Did I just make a mistake buying a diamond sight unseen?

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/19/2010 2:41:36 PM
Author: M3Rock

Date: 3/19/2010 10:19:23 AM
Author: denverappraiser
The Sarin tool is only useful on unmounted stones anyway so I wouldn’t recommend this be one of your criteria in selecting an appraiser, at least not directly. ( It may be a useful clue of an appraiser who takes their business seriously enough to invest in equipment but it won’t be used in your inspection even if they have one).

Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Thanx for the insight Neil.

I''m glad I don''t plan on having to do this more than once. I suppose in general, women stress out about buying cars, and men stress out about buying diamonds. On second thought, maybe it''s just me. But the only other time I''ve spent this much on rock is when I purchased ''granite'' for the house.

we can find you a "granite" Ering too.

What do you think?

 

[M3Rock]

Date: 3/19/2010 3:01:41 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
we can find you a ''granite'' Ering too.

What do you think?

I suppose it''s much than affordable than diamond countertops?

A few years back, I learned that most "granite" used for countertops weren''t actually granite at all, but really differing classifications of stone other than granite! So it is really a granite in the photo or some Quartzite, et al?

The waiting is kinda hard--I need to see the stone in the flesh to even begin to know how I really feel about it. Meanwhile, I''m kinda digging this one from WF:
http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/round-cut-diamond-2145432.htm#

 

[M3Rock]

So the ring got here, and I took it to the local reputable gemologist who had quite an impressive list of accomplishments. He put me at ease--I didn''t get jibbed. Said it was "his kind of cut" and what I paid was on the low end of the range that he would have paid himself as a consumer. Said not to trust the EGL cert on color and clarity (which I already knew).

So not too bad overall. He dismissed that it was an "Ideal Cut" right away because the depth was above 58%.

I''m quite happy with the way the ring looks. Looked eye-clean to me, but then again, I don''t have the best close up vision. I took some shots of the ring the best I could with what little time I had while my GF was away using a macro lens. There are two big inclusions on the edge, but they mounted it so that most of it was hidden by a prong. The other "clouds" and a speck of carbon were the only thing that was really obvious looking at the macro photos.

What do you think on the mounting and/or the diamond?

 

[jl_minicooper]

this definitely looks like it would be rated at least an SI2 in a GIA report, but still looks good! the prong does a decent job of hiding that really bad inclusion on the edge.

which jeweler did you purchase from in FL?

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 3/21/2010 5:58:13 AM
Author: M3Rock
So not too bad overall. He dismissed that it was an ''Ideal Cut'' right away because the depth was above 58%.

Sorry, anyone that made that statement I would never consider him anyway an expert.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 3/19/2010 4:54:09 PM
Author: M3Rock
The waiting is kinda hard--I need to see the stone in the flesh to even begin to know how I really feel about it. Meanwhile, I''m kinda digging this one from WF:

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/round-cut-diamond-2145432.htm#

Ya, super nice PS discount there.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/21/2010 9:19:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 3/21/2010 5:58:13 AM
Author: M3Rock
So not too bad overall. He dismissed that it was an ''Ideal Cut'' right away because the depth was above 58%.

Sorry, anyone that made that statement I would never consider him anyway an expert.

I also disagree with that statement.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Looking at that majorily magnified image, I wouldn''t think it was eye clean but then again I never seen it in real life. If you decide to keep it, just don''t show your gf that picture .. it will be hard to keep the diamond mind clean and potentially eye clean after.

 

[anitabee]

i think it looks quite nice

what we just saw was CRAZY MAGNIFIED!! in real life with only our bare eyes it''ll look fine. and besides, you''ve covered that one inclusion with a prong.

congrats!

 

[Andelain]

You may want to take a look at the prong at 12 oclock in that picture. It looks like it''s pushed back off the diamond.

BTW, the pattern on that stone looks nice.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/21/2010 9:26:15 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/21/2010 9:19:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 3/21/2010 5:58:13 AM
Author: M3Rock
So not too bad overall. He dismissed that it was an 'Ideal Cut' right away because the depth was above 58%.

Sorry, anyone that made that statement I would never consider him anyway an expert.

I also disagree with that statement.

