Colored stone veteran, but diamond newbie needs help.

[Karl_K]

I picked the 2.01 because the 2.03 to my eyes has a much darker table face up and even more at tilt.
The 2.01 does have the mixed virtual facet thing going on I agree but that is not as bad as the darker table.

 

[Karl_K]

P.S. I got shut down pretty quickly when I asked for the ASETs. lol Not sure why... I've seen them elsewhere for heart and fancy shapes.

Not a surprise.
There are some cutters who offer them either actual or scan based as part of their sales package a lot more don't.

 

[Autumn in New England]

I picked the 2.01 because the 2.03 to my eyes has a much darker table face up and even more at tilt.
The 2.01 does have the mixed virtual facet thing going on I agree but that is not as bad as the darker table.

Thanks for the explanation! I don't think my eyes are trained enough to see what you're seeing, which is frustrating. Let me take another look. lol

 

[Karl_K]

Thanks for the explanation! I don't think my eyes are trained enough to see what you're seeing, which is frustrating. Let me take another look. lol

In the pics @yssie posted of the face up view the 2.03 has a large grey zone under the table on the left side of the under table area.

 

[yssie]

They used to be amazing about ASETs. Now I think a lot of stones are too far away to ship to their office without significant extra expense for them. I can't say where I heard that explanation though so don't quote me. I can say (cause i'm a regular ol' consumer, not a tradeperson) that their chat customer service is 99.9% garbage and has been for a few years.

So, yeah, like karl said, the 2.01 is more evenly bright across the face-up. But the 2.03 has more evenly distributed faceting size and has a less straight-lined table top. So totally up to what your eyes value honestly. My eyes value the latter more. They do have free returns, like you said, so that's reassuring - even if you decide you picked wrong for your tastes you've got a failsafe #out option!!

I can also say that the differences between these two stones wouldn't blow you away in-person. You might see differences but, like, not night and day - far from that. they're very similar in personality.

 

[Autumn in New England]

In the pics @yssie posted of the face up view the 2.03 has a large grey zone under the table on the left side of the under table area.

Ah I think I see what you mean. Where I'm getting confused is between contrast (good) and darkness (bad).

 

[Autumn in New England]

They used to be amazing about ASETs. Now I think a lot of stones are too far away to ship to their office without significant extra expense for them. I can't say where I heard that explanation though so don't quote me. I can say (cause i'm a regular ol' consumer, not a tradeperson) that their chat customer service is 99.9% garbage and has been for a few years.

I did their "live diamond consultation," which was a joke. I assumed that meant a G.G. inspected the diamond in person, while we had a live chat. Nope. Basically they just interpret the GIA report. Even I can do that!

So, yeah, like karl said, the 2.01 is more evenly bright across the face-up. But the 2.03 has more evenly distributed faceting size and has a less straight-lined table top. So totally up to what your eyes value honestly. My eyes value the latter more. They do have free returns, like you said, so that's reassuring - even if you decide you picked wrong for your tastes you've got a failsafe #out option!!

I can also say that the differences between these two stones wouldn't blow you away in-person. You might see differences but, like, not night and day - far from that. they're very similar in personality.

I agree... and the part about them being pretty comparable was what I was hoping to hear. Ok, so I'll probably look once more tomorrow with fresh eyes and make a decision. Thanks, friends!!

 

[yssie]

Ah I think I see what you mean. Where I'm getting confused is between contrast (good) and darkness (bad).

Yeah. This can be hard because the pics aren't all taken exactly the same way. But one way to look at it - in the pic of the diamond, what's the "whitest" part that isn't flat out glare, and what's the "blackest" part - the more of that whitest and blackest you see, evenly distributed, the better. And the less shades of grey (that are in between the whitest and blackest) the better.

There was a poll in pearls that you might find interesting actually. This topic comes up a lot there (contrastiness). The thing about light reflector images like IS and ASET is that you aren't actually looking for only quantitatively more red than green/pink, you're looking for a nice distribution of red/black/white/blue/green or red/black/pink across the top of the stone. Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - the stone with less red can actually end up being the more pleasing in-person because the distributio of brightness and blackness (contrast) is nicer.

