Big favour to ask

[Cobra]

First off I want to thank everyone who has helped me to become educated with diamonds. It's been almost a month now (I think) and I've compiled a list of potential stones. The list is 21 long however and it looks like I have some work to do. The problem is that all of these diamonds seem to similar stats-wise and I don't know what to go with.

Considering my budget, I have been looking in the 0.9-1.1ct range for diamonds. Colour is not that important to me and I colour is acceptable. After seeing all these diamonds magnified on my screen, it's hard to say an SI2 is acceptable but as long as it's eye-clean then I will be ok with it. To judge cut, I have been using HCA and just my general (probably still undeveloped) gut feel on the dimensions.

So I guess instead of posting links to all 21 stones, I'll pick out a few at a time and hopefully gain some constructive criticism on my choices. I see a lot of threads just asking about 1 or 2 diamonds so hopefully you won't be mad/offended that I'm posting a whole bunch. All of the below are under 2 HCA. I apologize for not knowing what format to put the stats in. There's so many of them.

1. GIA - 0.92ct - 6.24x6.30x3.81 - $3468
2. GIA - 1.02ct - 6.57x6.61x3.90 - $3964
3. AGS - 0.92ct - 6.20x6.23x3.83 - $3987
4. GIA - 0.93ct - 6.29x6.30x3.90 - $3906
5. GIA - 0.91ct - 6.22x6.25x3.85 - $3825
6. GIA - 0.91ct - 6.26x6.31x3.80 - $3239
7. GIA - 0.90ct - 6.23x6.20x3.76 - $3290

I guess I want to know whether these are actually good selections and if not, what's wrong with them so I know what to look for in the future. Again, thank you guys so much for the help. I really appreciate it.

 

[yssie]

Well - there's not much we can tell you from just the numbers beyond what you've already deduced. Can you request ISs? Numbers on 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 are nice and 'safe and balanced'. 3 w/ the AGS0 w/ the DQD report (incl. ray tracing simulation) is an additional reassuring evaluation
2 will excel at bright white light return, but will output less coloured light in some environments, 7 is likely to have obstruction issues less than ideal for a ring that your intended will often bend over to admire

 

[Cobra]

Thanks Yssie for the input. #1 is from WF virtual stock so there's nothing on it unless I get that sent to them. I hope they won't charge me if I end up not buying it. The others are from BN and JA. From what I've found on these forums, BN doesn't give ISs. They do send the stone to me to examine first right? I take it the eye is the best evaluator over all of these other tools?

Consider what you said about #2, I may make #4 my leading choice as it's cut the largest and is a VS2 so it should be eye-clean. Would you say that's a good buy out of these stones?

 

[yssie]

Thanks Yssie for the input. #1 is from WF virtual stock so there's nothing on it unless I get that sent to them. I hope they won't charge me if I end up not buying it. The others are from BN and JA. From what I've found on these forums, BN doesn't give ISs. They do send the stone to me to examine first right? I take it the eye is the best evaluator over all of these other tools?

Consider what you said about #2, I may make #4 my leading choice as it's cut the largest and is a VS2 so it should be eye-clean. Would you say that's a good buy out of these stones?

#4 is as likely a win as any
You'll need to buy the BN, but they have a generous return policy that will leave ample time for an inspection &/or appraisal. If you have WF bring in a virtual and they okay it to their standards for sale and you choose to pass you'll pay return shipping - amount based on a sliding scale of how much the stone is worth.

 

[Stephan]

From the numbers etc., I prefer
this one
It should be eye clean, proportions are great, Pol/Symm both EX.
I would not buy an SI2 unless it is branded (and even then...)

 

[Cobra]

Ok so 1, 4, and 5 are candidates.

Here comes the skeptic in me. Without pictures and IS and all of that, if the stats look ok, what could be wrong with the diamond? 4 and 5 are VS2s so chances of unaided visible inclusions are slim. 1 is a SI1 so that would have to be checked for eye-cleaniness. All three are GIA EX-EX-EX.

 

[yssie]

Ok so 1, 4, and 5 are candidates.

Here comes the skeptic in me. Without pictures and IS and all of that, if the stats look ok, what could be wrong with the diamond? 4 and 5 are VS2s so chances of unaided visible inclusions are slim. 1 is a SI1 so that would have to be checked for eye-cleaniness. All three are GIA EX-EX-EX.