I also do not like that he/she said this. The old school way of thinking of cut would state this, but it is not the way cut is assessed by any of the modern experts on PS, which use performance based methods. And there are indeed AGS0 and GIA EX diamonds with tables above 58%.

And I will make this comment only because you specifically asked and I think you are still considering whether or not to keep it: I also am wondering about the black ring around the center of the diamond. It could be leakage. Is you gf near sighted? I would be ble to see those inclusions is they are visible in a photos magnified only to the extent the one posted is magnified.

I know it is a pita but I personally would consider starting over with the WF diamond you posted.

ETA Sorry, let me add that *you* have seen it and I have not, and you have consulted someone experienced who has also seen it in person, so in the end you are in the best position to decide whether or not to keep it! It could still be very nice in person, I am only going on estimates remotely.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/21/2010 1:13:06 PM
Author: Lone_Wolfe
You may want to take a look at the prong at 12 oclock in that picture. It looks like it''s pushed back off the diamond.

BTW, the pattern on that stone looks nice.

The one at 10 clock also looks a little puched back... please, M3Rock, if you keep the diamond check that the prongs are properly seated with a loupe!

 

[M3Rock]

Date: 3/21/2010 9:19:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 3/21/2010 5:58:13 AM

Author: M3Rock

So not too bad overall. He dismissed that it was an ''Ideal Cut'' right away because the depth was above 58%.

Sorry, anyone that made that statement I would never consider him anyway an expert.

The guy seem genuine enough, but he also doesn''t know me from "diamond uneducated Joe Blow" off the street making sure he didn''t get "ripped off." As usual, he pointed out what could be trusted on the EGL cert versus what is basically human judgment calls. Said without detailed inspection, to simply downgrade the color and clarity by one at least if it was EGL Int.

He probably made that off-the-cuff comment about "Ideal Cut" only because the comments section of the cert said "Excellent Ideal Cut" and "H&A," and he wanted to make sure I was skeptical since it was an EGL cert. The guy passed his first GIA diamond grading class when he was 15 and is a member of the American Gem Society (if that means anything?).

I think that a lot of people in the industry have a knee-jerk reaction whenever EGL or IGI is mentioned. There''s a tendency to "up-sell" GIA or AGS instead. Not saying that this isn''t valid. For that reason, I did compare it to GIA/AGS I-SI2 pricing.

 

[yssie]

Nice prongable inclusion!



I think it looks like a nice diamond.. I am concerned about the prongs though. Ditto to having those checked out.

 

[M3Rock]

Date: 3/21/2010 1:01:50 PM
Author: CharmyPoo
Looking at that majorily magnified image, I wouldn''t think it was eye clean but then again I never seen it in real life. If you decide to keep it, just don''t show your gf that picture .. it will be hard to keep the diamond mind clean and potentially eye clean after.

Yeah--I tried to approximate a 40x magnification. The image is "focus-stacked," so all the blemishes are heightened since the entire depth of the diamond is "in-focus."

I can see the two big inclusions on the side (since I know what to look for) when I''m 4 to 6 inches away (I''m short-sighted). But even then, it''s quite benign since the bigger one is mainly covered by a prong. Can''t see the other inclusions. Under a 8x loupe, I can kinda see the carbon speck close to the center of the table.

The table is really quite clean; and I''m confident that to any untrained eye, this think is "eye-clean" mounted. I think unmounted, the two "big" inclusions at the edges would be visible from less than 6-10 inches?

 

[M3Rock]

Thanx so much all you guys! All the comments are very helpful to me.

My GF wears a size 8 glove and a size 7.5 or 8 ring. I made a a very deliberate choice to sacrifice color and clarity for cut and size. I haven't decided to use this diamond yet. I'll probably delay the proposal.

I wonder when the ideal-scope I ordered will get here...

And yes--I've sent the photo to the jeweler I purchased it from to ask about the prongs. Thanx for pointing that out--I kinda thought those looked "unsafe."

 

[yssie]

In america there''s a tendency toward GIA is best - finding AGS takes a little more homework.



There''s a knee-jerk reaction toward EGL/IGI because they have proven to be lenient here in the US. I know IGI in some countries is highly respected, and Europe has HRD.. If you know what you''re buying there''s no cause for concern.