Edit https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/please-take-my-poll.275215/

 

[yssie]

From that pearls thread. Both have the same amount of black and white, but if these were diamonds sitting face-up (an evaluation of light return patterning, rather) every single person would prefer the right one! But this is a super extreme example of course. No diamond is ever this bifurcated. Well, maybe a briolette

 

[Autumn in New England]

Yeah. This can be hard because the pics aren't all taken exactly the same way. But one way to look at it - in the pic of the diamond, what's the "whitest" part that isn't flat out glare, and what's the "blackest" part - the more of that whitest and blackest you see, evenly distributed, the better. And the less shades of grey (that are in between the whitest and blackest) the better.

There was a poll in pearls that you might find interesting actually. This topic comes up a lot there (contrastiness). The thing about light reflector images like IS and ASET is that you aren't actually looking for only quantitatively more red than green/pink, you're looking for a nice distribution of red/black/white/blue/green or red/black/pink across the top of the stone. Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - the stone with less red can actually end up being the more pleasing in-person because the distributio of brightness and blackness (contrast) is nicer.

Edit https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/please-take-my-poll.275215/

You have a way of explaining things that makes complicated issues really easy to grasp! Are you or were you ever a teacher? I see exactly what you (and Karl) mean now. I am detecting more of a stark white and black contrast through the table of the 2.01. Does this part bother you at all or is it a non-issue? Again, many thanks!

 

[yssie]

You have a way of explaining things that makes complicated issues really easy to grasp! Are you or were you ever a teacher? I see exactly what you (and Karl) mean now. I am detecting more of a stark white and black contrast through the table of the 2.01. Does this part bother you at all or is it a non-issue? Again, many thanks!

I was, actually, for about three weeks - three weeks was all I needed to learn that I was definitively NOT cut out for dealing with masses of children

More stark B&W through the entire faceup of the 2.01 - yup, that’s exactly what Karl is talking about! Re. the little splodge of mush at the culet there, well, I don’t love it and of course I’d rather it wasn’t there, but it diminishes at slight tilt so it wouldn’t be a dealbreaker for me. For me that specific flaw goes into the “well I have to compromise somewhere so…” bucket. That’s me though.

Mushiness under the table usually behaves the opposite of windowing in coloured gems - windows can close up pretty well with enclosed settings, but an enclosed setting that blocks light to significant amounts of the pavilion tends to make mush (ineffective virtual facets) worse (even less effective) - unless the mush is created by an overly shallow pavilion, which isn’t the case here. IMO both these stones would benefit from a mount that allows the underside to get lots of light…

 

[Autumn in New England]

I was, actually, for about three weeks - three weeks was all I needed to learn that I was definitively NOT cut out for dealing with masses of children

More stark B&W through the entire faceup of the 2.01 - yup, that’s exactly what Karl is talking about! Re. the little splodge of mush at the culet there, well, I don’t love it and of course I’d rather it wasn’t there, but it diminishes at slight tilt so it wouldn’t be a dealbreaker for me. For me that specific flaw goes into the “well I have to compromise somewhere so…” bucket. That’s me though.

Mushiness under the table usually behaves the opposite of windowing in coloured gems - windows can close up pretty well with enclosed settings, but an enclosed setting that blocks light to significant amounts of the pavilion tends to make mush (ineffective virtual facets) worse (even less effective). IMO both these stones would benefit from a mount that allows the underside to get lots of light…

My mother taught 1st grade for 30 years, so I get it. Perhaps university would have been a good fit for you. The little ones are a handful... and sticky.

Ok, well I think that about does it for me inundating you with questions tonight. These guys are probably going to be the best I can do in my price range, so I'm just going to choose between them. I don't want to go above $20k (I'm already well over that with tax, which I was disappointed to learn JA collects... boo hiss). I want to have some funds left over to set it with some colored diamond accents. I'll post about it once I settle on a stone. Can't thank you enough!

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Does anyone like this small heart?

0.71 Carat Diamond, Heart, N VERY LIGHT BROWN Color, VVS2, GIA, D117819471

This Heart shape, N color,VVS2 clarity, and Super Ideal make (cut) certified loose diamond comes with a report from the GIA

www.brilliance.com

I never had any interest in heart shaped diamonds until this thread.

 

[Karl_K]

Does anyone like this small heart?

0.71 Carat Diamond, Heart, N VERY LIGHT BROWN Color, VVS2, GIA, D117819471

This Heart shape, N color,VVS2 clarity, and Super Ideal make (cut) certified loose diamond comes with a report from the GIA

www.brilliance.com

I never had any interest in heart shaped diamonds until this thread.

No video without contacting them is an automatic no for me.
Also calling everything super-ideal when its clearly not, what is up with that?