Article by John: https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn%E2%80%99t_show/
Example of AGS0 that does not score "well" on HCA [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/interpreting-the-hca.151562/#post-2749775#p2749775']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/interpreting-the-hca.151562/#post-2749775#p2749775[/URL]
Example of good numbers, but the numbers don't tell the whole story https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=144057


Now, will any of those be ugly to the eye? No, because IRL the stone is in constant motion on her hand and we wouldn't be able to focus on the table for long enough to see any issues unless she's holding quite still, and because we do have two eyes and those eyes form not just an additive image, they also weigh inputs differently by intensity - so a sparkle seen with one eye in an otherwise 'dark' or 'leaky' area will fool the brain into thinking "sparkly!"

 

[Cobra]

Thanks again for all of the responses so far. I'm afraid I need to throw out some more candidates as I'm having trouble with finding the right setting at all of the places where those stones above come from. I'm looking for a place get both the stone and set it. It'll save me some headaches.

Again, all of the below are below 2 HCA:
1. $3060
2. $3150
3. $3270
4. $3290
5. $3310
6. $3260
7. $3290 (not sure what this black patch in the middle is)
8. $3560
9. $3630

I selected these based on dimensions and HCA. I'm still not trained yet on looking at the diamond but most of these have well-defined arrows so that's good right? Some have blurry arrowheads (don't know what this means). So which ones should I ask for IS and ASET images of and which ones shouldn't I even bother with? I think this is going to be my final stop if at least one of these diamonds are a good buy. Honestly, I'm started to get antsy and a little frustrated. Plus it's almost Christmas and I want to propose around that time.

Thank you all again for your guidance and support. I don't know where I would be without you guys!

 

[yssie]

Make things easier for us

1 - 34.5/41/60.9/6.23/0.9 I SI2
2 - 34.2/40.9/59.9/58.6/0.92 H SI2
3 - 33/41/60.7/58/0.9 H SI2
4 - 55/61.9/0.9 H SI2 34.5/41
5 - 33.5/40.8/59/60.3/0.9 I SI1
6 -
7 -
8 - 0.92 G SI2 35 40.6 59 61
9 - 57.2/61.2/34.7/40.8/I SI2


Well you have Gs, Hs, and Is there - which do you weight more, colour or clarity? Can't tell eyeclean of any of those stones from the pics. It really depends on what you prefer to spend and how you prefer to allocate those funds.

2 has the reassurance of a nice AGS ASET. 1,2,4,8,9 are all fine 'by the numbers'. 4 has H&A inscribed on the girdle but it is not being sold as a JA branded H&A, and you'd want pictures through a hearts viewer to prove anything one way or another. 5 looks to exhibit slight obstruction in the pic - though that is not the best judge. 6 doesn't have enough info and you have other choices, 7 pavilion is too shallow. They will all look to be the same size - you won't see that 0.1mm size difference between say 2 and 3 IRL.

 

[Cobra]

Thanks so much Yssie for all your help thus far. I think I am down to my last 2 choices finally.

1. 0.92 G SI2, 1.3 HCA, 6.21x6.25x3.80, T=59% D=61% CA=35 PA=40.6, GIA ex-ex-ex


2. 0.91 I VS2, 0.8 HCA, 6.20x6.15x3.83, T=56% D=62% CA=35.5 PA=40.4, GIA vg-vg-vg


What do you guys think of these IS images? Both are eye-clean. I guess the first one is a better choice because it has better colour? Otherwise, I can't really tell the difference between the two images. The second one is more pink so I guess that's worse light return right? But it seems to have less white spots than the first one.

Which one should I go with?

 

[yssie]

np, and they both look v nice from the ISs - any diff in colour are due to photography - not artifact on the actual stones

what does your rep say about the inclusions in the SI2? if it's eyeclean to your specifications and you don't need a higher clarity for personal comfort I'd go with that one.

 

[Cobra]

np, and they both look v nice from the ISs - any diff in colour are due to photography - not artifact on the actual stones

what does your rep say about the inclusions in the SI2? if it's eyeclean to your specifications and you don't need a higher clarity for personal comfort I'd go with that one.

Rep says first one is confirmed completely eye-clean by gemologist and "all mid to low relief inclusions that blend well". The second one is low I in colour, eye-clean, and faces darkest due to its cut.

 

[yssie]

then I think you have your answer

 

[Cobra]

Thanks so much! I'm pretty excited right now.

 

[yssie]

please do post pics when you get it

 

[Cobra]

Pictures here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-fiances-engagement-ring.155599/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-fiances-engagement-ring.155599/[/URL]

Thanks Yssie!

 

[yssie]

Ooh congrats!! Heading there now..
And glad to help