shape
carat
color
clarity

Down to 3, lets hear your thoughts

tampabull

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
41
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!
 
Stone 1 :

seems like the inclusion can be covered by prong when you set in in ring

but personally if I am about to spend money for 1.5 carats I wont risk for any back inclusion
 
So if the black inclusion is your biggest complaint too, why is stone 1 your favorite?

Also, I am under the assumption I'm going to have to live with some inclusions when looking at SI stones, and think that's a fair compromise while wanting to maintain my other criteria and stay within the budget. Stone 3 would be a slightly smaller option but looks cleaner, so why wouldn't that one be a better choice?

Not arguing, just wondering if there are concerns with #2 and #3 that I'm understating?
 
tampabull|1341956898|3231879 said:
So if the black inclusion is your biggest complaint too, why is stone 1 your favorite?

Also, I am under the assumption I'm going to have to live with some inclusions when looking at SI stones, and think that's a fair compromise while wanting to maintain my other criteria and stay within the budget. Stone 3 would be a slightly smaller option but looks cleaner, so why wouldn't that one be a better choice?

Not arguing, just wondering if there are concerns with #2 and #3 that I'm understating?


#3 is my pick, assuming it is clean to your specifications.

They all look very nice by the numbers and photos, no red flags on the reports of any of them. The size difference is truly negligible, that price difference is definitely not!
#3 is a bit off-symmetry in the pic - stone wasn't directly facing the camera during photography. The asymmetry is due to photography, not the stone itself.
 
Thanks Yssie for the opinion!

I also like #3 because it's laser inscribed, not sure how much that matters but I do like being able to easily identify the stone in the future.
 
Scopes

Here are the Scopes for the 3 stones:

Stone #1:
153.jpg

Stone #2:
154.jpg

Stone #3:
151.jpg


Looks to me like #1 is brighter, JA assures me that the small black inclusion doesn't show up to the eye. My only reservation about this one would be that inclusion, but if it's a deal breaker I could always return it.

Am I correct that #1 is noticeably brighter than the other two?
 
Number 1 would be my choice. Did they tell you at what distance the inclusion is visible? I think it may be hidden really
well because its over an arrow.
 
They told me that their definition of eye clean was that the inclusions aren't visible from 8-10" away with the naked eye. I was also thinking that it's good that the spot is over an arrow, and was thinking that it should be just off of the end of a prong when set, so hopefully those two factors will make it un-noticeable.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top