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Brilliance has done that forever, their own grading system. I just figured, you're on your own.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Does anyone like this small heart?

0.71 Carat Diamond, Heart, N VERY LIGHT BROWN Color, VVS2, GIA, D117819471

This Heart shape, N color,VVS2 clarity, and Super Ideal make (cut) certified loose diamond comes with a report from the GIA

www.brilliance.com

I never had any interest in heart shaped diamonds until this thread.

I sort of love that this thread has inspired you to browse heart diamonds! I'm no expert, so I can only advise you based on my research when shopping for my own stone. The first thing I need to say is that even with an "ideal" cut, a heart-shaped diamond can still be lacking in brilliance. They're much trickier than a round or other traditional cut. With regard to the diamond you posted, here are my thoughts.

It has a GIA report, which is a must. I love the shape and the ratio is good. The table and depth percentages are within what was recommended to me as being "ideal" for a heart-shape. So that is all a plus. The clarity is excellent. If you're good with N color, then that is fine (it's a matter of taste). I wouldn't worry about medium fluorescence in this color grade. My one concern is the "very good" symmetry. Ideally, you want a heart to be as symmetrical as possible, so I'd shoot for "excellent," if possible. Lastly, as Karl said, even with a great return policy, I would be reluctant to purchase a diamond without the benefit of a video. I'd ask them for one. I'd also want to see the GIA report. Good luck!

 

[Autumn in New England]

Since Yssie and Karl were somewhat split on which was the overall "better" diamond, I went ahead and consulted Paul Gian of Beyond 4Cs. He came highly recommended to me as a diamond expert, and he's willing to help clueless shoppers such as I make informed decisions. I sent him both links (of the 2.01ct. and 2.03ct. diamonds I was contemplating). I asked him if he liked one over the other, neither, or if he felt they were fairly equal. Here is his response. I should also mention that he urged his fiancé (now wife) to choose a round diamond. She wanted a heart, and a heart is what she got!

"With JA’s videos, one can actually determine light performance and gauge how the ASET will look just by interpreting the videos. And I do have the experience to do that.

"Both diamonds you picked have good light return. And that tells me you know what you are doing. Plus, both have superb shape appeal (outline).

"I have a strong preference for the 2.03ct. diamond, because of the contrast patterning. The other diamond has a slightly darker “bowtie,” which is not a deal breaker. But that’s just me being anal. Both stones are good choices and winners in their own right.

"I can’t see prices as both are listed as unavailable. If one is significantly cheaper than the other, that might also tilt my preferences."

So he felt they were pretty even, but ultimately chose the 2.03ct., which was the stone I was initially drawn to as well. The price difference was negligible. I have given JA the go ahead to ship, so hopefully I will receive it next week. Thanks again for everyone's help! Hoping to love it!!

 

[Autumn in New England]

Brilliance has done that forever, their own grading system. I just figured, you're on your own.

Rare Carat does that, as well. They list the minimum requirements for each sub-cut category, and if the diamond passes each one, it is regarded as "ideal." The issue is, I think they are a bit generous with the parameters. Also, all of the numbers can look right on paper with a heart-shape, but it can still have poor light performance. It's such a different animal than round!

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

I sort of love that this thread has inspired you to browse heart diamonds! I'm no expert, so I can only advise you based on my research when shopping for my own stone. The first thing I need to say is that even with an "ideal" cut, a heart-shaped diamond can still be lacking in brilliance. They're much trickier than a round or other traditional cut. With regard to the diamond you posted, here are my thoughts.

It has a GIA report, which is a must. I love the shape and the ratio is good. The table and depth percentages are within what was recommended to me as being "ideal" for a heart-shape. So that is all a plus. The clarity is excellent. If you're good with N color, then that is fine (it's a matter of taste). I wouldn't worry about medium fluorescence in this color grade. My one concern is the "very good" symmetry. Ideally, you want a heart to be as symmetrical as possible, so I'd shoot for "excellent," if possible. Lastly, as Karl said, even with a great return policy, I would be reluctant to purchase a diamond without the benefit of a video. I'd ask them for one. I'd also want to see the GIA report. Good luck!

Autumn in New England, how nice of you to respond! I just bought lab pear shaped diamonds for earrings and I think heart-shaped are even more difficult to judge. I thought this one was appealing, I have no problem with an N, and I thought I'd throw it out there. (And I would never buy without seeing a video.)
I never liked a heart-shaped diamond until your thread, but I've seen and learned so much from this forum that I can't even remember the gateway drug.
Looking forward with pleasure to seeing what you buy and design!