 

[Andelain]

Date: 3/21/2010 5:36:52 PM
Author: M3Rock

And yes--I''ve sent the photo to the jeweler I purchased it from to ask about the prongs. Thanx for pointing that out--I kinda thought those looked ''unsafe.''

You''re quite welcome. I''d hate to see you lose the stone out of the ring.

 

[M3Rock]

Got a nice loupe and the cheaper ideal-scope today. I only have the crappy cell phone camera to take the photo since I don''t have any other cameras with that small of a lens.

Looks OK to me--not much leakage to speak of. I can now also tell that the "clouds" at the edge of the table at 1-2 o''clock are actually reflections of the large inclusions at 7-8 o''clock.

I like the look of the stone. It''s sparkly and the table is quite clean for a SI2. No big carbon spots or clouding to speak of. Three to four small "bubbles," and the main inclusions are the two on the edge. I think the price I paid for it was a fair deal. What do you think overall?

P.S. On closer inspection with the new loupe, there are two prongs that aren''t set 100% correctly. So if I decide to use the ring, I''ll have to send it back to the jeweler for a reseat. Not a huge problem since I''m not sure that the size is absolutely correct anyway. It doesn''t look like the diamond itself could work loose--five of the six actually look quite secure. But I didn''t get the best job on the setting.

 

[waterlilly]

The prongs scare me too. Those inclusions mentioned near the 7-8 o'clock position - those look like chips to me, no? Looks like the edge of the girdle is rough in that spot...

Out of curiosity, what is causing that black ring in the first picture? Is it a steep/deep?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/23/2010 8:22:08 AM
Author: waterlilly
The prongs scare me too. Those inclusions mentioned near the 7-8 o''clock position - those look like chips to me, no? Looks like the edge of the girdle is rough in that spot...

Out of curiosity, what is causing that black ring in the first picture? Is it a steep/deep?

He may have had the black camera lense realy really close to the diamond.

 

[stone-cold11]

7-8 o''clock looks like feather.

Ditto on the darkness, probably the camera is too near the stone when the image is taken.

 

[M3Rock]

Date: 3/23/2010 11:29:07 AM
Author: dreamer_d

Date: 3/23/2010 8:22:08 AM

Author: waterlilly

Out of curiosity, what is causing that black ring in the first picture? Is it a steep/deep?

He may have had the black camera lense realy really close to the diamond.

Yep--I used a very big macro lens on a dSLR, and I had to get quite close to the diamond to get the resolution. Even though I''ve done a lot of photography, it was still quite a challenge to get the closeup photos of the ring. It reflects all it''s surroundings!

 

[yssie]

IS looks decent

if you''re okay with the inclusions, it''s no H&A but it sure has light return

 

[M3Rock]

She said YES!

I took a quick pic, and I like the look of it on her finger.

My fiance was also quite OK with the ring going back next week to get reset and engraved.

Thanx all for the help!

 

[Andelain]

Congrats and best wishes to you both!

I think it looks great on her hand, big enough to get the point across without overpowering.

 

[susimoo]

Looks fabulous! Congratulations to you both.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Looks like it fits already.

Date: 3/23/2010 5:40:36 AM
Author: M3Rock
Got a nice loupe and the cheaper ideal-scope today. I only have the crappy cell phone camera to take the photo since I don''t have any other cameras with that small of a lens.

Looks OK to me--not much leakage to speak of. I can now also tell that the ''clouds'' at the edge of the table at 1-2 o''clock are actually reflections of the large inclusions at 7-8 o''clock.

I like the look of the stone. It''s sparkly and the table is quite clean for a SI2. No big carbon spots or clouding to speak of. Three to four small ''bubbles,'' and the main inclusions are the two on the edge. I think the price I paid for it was a fair deal. What do you think overall?

P.S. On closer inspection with the new loupe, there are two prongs that aren''t set 100% correctly. So if I decide to use the ring, I''ll have to send it back to the jeweler for a reseat. Not a huge problem since I''m not sure that the size is absolutely correct anyway. It doesn''t look like the diamond itself could work loose--five of the six actually look quite secure. But I didn''t get the best job on the setting.

But do not forget to get that prong reseated.
It looks like a nice cut.
And an honest clarity for EGL

 

[stone-cold11]

Congrats.

 

[Natylad]

Congrats!!!

It looks beautiful on her hand