Here is what I arrived at for my criteria:
1.5+, I, SI, Ex cut. GIA XXX, HCA <2, (Prefer EX, EX, EX, VG). 7.3+mm dimensions. Price range is <$11,500.
I narrowed it down to 3 stones on JA and am awaiting Idealscopes. In the mean time, I wanted to see if I could start getting some opinions pending the images.
Stone 1: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1408252.asp
1.53, EX, I, SI
Depth: 60.4%
Table: 58%
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: Ex
Girdle: Thin to Med
Fluorescence: Faint
Measurements: 7.44*7.50*4.51
HCA: .8; X, X, X, VG.
My thoughts: I like everything about this stone except the black inclusion. JA tells me the stone is eye clean, and I'm thinking that since it's under the facets and not the table it'll be very tough to see without a loupe.
Stone 2: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1455797.asp
1.54, EX, I, SI
Depth: 60.5%
Table: 58%
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: Ex
Girdle: Med to Slightly Thick
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.44*7.49*4.52
HCA: 1.1; X, X, X, VG
My thoughts: This stone is very very similar to the first one, without the Black inclusion and with no fluorescence. I included this one as an option without the black inclusion of Stone 1. I can see some slight inclusions on the Virtual Loupe but was told by JA that it should show eye clean. This one looks like it has better symmetry and contrast to me in the image on the listing.
Stone 3: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1496987.asp
1.51, EX, I, SI
Depth: 61.6%
Table: 58%
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: EX
Girdle: Medium to Slight Thick
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.33*7.36*4.52
HCA: 1.5; X, X, X, VG
My Thoughts: This one looks the least included when viewed under JA's Virtual Loupe. It is slightly smaller, but if it looks cleaner I may prefer this one. The symmetry is a little off on the 2, 3, 5, and 6 oclock arrows in the photo, I'm not sure how much that matters?
Price wise, the first two are almost the same, the third one is around $1000 cheaper. I included that one as a more affordable alternative, and because it looks cleaner in the photos.
I'd love to hear some thoughts up front, and will follow up with some Idealscope images as soon as I get them!
1.5+, I, SI, Ex cut. GIA XXX, HCA <2, (Prefer EX, EX, EX, VG). 7.3+mm dimensions. Price range is <$11,500.
I narrowed it down to 3 stones on JA and am awaiting Idealscopes. In the mean time, I wanted to see if I could start getting some opinions pending the images.
Stone 1: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1408252.asp
1.53, EX, I, SI
Depth: 60.4%
Table: 58%
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: Ex
Girdle: Thin to Med
Fluorescence: Faint
Measurements: 7.44*7.50*4.51
HCA: .8; X, X, X, VG.
My thoughts: I like everything about this stone except the black inclusion. JA tells me the stone is eye clean, and I'm thinking that since it's under the facets and not the table it'll be very tough to see without a loupe.
Stone 2: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1455797.asp
1.54, EX, I, SI
Depth: 60.5%
Table: 58%
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: Ex
Girdle: Med to Slightly Thick
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.44*7.49*4.52
HCA: 1.1; X, X, X, VG
My thoughts: This stone is very very similar to the first one, without the Black inclusion and with no fluorescence. I included this one as an option without the black inclusion of Stone 1. I can see some slight inclusions on the Virtual Loupe but was told by JA that it should show eye clean. This one looks like it has better symmetry and contrast to me in the image on the listing.
Stone 3: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1496987.asp
1.51, EX, I, SI
Depth: 61.6%
Table: 58%
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: EX
Girdle: Medium to Slight Thick
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.33*7.36*4.52
HCA: 1.5; X, X, X, VG
My Thoughts: This one looks the least included when viewed under JA's Virtual Loupe. It is slightly smaller, but if it looks cleaner I may prefer this one. The symmetry is a little off on the 2, 3, 5, and 6 oclock arrows in the photo, I'm not sure how much that matters?
Price wise, the first two are almost the same, the third one is around $1000 cheaper. I included that one as a more affordable alternative, and because it looks cleaner in the photos.
I'd love to hear some thoughts up front, and will follow up with some Idealscope images as soon as I get them!