Cofused SI1 or SI2

[yssie]

I thought shipping was free

Depends on the vendor I'm sure, best call yours and inquire.

 

[LibbyLA]

I have an SI2, graded by AGS, and it's not totally eye-clean. The inclusion is a tiny garnet-color crystal and it's in the table area over top of the culet. I wore that ring 2 days before I ever spotted that inclusion. Most of the time, it's not visible. But in the right lighting, at the right angle, it practically jumps out. I can't get a picture of it because it's so small. But honestly, what it looks like, when it is visible, makes you think it's just the tiniest little spatter of dark nail polish. The diamond is so well-cut that I even study it, and I still think (after 3 years) that it looks like something "on" the diamond, not an inclusion in it. lol

So, this is all related to an individual's tolerance of imperfection or "wonk."

TC1987,

I can relate to that. My GIA SI2 2.06 ct. oval has a tiny crystal in just about the same place. In some very low-light situations, it shows up as a tiny spec of glitter suspended within the diamond near the bottom. In any lighting that makes the diamond sparkle, it's invisible.

liz

 

[milton333]

I thought shipping was free

Shipping out to you once might be free, but shipping back to the vendor for setting and having them ship it back to you would likely cost money. However, I think "hundreds of dollars" is unlikely. Most diamond vendors want you to ship diamonds by USPS Registered mail. I've recently shipped a diamond insured for $6,000 through USPS Registered, and it cost me $30 one-way. Might be more from California to New York, but not to the tune of hundreds of dollars.

 

[milton333]

One other thought - the older I get, the more tolerant I get of inclusions. I also prefer a more, um, assertive single inclusion, like a crystal, over something more diffuse, like a cloud, which tends to make a stone always look a bit fuzzy/dirty. I can accept that the stone has a "birthmark." When buying for myself, as opposed to receiving a surprise engagement ring, I know what trade-offs have to be made for the size and cut I want within my limited budget. There are even decently eyeclean I1s out there, and I know IDJ has helped other PSers find some.

Anyway, yes, I'd personally consider SI2 or even I1, but would need pictures. Also keep in mind that magnified pictures will make an inclusion look far worse than you'd ever see it in real life. Knowing that I'm buying for myself, I don't need "eye clean through the pavilion when held 3 inches from my face." I need eye clean in normal social settings and at a casual glance. The 40x picture is fine so I know what's there, but I'd also like to see a more realistic perspective of at least 12 inches.

 

[Phoenix]

I've had Si2 stones that are cleaner than some other Si1's.

The thing to look out for are inclusions right in the middle of the table or near the table, stay well clear of them, unless we're talking about clear (as in not black, not opaque white but clear clear) crystals or even twinning wisps. Mind you, even though twinning wisps are amongst the best inclusions to have, if not the best (or rather least bad), they can still be black and eye-visible. I'd choose a stone with inclusions near the girdle, which may be prong-able (meaning they could be covered up with prongs).

If you can select some stones and post them here, we could give you further advice. In any case, an independent adviser could advise you further. Mind you, I had an IA once who told me an Si1 stone was "eye clean", which it is, but the inclusion is so terrible, you can clearly loupe it and it reflects itself into several other places throughout the stone! So be very careful.

As for shipping charges from the vendor to you, it varies from vendor to vendor, but as someone else has already pointed out: if you return the stone, you will for sure have to bear the shipping charges back on its return and maybe even the shipping charges out to you. I think that's only fair.

 

[mdmc]

So much to think about. Thanks again to all of you for your help. When I am ready I will definitely check with all of you. I think as some of you have pointed out I do not want a"cloudy" diamond. I think I could handle an inclusion better than a stone that is not clear. I think I also mentioned I don't think there will be any upgrading of the stone ( maybe the setting though hehe) in the future so I need to get this right.