 

[Autumn in New England]

I can't even remember the gateway drug.

Truer words have never been spoken! I remember the first piece I saw on PS that really spoke to me... it was one of TL's pieces... I believe a spinel and tsavorite ring.

In any event, I think the diamond you posted certainly has potential. Take a look at Yssie's previous posts in this thread regarding the area beneath the table. I don't see a lot of "mush," which is a good sign!

Here's a perfect example of a heart-shaped diamond with good numbers (though the ratio is too large, IMO), but poor performance. Half the area under the table is "mush" (bottom half) and it has a terrible bow tie. Look for uniform, sharp facet light under the table. You'll lose a bit with tilt, but I don't think you can escape that completely with a heart. Pears are tough, but I agree that hearts are worse! Which is why nobody buys them!! Nothing will ever compare to an ideal round, of course, but I think if you locate a fine heart, the brilliance can be spectacular.

2.05 Carat heart diamond

This heart shaped 2.05 carat F color vs2 clarity has a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

 

[yssie]

Truer words have never been spoken! I remember the first piece I saw on PS that really spoke to me... it was one of TL's pieces... I believe a spinel and tsavorite ring.

In any event, I think the diamond you posted certainly has potential. Take a look at Yssie's previous posts in this thread regarding the area beneath the table. I don't see a lot of "mush," which is a good sign!

Here's a perfect example of a heart-shaped diamond with good numbers (though the ratio is too large, IMO), but poor performance. Half the area under the table is "mush" (bottom half) and it has a terrible bow tie. Look for uniform, sharp facet light under the table. You'll lose a bit with tilt, but I don't think you can escape that completely with a heart. Pears are tough, but I agree that hearts are worse! Which is why nobody buys them!! Nothing will ever compare to an ideal round, of course, but I think if you locate a fine heart, the brilliance can be spectacular.

2.05 Carat heart diamond

This heart shaped 2.05 carat F color vs2 clarity has a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

This is a fantastic example of a dreadful stone. I'm just gonna screenshot it here in case the JA listing goes poof. And congrats on *your* heart - share pics and thoughts when you get it!!

 

[Autumn in New England]

This is a fantastic example of a dreadful stone. I'm just gonna screenshot it here in case the JA listing goes poof. And congrats on *your* heart - share pics and thoughts when you get it!!

Thank you for that! You have taught this grasshopper well.

 

[lovedogs]

I have been window shopping for heart diamonds (which I always thought I hated until this thread). I blame you all lol

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

You too?
We need a vaccine for this.

 

[lovedogs]

You too?
We need a vaccine for this.

I've found multiple little ones I love (in the .4-.6 range) and am trying to make excuses about why I need a multi heart RHR......vaccine needed!!!

 

[Cerulean]

I've found multiple little ones I love (in the .4-.6 range) and am trying to make excuses about why I need a multi heart RHR......vaccine needed!!!

I have always had a soft spot for hearts. I usually don't like cutesy things, but they are the perfect amount of "camp" for me to just adore! If you get a little one, plz share!

And @Autumn in New England - I am excited to see where you land! Not to many big diamond hearts around. Would love to know how you plan to set it, too...I'm of no help on the cut front, so have been lurking

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Oh boy, small hearts for a RHR, in a row (they could be an even number!) or in a daisy configuration . . . the bearings in my little brain are getting hot.

 

[Karl_K]

Oh boy, small hearts for a RHR, in a row (they could be an even number!) or in a daisy configuration . . . the bearings in my little brain are getting hot.

multi-colored hearts to make it even more kewl.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

I'd probably wind up with a Lucky Charms ring.

 

[Autumn in New England]

I have always had a soft spot for hearts. I usually don't like cutesy things, but they are the perfect amount of "camp" for me to just adore! If you get a little one, plz share!

And @Autumn in New England - I am excited to see where you land! Not to many big diamond hearts around. Would love to know how you plan to set it, too...I'm of no help on the cut front, so have been lurking

Well said... I don't typically like cutesy either! I prefer to think of heart-shaped stones as "playful." That's what I'm going with anyway!!

I have been window shopping for heart diamonds (which I always thought I hated until this thread). I blame you all lol

I love that we've started a trend with this post. If anyone ends up grabbing something, I do hope you'll share your "heart" with us!