Buying advice Forevermark 0.7ct I Si1 VS GIA XXX 0.65ct J VS2

[Gambit22]

Hi All,

I am putting together a rose gold halo pave engagement ring and have been offered the following 2 center stones.

Forevermark
0.7ct, SI1 (Cloud and feather) it does however seem very eye clean under a loop.
Cut - Very Good
Polish - Very Good
Symmetry - Excellent
No Florescence
BUT... only returned a 4.7 on the HCA tool.
The stone actually appears quite pretty and I was given a really good sales talk on Forever mark. He is also able to offer me the stone at 20% (im buying in South African rands) more than the stone below, which he feels is the better deal than the J.
My concern here is the stone is cut deep, it faces up like a 0.68. In terms of colour I really didn't perceive any real difference face down. Face up the J pips it at the post.

0.65ct, VS2 (Twinning Wisp, Cloud, Feather, Crystal) it reads like a horror show I know, but this diamond is absolutely eye clean and I actually couldnt see any of the inclusions other than a small clear crystal under the loop.
Cut - Excellent
Polish - Excellent
Symmetry - Excellent
Strong Blue Florescence
Returned: 2.4 on the HCA tool. I viewed it under direct sunlight next to an I colour stone and although brighter wasn't hazy etc.
My concern here is the strong florescence combined/interacting with rose gold and a halo. And whether such an ugly inclusion GIA report makes a difference.

Your thoughts please!

 

[bmfang]

Do you have any further details about each stone re: proportions and/or their respective grading reports?

Based on the Forevermark stones that I've seen here in Australia, I personally don't think they are worth the retail prices (even after discounts) that are being asked of them relative to stones sourced from online vendors with either GIA XXX or AGS 000 gradings.

Are you willing to purchase online or can your jeweller source other stones for you with better proportions?

 

[whitewave]

Personally, I'd pass on both. Seems you have been offered two dogs to choose from...

 

[Sagefemme]

Agree with Whitewave; you can do much better. State your budget and preferences, and let the PS community help you find something beautiful.

 

[gm89uk]

I think you have some misinformation.
1) there's nothing about the 0.65 that sounds like a horror story and those inclusions are fine. Generally I'd prefer those in vs2 than cloud as the primary inclusion in si1. The number of inclusions listed does not mean it's worse, cumulated, they were awarded vs2 which is less than the si1
2) apart from fluorescence, diamonds shouldn't really be compared under direct sunlight, that is not when they perform best. The strong fluor can be seen as a valued attribute in a J.
3)Your concerns regarding colour clash with the halo/rose gold, did you see an obvious blue in sunlight, did you like it? Was it too blue compared to the I, or just brighter?
4) people here usually use HCA as a rejection tool to reject stones scoring >2. I think it's fair to say the first stone is a no go, you can do better, but possibly harsh to say a 2.4 stone is a dog. Sure there are probably better cut stones but I'm sure it's a nice bright diamond.

What you really need is to compare them in different lighting environments, a poorly lit room, under diffuse lighting, spot lighting and see if they still look comparable. You'll find the J probably out shines the I when the lighting isn't great.

The general aim is for traditional ideal cut
Table: 54 to 58
Crown: 34 to 35 (35.5 ok with 40.6, sometimes)
Pavilion: 40.6 to 40.8 (41 ok with 34)
Depth: 59.5 to 62.3

If you post your budget, your requirements and how much you are being charged in US dollar, you may find you can stretch your dollar a lot further with better quality diamonds.

 

[whitewave]

True, I actually have a 2.4 HCA round .37 in an I color and it is beautiful. I bought it before finding out about HCA, so while it is super pretty, yes, I could have done better.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Tell us the table, depth, crown angle and pavilion angle on the second stone. And price. You don't want to overpay no matter what the cut of the diamond is. You can get a diamond elsewhere.

 

[Gambit22]

Hi All,

Thanks for the Replies.

Proportions here:

GIA J VS2 0.65:
Depth - 59.5 %
Table - 60 %
Crown Angle - 32.5°
Pavilion Angle - 41.2°

Forevermark
Depth - 61.9%
Table - 60.6 %
Crown Angle - 34.4°
Pavilion Angle - 41.3°

Covering some of the questions:
1) Happy to buy online, but I am based in South Africa and haven't come across good options like James Allen with videos etc. My assumption was that international shipping and customs costs wouldnt be worth it.
2) Budget is $1900 but the GIA J came in under at $1550
3) I viewed the J in direct sunlight to assess the fluorescence for haziness and it seems fine to my untrained eye.

 

[Gambit22]

I think you have some misinformation.
1) there's nothing about the 0.65 that sounds like a horror story and those inclusions are fine. Generally I'd prefer those in vs2 than cloud as the primary inclusion in si1. The number of inclusions listed does not mean it's worse, cumulated, they were awarded vs2 which is less than the si1
2) apart from fluorescence, diamonds shouldn't really be compared under direct sunlight, that is not when they perform best. The strong fluor can be seen as a valued attribute in a J.
3)Your concerns regarding colour clash with the halo/rose gold, did you see an obvious blue in sunlight, did you like it? Was it too blue compared to the I, or just brighter?
4) people here usually use HCA as a rejection tool to reject stones scoring >2. I think it's fair to say the first stone is a no go, you can do better, but possibly harsh to say a 2.4 stone is a dog. Sure there are probably better cut stones but I'm sure it's a nice bright diamond.

What you really need is to compare them in different lighting environments, a poorly lit room, under diffuse lighting, spot lighting and see if they still look comparable. You'll find the J probably out shines the I when the lighting isn't great.

The general aim is for traditional ideal cut
Table: 54 to 58
Crown: 34 to 35 (35.5 ok with 40.6, sometimes)
Pavilion: 40.6 to 40.8 (41 ok with 34)
Depth: 59.5 to 62.3

If you post your budget, your requirements and how much you are being charged in US dollar, you may find you can stretch your dollar a lot further with better quality diamonds.

I think you have some misinformation.
1) there's nothing about the 0.65 that sounds like a horror story and those inclusions are fine. Generally I'd prefer those in vs2 than cloud as the primary inclusion in si1. The number of inclusions listed does not mean it's worse, cumulated, they were awarded vs2 which is less than the si1
2) apart from fluorescence, diamonds shouldn't really be compared under direct sunlight, that is not when they perform best. The strong fluor can be seen as a valued attribute in a J.
3)Your concerns regarding colour clash with the halo/rose gold, did you see an obvious blue in sunlight, did you like it? Was it too blue compared to the I, or just brighter?
4) people here usually use HCA as a rejection tool to reject stones scoring >2. I think it's fair to say the first stone is a no go, you can do better, but possibly harsh to say a 2.4 stone is a dog. Sure there are probably better cut stones but I'm sure it's a nice bright diamond.

What you really need is to compare them in different lighting environments, a poorly lit room, under diffuse lighting, spot lighting and see if they still look comparable. You'll find the J probably out shines the I when the lighting isn't great.

The general aim is for traditional ideal cut
Table: 54 to 58
Crown: 34 to 35 (35.5 ok with 40.6, sometimes)
Pavilion: 40.6 to 40.8 (41 ok with 34)
Depth: 59.5 to 62.3

If you post your budget, your requirements and how much you are being charged in US dollar, you may find you can stretch your dollar a lot further with better quality diamonds.

Great feedback thanks, I posted more detail