Buying a supposed Hearts and Arrows cut blind!

[vaibhavn]

Hello Everyone.

I am eyeing this diamond, listed as a H&A Cut, .90 Carat ,retailing for around 4,300 USD from my seller.

The intention is to have it as a solitaire in a simple, classic 18K white gold engagement ring.

I am attaching all the data including Ideal Scope, GIA report and magnified photo including one where I have highlighted a blemish/inclusion that I noticed.

My worries are
1) Considering the blemish, is this a fair price?
2) How do I make sure the ASET/Ideal Scope data is for the right diamond i.e. authentic, as the buying and evaluation process is completely online?

The diamond will preset on the ring by the vendor.


\

 

[tyty333]

Unfortunately, that would not qualify as an H&A by our stricter vendors standards. It is also showing some leakage under the table.

1. Yes, the price seems fair considering the inclusion. However, if it were me, I would want to drop the color and go for a cleaner
looking stone (eye-clean SI1).

2) I'm a little surprised that the inclusion arent showing up a little more on the aset/idealscope images but you can see a dot
in the center of the stone that I'm sure is part of the inclusion.


Have you seen this stone in person? Is it eye-clean to your satisfaction? I dont have time to look for comparable stones right now
but perhaps someone else can (or I can when I get back).

 

[Texas Leaguer]

As a member of the trade I cannot recommend or criticize another vendor's stone, but you asked about how you can verify whether light performance images correctly correspond to the diamond under consideration. And this is an important question.

In short, you must largely depend on the ethics and attention to detail of the source providing the information. Many (most) merchants do not do their own light performance imaging and so must rely on their manufacturer to supply it.

As TyTy mentions above it is a little unusual that the central inclusions shown in the magnified diamond photo are not more evident in the ASET and IS. Having said that, LP images are not designed for clarity observations, so we cannot base verification on that. The light leakage does appear consistent among the images.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Unfortunately, that would not qualify as an H&A by our stricter vendors standards. It is also showing some leakage under the table.

1. Yes, the price seems fair considering the inclusion. However, if it were me, I would want to drop the color and go for a cleaner
looking stone (eye-clean SI1).

2) I'm a little surprised that the inclusion arent showing up a little more on the aset/idealscope images but you can see a dot
in the center of the stone that I'm sure is part of the inclusion.


Have you seen this stone in person? Is it eye-clean to your satisfaction? I dont have time to look for comparable stones right now
but perhaps someone else can (or I can when I get back).

I agree, this one would not qualify as a true hearts and arrows diamond under most definitions. I will show you a few true H&A stones so you can see what the light return images look like. They have many more but these are a sample of them:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3809123.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3809125.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3689774.htm

Near H&A and better than the one originally posted:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3571568.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3784262.htm

 

[Dancing Fire]

Sorry, Nowhere close of being a H&A stone...

 

[flyingpig]

Is it the same diamond in the ASET and the actual photo?

 

[gm89uk]

Is it the same diamond in the ASET and the actual photo?

+1

The ASET is far worse than the actual picture would indicate. The inclusion seems to be different and I'd expect much more defined arrows with some mild leak under the table based on the picture.

I think there has been a mix up in the photography.

 

[vaibhavn]

After the doubts raised here I decided to look for an alternative and finally zeroed in on this 0.86C,H,VS2 stone

This one scores an astounding 1.3 on HCA and suits my budget better (which to be fair is a major consideration for me!)

Would really appreciate if somebody could point out any deal-breaking flaws in this one as I plan to move in on this given I have limited time left to decide.






https://www.pricescope.com/forum/files/img/GIA.png[/img

[ATTACH=full]593219[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]593220[/ATTACH]

 

[miraj]

The ASET of the new stone still seems to show not-so-good light performance under the table. At the 5-o'clock, 7-o'clock, 8-o'clock, and 10-o'clock positions you see a faint green in the inner ring. It would be better if that entire inner ring was a rich red like you can see in the outer rings. I think you can do better.

scores an astounding 1.3

Do not think of an HCA score of 1.3 as better than a 1.9. Anything under 2.0 should move along the process for further consideration using ASET/Idealscope tools. Simply use the tool to reject stones that probably have poor light performance.

H&A Cut

Just be aware that H&A refers to a specific level of cut symmetry (patterning) and not the amount of light that comes from it. So you can get H&A diamonds with poor light performance, and it's possible to get a diamond with awesome light performance that isn't necessarily H&A. What you do get with H&A is that the pattern of flashes that show up should be symmetrical, which can be more visually pleasing.

 

[flyingpig]

Again, is this the same diamond in the actual photo/IS and ASET?? Something looks odd

 

[flyingpig]

The reason I ask is that the ASET image shows blatant light leakage under the table. This is almost non-existent in the arrows image. Also, inclusion characteristics and locations are completely different in the ASET and the arrows image.

Something does not feel right.

 

[PintoBean]

Make sure you are on the same page with the vendor of what you consider eye clean.

Like when you go buy a car and you want a white car, you'd let the account manager know specifically what you mean by white - flat, metallic, pearlescent, etc.

 

[bunnycat]

The reason I ask is that the ASET image shows blatant light leakage under the table. This is almost non-existent in the arrows image. Also, inclusion characteristics and locations are completely different in the ASET and the arrows image.

Something does not feel right.

totally agree with you. SOmething is not adding up with the second ASET image....

The first one had a 36 crown and 40.6 pavilion which could explain the first ASET- and the arrows look the same in the stone picture and the ASET image jives with the wonky arrow scattered pic. Second one was 35.5 with 40.6. I would have expected that the inclusions seen on the arrows image of the second might also show up in the ASET? And the arrows look a hair skinnier in the ASET than the stone and the arrow image of the second stone???

OP- Hearts and arrows symmetry is NOT the same thing as good light performance. H/A just shows the symmetry of the facets. It is not a guarantee of good performance.