly not sure. What types of light did you notice that your old stone was "less bright"? The fire in this stone was great (saw it in sunlight), but I'm worried I didn't see it in light where it may appear "dark".

 

[DanMgy]

I have been going through the same thing with about the same size stone and have viewed it in almost all lighting conditions and have concerns about it being dark. The one thing that is also very hard to replicate is what the stone will look like in those lighting situation in a setting. I used a tension setting to try and simulate but it is still not the same.

One thing I also did was smudge the stone with finger prints, you have to keep in mind that the stone will look different with the dust, oils and smudges it will pick up from daily wear.

But I completely understand wanting to get it right, feeling 100% and knowing you got the best stone that you could. I also think the composition of a diamond is going to be the same, so having a brand name might not really be all it is cracked up to be all the time. IMO you pay a premium for a branded stone and those branded stones are ones that they just happen to get their hands on and bought and push because they probably make the most off it. Unless it is a Cartier, Tiffany or Harry Winston I am willing to bet she's would not be telling her friends "it's a brian gavin diamond".... you think?? You really think people actually do what you see if those dumb Jared's commercials (if you've seen them)?? I say no, but I do think people say "look at the size of that rock". My opinion, go with the bigger diamond and don't look back!

 

[yssie]

If you like coloured light I would expect you to fall head-first for this one - all stones throw off colour in some types of lighting (spotlights, sunlight), white in diffuse office lighting - but then there are those in-between types of lights where they can err toward white over coloured or vice versa depending on proportions, and my old stone was a fireball! Also visibly less 'bright' than a shallower crown/steeper pav type in terms of sheer white light return though (had one of those, too, so I speak from experience on that front ).

Yssie, I remember you making a similar comment about the 1.73 I was looking at (but it would have been more on the bright white side). I kind of thought she would go for brilliance over fire, but I'm honestly not sure. What types of light did you notice that your old stone was "less bright"? The fire in this stone was great (saw it in sunlight), but I'm worried I didn't see it in light where it may appear "dark".

my high crown/shallow pav old stone was always a bit 'darker' - I can't think of quite the right way to describe it, and there's no way to capture it in photos. It was a *huge* change from the shallow type stone I'd had before that - the shallow stone was this constantly blazingly, blindingly white spot, the high crown/shallow pav type was always a dimmer dot. It's one of those subtleties that I think I never would have noticed had I not spent lots of time with two such opposite types back to back... incomparable amounts of coloured light output in non-sunlight/non-spotlight lighting types, too.


ETA: I liked the Jared GPS ad, I thought it was cute

 

[diamondseeker2006]

This is a late response but the only reason I mentioned looking for the arrows is to see the degree of symmetry of the stone. It is not a requirement that they be perfect to have the stone look beautiful. Depending on the kind of setting, you may want to be sure it is eyeclean from the sides if it will be able to be viewed from the side in the setting. But again, the twining wisps can be some of the better SI2 inclusions.

 

[ruby59]

I have been following you on your other thread, so I thought I would chime in.

On ebay (yes ebay) there is an AGS 2.001 SI1 F hearts and arrows diamond that is absolutely gorgeous. It is ideal across the board. It is in a pendant, but he will easily change it. I believe it is $27,500, but he says he would accept reasonable offers. From what I can see, the seller seems to be beyond reproach, and payment can be made face to face.

 

[dmd4ever]

I have been following you on your other thread, so I thought I would chime in.

On ebay (yes ebay) there is an AGS 2.001 SI1 F hearts and arrows diamond that is absolutely gorgeous. It is ideal across the board. It is in a pendant, but he will easily change it. I believe it is $27,500, but he says he would accept reasonable offers. From what I can see, the seller seems to be beyond reproach, and payment can be made face to face.

You know, I think I saw that a while back. Looks like a good deal, but after my experience in my other thread, I'm not ready to go down the ebay path, even if it ends up being face to face... Thanks for the suggestion though!