Diamond thoughts/advice on proportions

[Avatar345]

Hi guys, first post but this site and this forum has already been a huge help.

Found this diamond, (and here's the cert), and I sorta like it. I'll be reviewing three diamonds in a bit over a week and I'm thinking of subbing this one in for one of the others (a G w/graining that seems dull/opaque'ish from the vids).

Now... by enthusiast standards I know the table is large and this and that - but the HCA calc is all about it and gives it a 1.6 (thoughts?)
One thing though is that the light return is rated "very good" in the estimator and the fire "excellent" - I would have thought it'd be the opposite in this situation. And on that note, if anyone knows much about "brilliant ideal cuts" vs "fire ideal cuts," I'd love your input... for sure I thought this was in the brilliant ideal camp (but the very good/excellent seem reversed). But beyond that, I'm just curious whether there's anything obvious I'm missing!

 

[tyty333]

Do you have links to your other stone?

 

[Avatar345]

Do you have links to your other stone?

This is the G I was referring to...

G Stone

G Cert

 

[lovedogs]

The one with the large table will look flat IRL, I think. It's just not attractive to my eye (but if course I dont have to like it!)

 

[Avatar345]

The one with the large table will look flat IRL, I think. It's just not attractive to my eye (but if course I dont have to like it!)

No definitely not! But at the same time the advice is helpful

How should I interpret the HCA results, and would the stone tend towards fire or brilliance or what? I get what you're saying about the potential flat'ness

 

[lovedogs]

No definitely not! But at the same time the advice is helpful

How should I interpret the HCA results, and would the stone tend towards fire or brilliance or what? I get what you're saying about the potential flat'ness

The HCA is not a selection tool, it's a rejection tool (e.g. helps you reject stones that have issues). But its lenient towards these kinds of flat top stones. I would interpret the HCA as "this stone could be ok, I should investigate more".

 

[Avatar345]

The HCA is not a selection tool, it's a rejection tool (e.g. helps you reject stones that have issues). But its lenient towards these kinds of flat top stones. I would interpret the HCA as "this stone could be ok, I should investigate more".

What're your thoughts on the look of that G stone?

 

[lovedogs]

What're your thoughts on the look of that G stone?

Deeper than recommended, and looks a little dark. I'd want an ASET/IS to look at potential leakage. But if I were choosing between the G and the one with a big table I'd choose the G a million times.

 

[Avatar345]

Deeper than recommended, and looks a little dark. I'd want an ASET/IS to look at potential leakage. But if I were choosing between the G and the one with a big table I'd choose the G a million times.

My concern is less the cut on that one and more the opacity of the pics and whether it stems from the graining and wisps

 

[lovedogs]

My concern is less the cut on that one and more the opacity of the pics and whether it stems from the graining and wisps

I agree that there's something odd about the color/tone.

 

[Avatar345]

I agree that there's something odd about the color/tone.

This is the diamond I think I will likely end up going with, and then here's the current third stone. If you've got thoughts on those other two, and whether any should maybe be subbed out, I'm all ears.

(Cert1 - Cert2)

My constraints are functionally that I'm targeting ~2ct, am not trying to spend more than I "have" to, and would ideally like something eye clean, non-contrasting on platinum, and with a nice cut.

The diamond I mentioned as the "likely" winner is great for being just under $14K, inclusions off to the sides, well cut (seemingly), and really towards the whiter side of 'I' so far as I can tell. There's some darkness between the arrow shafts on the face-on view that I don't know what to make of, but I think the photography was just slightly off angle, and maybe it's that

I love the idea of that H stone w/the strong flourescence as maybe being the reason it's under $20K, assuming it doesn't cause any milkiness. But I can only review three in person so I'm trying to make them all count

 

[lovedogs]

This is the diamond I think I will likely end up going with, and then here's the current third stone. If you've got thoughts on those other two, and whether any should maybe be subbed out, I'm all ears.

(Cert1 - Cert2)

My constraints are functionally that I'm targeting ~2ct, am not trying to spend more than I "have" to, and would ideally like something eye clean, non-contrasting on platinum, and with a nice cut.

The diamond I mentioned as the "likely" winner is great for being just under $14K, inclusions off to the sides, well cut (seemingly), and really towards the whiter side of 'I' so far as I can tell. There's some darkness between the arrow shafts on the face-on view that I don't know what to make of, but I think the photography was just slightly off angle, and maybe it's that

I love the idea of that H stone w/the strong flourescence as maybe being the reason it's under $20K, assuming it doesn't cause any milkiness. But I can only review three in person so I'm trying to make them all count

Sorry but I don't care for either of these. What is your budget and preferred size/color?

 

[Avatar345]

Sorry but I don't care for either of these. What is your budget and preferred size/color?

Ideal budget is in the $12-18K range
2ct (+/-)
Beyond that I'm flexible on color & clarity so long as it's eye clean and white enough for a platinum band

 

[diamondseeker2006]

It would help if you'd look within this range. The tables on a couple of those stones were just too big. I'd far rather have a well cut 1.8 ct stone than a 2 ct that is not or that has significant inclusions.

Table: 54-58

Depth: 60-62.3

Crown angle 34-35.0 (or up to 35.5 with a 40.6 pavilion angle)

Pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9

 

[lovedogs]

It would help if you'd look within this range. The tables on a couple of those stones were just too big. I'd far rather have a well cut 1.8 ct stone than a 2 ct that is not or that has significant inclusions.

Table: 54-58

Depth: 60-62.3

Crown angle 34-35.0 (or up to 35.5 with a 40.6 pavilion angle)

Pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9

Exactly how I feel as well.