Did I make a mistake buying this diamond?

[RickyJeeves]

I bought this diamond from a small jeweler. I didn't take a close look at it, but glancing at it the diamond looked fine. I was too quick with the purchase. It is getting mailed to me next week after it is placed on the band. Was paying $5800 for this diamond a rip off? Being SI2 will it look bad with the shown bad spots? I'm worried that my girlfriend will start to look at it closely and see a lot of issues. The jeweler said I can getcredits for it if I chose to return it so I guess I could get another one if needed.

 

[purplesilk]

Hi and welcome on Pricescope!
In order to get more replies, post your thread in the RockyTalky forum.
Best to you,
purplesilk

 

[Dancing Fire]

Not a well cut stone. IMO, 62.8% is too deep.

 

[mission1]

You’ll need to add some images to get feedback on eyeclean, and it will partly depend On if the crystals are light or dark....but as it’s an SI2 they may be visible.

 

[mission1]

The stone is also a bit steep angled and a bit deep, but largeish for the price (because you’ve gone low on colour and low on clarity). Depends what your priorities are...

 

[lovedogs]

5800 is a lot to spend for somethign you aren't entirely confident in. I would have purchased a different stone that had a better cut (even if it was a bit smaller). I am also worried about the crystals in the middle of the table, as those might be visible in an SI2.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Being a GIA XXX, the cut is better than most and probably just fine for most buyers! (Many on PS prefer cut proportions in a very narrow range, and that is what the comments above reflect). I am concerned about whether it is eye clean. That is actually a low price for the carat weight, so there is probably some "demerit" affecting market value.

That said, STILL it is better than most! Surely better than all the ungraded crap and diamonds with sub-standard reports out there. I'd wait to see what it looks like to make a final decision, provided you can exchange at that point without any issues.

 

[msop04]

Being a GIA XXX, the cut is better than most and probably just fine for most buyers! (Many on PS prefer cut proportions in a very narrow range, and that is what the comments above reflect). I am concerned about whether it is eye clean. That is actually a low price for the carat weight, so there is probably some "demerit" affecting market value.

That said, STILL it is better than most! Surely better than all the ungraded crap and diamonds with sub-standard reports out there. I'd wait to see what it looks like to make a final decision, provided you can exchange at that point without any issues.

Agreed... if this turns out to be eye clean, then I think you got a good deal.

 

[flyingpig]

First, I highly doubt this stone will be eye-clean when you have all inclusions concentrated in the centre. It is SI2.
Second, $5.8k is too much. Fair price? $5~5.5k
Third, 70% diamonds available on Bluenile and James Allen are GIA EX equivalent. With 58/36.5/41, this is a borderline GIA EX. It should be GIA VG, actually, meaning, this is below average both online and possibly offline these days.

 

[distracts]

An si2 with crystal inclusions only in the very middle? I highly doubt it is eyeclean.

 

[yssie]

I bought this diamond from a small jeweler. I didn't take a close look at it, but glancing at it the diamond looked fine. I was too quick with the purchase. It is getting mailed to me next week after it is placed on the band. Was paying $5800 for this diamond a rip off? Being SI2 will it look bad with the shown bad spots? I'm worried that my girlfriend will start to look at it closely and see a lot of issues. The jeweler said I can getcredits for it if I chose to return it so I guess I could get another one if needed.

Look at the stone closely when you receive it.

Look at it in different types of lights - sunlight, outside on a cloudy day, indoors under yellow lamps, indoors in spotlighting.
Get it a bit grubby - just put some lotion on and rub your hands all over the stone and get it nice and greasy.
Look at it across all those types of lights again.
Is it eyeclean by your definition?

 

[yssie]

I'm worried that my girlfriend will start to look at it closely

Sorry - I just had to say that I giggled reading this. This is an engagement ring, yes?
You can be sure she will inspect it from every conceivable angle. Not to find flaws, but because this will instantly become one of the most treasured, precious gifts anyone has ever given her and she will want to learn its every look and perspective!
She will stare at it. She will show it off to every single person she knows.
If there is anything to be seen - yes, she will see it!

 

[sledge]

Echo the advice to very thoroughly check the stone when you receive it. Given the inclusions are in the smack dab middle of the table, I think you have about slim to zero chance of this stone being truly eye clean. But for your sake, I hope I am wrong.

The other issue is the cut quality. Point blank the steep 36.5 crown does not pair nicely with the steep 41 pavilion. Below is the HCA score on this particular stone. You normally went to have a score between 0-2, with preference for 1-2, and score excellent.



Quite honestly, if you can just cancel the order then I would be tempted to do so. Then you don't have to worry about rejecting and being stuck with credit at the same jeweler who may or may not want to work with you.

For instance, here is a stone that is larger, better clarity and has great proportions for your same price range. It is J color instead of I but quite honestly it should have more fire and will be larger than the stone you are looking at now.

If you can't cancel the order, would he be willing to swap stones for this one?

GIA XXX 1.40 J SI1 @ $5,677

1.40 carat (ct) GIA Round Loose Diamond J Color SI1 Clarity Excellent Cut

www.b2cjewels.com

57 table, 61.6 depth, 34.5 crown, 40.8 pavilion, 80 LGF & 50 stars

This stone does have medium blue fluorescence, so you'd want to have the vendor verify there are ZERO issues with clarity as sometimes fluor can make a stone look hazy in certain lighting conditions. It doesn't always happen, and normally it's strong or very strong levels when it does but you always proceed with caution and check as if it could be a problem.

Look at the difference in the HCA score.

 

[mission1]

@sledge - would good spread not usually mean it looks its size (i.e. average or bigger), or is good spread more complex? On the first HCA the stone gets a “very good” for spread, but will look ‘small’. The second one gets the same score for spread, but will look ‘big’.

 

[gm89uk]

@sledge - would good spread not usually mean it looks its size (i.e. average or bigger), or is spread more complex? On the first HCA the stone gets a “very good” for spread, but will look small. The second one gets the same score for spread, but will look ‘bigger’.

While spread looks at purely size, the looks like size feature will also factor in light performance. So a stone may have a decent diameter for carat size but lack edge to edge brightness giving the illusion it's smaller.

 

[monipod]

I am the first to jump on an I1 if it's relatively eye-clean but a cluster of crystals and clouds on the table is a dealbreaker for even me. If it had a few more inclusions elsewhere, this stone would be an I1.
The cluster will be noticeable to the naked eye I feel, and even if it's not up near the surface, it would affect the light performance. For an engagement ring, I would choose smaller with better clarity.

 

[sledge]

@sledge - would good spread not usually mean it looks its size (i.e. average or bigger), or is good spread more complex? On the first HCA the stone gets a “very good” for spread, but will look ‘small’. The second one gets the same score for spread, but will look ‘big’.

While spread looks at purely size, the looks like size feature will also factor in light performance. So a stone may have a decent diameter for carat size but lack edge to edge brightness giving the illusion it's smaller.

Thanks for jumping in @gm89uk. I've been tied up most the day.