Completely lost on choosing a round brilliant

[rockysalamander]

You said that WF would trade a GIA or AGS diamond, so why not send your diamond to get GIA or AGS? You would not be locked into JA if it is a stone that WF will take in trade. If no, you are not worse off than you started. You can have any diamond-certified at any lab, in fact you could send it to them all if you wished.

You'd just need to get the diamond unset and mail to GIA or AGS. Its not terribly expensive to do.

 

[KKJohnson]

You said that WF would trade a GIA or AGS diamond, so why not send your diamond to get GIA or AGS? You would not be locked into JA if it is a stone that WF will take in trade. If no, you are not worse off than you started. You can have any diamond-certified at any lab, in fact you could send it to them all if you wished.

You'd just need to get the diamond unset and mail to GIA or AGS. Its not terribly expensive to do.

smarty

 

[sledge]

2.02 Carat round diamond

2.02 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

Table and depth are fine. However, the crown and pavilion are not complimentary. This stone has a steep 35.5 crown paired with a steep 41 pavilion. You want the crown & pavilion to have an inverse relationship, meaning steep crown/shallow pavilion or vice versa. So perhaps a 35.5/40.6 could work or maybe a 34/41, although both the 35.5 crown and 41 pavilion are pushing bounds.

You should pass on this stone IMO.

This is further backed up by the HCA score of 3.7.

2.02 Carat round diamond

2.02 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

Unfortunately, this is a no for me as well.

It does have an inverse relationship in the fact it pairs a very shallow 32.5 crown with a very steep 41.4 pavilion. The problem is the values themselves. You want to keep crown between 34-35 and your pavilion 40.6-40.9. Sometimes you can push those a little depending on specifics, but those are good guidelines.

Additionally, things tend to go wonky with 41.2+ pavilion angles. If you compare the video of this stone against a well cut stone, I think that will become very obvious to you.

Lastly, it doesn't get a great HCA as already expected.

2.02 Carat round diamond

2.02 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

Not a fan of the 58 table and 80 LGF combo. The 35.5/40.6 combo can work, but the 35.5 is pushing the bounds. I'd want to see some advanced images before committing to the stone. Also, when looking at the video one of the arrows is translucent which makes me think you have at least one of the eight actual pavilion values that is 40.5 or less. Also, the stone seems to have obstruction in it.

Light Obstruction Under Diamond Table Facet Cause and Effect

Dark areas or obstructions under the table facet of diamonds result from optical precision issues, such as variations in facet size, shape, alignment/indexing.

niceice.com

And while it does have a 1.4 HCA, not that the light return is only very good as opposed to excellent.



Lastly, while I have no issues with fluor, this stone has medium blue. Most the time it doesn't create an issue, but still you need to double check it doesn't create a milky or hazy effect just to cover your bases. The upside is that in UV intense lighting, you might enjoy a smidge more white color as the blue fluor offsets the yellow undertone of the H and whitens the stone a tiny bit. It should be cheaper though, as stones with fluor typically trade for less money.

Personally I would keep looking for a stone with more promising proportions and better video.

2.05 Carat round diamond

2.05 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

This stone has the most promising proportions of the group -- 57 table, 62.1 depth, 35 crown, 40.8 pavilion & 75 LGF.



Again, this stone has MBF, so you need to make sure there is no hazy or milky effect. And also that the surfacing graining mentioned in the clarity notes don't create any issues.

And while the proportions are the most promising of the group, I am not a fan of the 35/40.8 combo without additional light performance images (ASET or IS). IMO, it's an odd combo where the steep 35 crown doesn't always play nice with a somewhat steep 40.8 pavilion, unless the stone is precisely cut. Consequently, I've seen several 35/40.8 ASET or IS images with leakage in them.

Point blank I wouldn't buy without an IS or ASET, as I see it as a 50/50 shot at best. And looking at the video the arrows are taking on a paddle shape so I'm thinking it will likely have issues. Lastly, I don't like the twinning whisps on the table. Not sure how that will play into light performance. You have to evaluate inclusions and if they interfere w/ light return.

I may keep as a backup, but would look for something more promising myself.

2.01 Carat round diamond

2.01 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

Again, the crown & pavilion isn't a very complimentary combo with a steep 35 crown and steep 41.2 pavilion. Plus you are on that 41.2 barrier line again. Those reasons alone are good enough to reject this stone, and you see that with a 3.5 HCA.

To add insult to injury, this stone has a knot and while it's not the grade setting inclusion, it's still in the middle of the table and an inclusion that I'm not willing to purchase.

You should pass. There are better choices available.

 

[sledge]

The 2.02 H scores a 1.4, that would be one I might consider out of the options, Sledge is much better at understanding the numbers then I am. Hopefully he can chime in

2.02 Carat round diamond

2.02 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

Took me a bit to get back to this thread, but I gave review above. It does get a 1.4 HCA but look at the light return, it's only very good. I also pointed out some other issues. I would pass.

I have also found this

2.03 Carat round diamond

2.03 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

Considering the inclusions can be hidden with a prong? Thank you KKjohnson!

Proportions look like they may work on this stone. I'd guess it'd get an HCA score less than 1 because of the shallow crown & pavilion combo (34/40.6).

More importantly, the knot is a deal breaker for me. Granted, it's 4th on the list of 4 inclusions. So it's the least severe; however, as noted previously IMO you have too many stones to take one with this type of inclusion.

I'd pass.

Ran an HCA on it for grins -- 0.7. Ideally, you want 1-2 for an e-ring. 0-1 for earrings or pendants.

 

[sledge]

I keep going back to this one, but I am concerned about it being eye clean

2.00 Carat round diamond

2.00 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

This one looks funny to me. Not sure if bad/off angle photography or actual issues w/ symmetry. Notice how the top arrows are shorter than the bottom ones?

Unedited:


Markups:

 

[sledge]

Maybe I'm just being critical this weekend or something, but I don't love any of these choices.

I think I'd agree w/ @rockysalamander and consider sending your current stone back to GIA or AGS to get certified. Depending on the results maybe one of the super ideal vendors will work with you afterall.

Do you mind posting a copy of the IGI cert? And was it certified by IGI-USA or one of the international locations?

 

[rockysalamander]

This one looks funny to me. Not sure if bad/off angle photography or actual issues w/ symmetry. Notice how the top arrows are shorter than the bottom ones?

Unedited:


Markups:

Hard no for me too. I could not live with black inclusions.

 

[Novicenovice]

I wish I could do that and get different certification but this is my only option.

1.88 Carat round diamond

This 1.88 carat round diamond I color si1 clarity has Ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

With my limited options. Would this be a considerable choice? I’m only concerned with milkiness. I can live with inclusions as long as they aren’t so obvious. The HCA score was 1.4.
I’m usually very detail oriented but with my limitations I can sacrifice and live with certain imperfections.

I sat and studied and listed out as many diamonds as I could for six hours and I’ve reached exhaustion lol!!

I was mostly concerned with size and sparkle, between this and the 1.85 that everyone agreed was worth pursuing is this one a tad bitter since it’s spread is larger? Kkjohnson? Sledge? Thank you! I hope I haven’t driven you all mad.

 

[Novicenovice]

Hard no for me too. I could not live with black inclusions.

Or this one?

2.08 Carat round diamond

2.08 Carat round diamond

www.jamesallen.com

 

[Novicenovice]

Sorry sledge. I just realized that the crown angle was too shallow for listed above and light return is only very good for the 1.88. I wish I had a video showing me an example comparing excellent and very good examples to see if it were something I could live with