Diamond Opinion

[CapnBody]

If anyone has the opportunity, I would appreciate an opinion on a diamond that I found at UnionDiamond.com:

I think it is a good balance between size and quality, but would like a second (or third opinion). The only other thing that this diamond has going against it is minor inclusions in the center of the diamond. That section of the GIA cert. is attached. Anyone with any thoughts on how they would affect the appearance would also be appreciated.

Thanks,

-CAPN

 

[Richard Sherwood]

It's tough to tell from a dimensional drawing, but the chances are good that these inclusions are scattered and diffuse.

What's the clarity grade?

 

[pqcollectibles]

You might post carat weight, color, clarity, dimensions (diameter, table %, depth %), crown and pavillion angles, and asking price for more detailed opinions.

 

[CapnBody]

My appologies,


For some reason when the information I entered for the above ring didn't make it to the board. Here they are again:

Cut : Round

Carat : 1.41

Color : F

Clarity : SI1

Regular Price : $8052

Wire Transfer Price : $7817

Measurements : 7.24- 7.22-4.42 mm

Depth Percentage : 61.10 %

Table Percentage : 58 %

Girdle : T-STK

Culet : N

Polish : Very Good

Symmetry : Very Good

Fluorescence : None

Special Notes : AGS1

 

[strmrdr]

I am no expert and am just learning but that looks more like what Id expect from a si2 not an si1.
There are too many inclusions for a si1 rating.
Can one of the experts comment on this?

 

[valeria101]

Not to bad at all... if you are after light return and sparkle, it would help to know at least some more numbers to crunck (such as pavilion depth), and ideally to have the stone graded for its optical properties.

These left aside, the stone has all the chances to be as clean as it is white (very much so, that is).

 

[CapnBody]

Unfortunately I was not able to get any more detailed dimensions than what is on the GIA certificate. I was told that the diamond meets AGS1 standars. I assume that it means that the cut must at least be very good. I can't find a desciption of what the AGS1 standars are.

 

[dimonbob]

I would get whoever has the diamond to get an eye-ball read on what the SI1 was and if it was 100% eye clean.
The reason that this is an AGS-1 is probably because of the 58% table rather than 57.5%. On paper it looks like a nice diamond if it is eye clean.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

-----------
I am no expert and am just learning but that looks more like what Id
expect from a si2 not an si1.
There are too many inclusions for a si1 rating.
Can one of the experts comment on this?
-----------

That's the disadvantage of a two dimensional drawing trying to capture a three dimensional image.

You have to remember that these inclusions are at various depths throughout the stone, with some maybe being black and some maybe being white and some maybe being transparent.

The plotting diagrams almost always look worse than the actual stone. Often the thickness of the line drawn to represent the inclusion will be larger than the inclusion, and the contrast between the plotted inclusion against a white background will be much greater than that actually seen in the diamond.

The plot looks like it could easily be an SI1 if the inclusions are scattered and diffuse. Tough to spot them with the naked eye when they're like that.

 

[CapnBody]

Thanks to everyone who provided comments. I purchased the diamond today. While I don't see many remarks about Union Diamond on this forum, I will make the comment that their customer service so far has been fantastic. Scott even recalled the diamond that I was interested in from a jewelry store he sent it too. He assured me that the stone was eye clean and beautiful. I'll let the forum know how it comes out.