Engagement ring help

[Erakid]

Hi Everyone,

I've just recently started looking for an engagement ring for my SO, I haven't done any diamond shopping before and would appreciate any help/feedback.
The amount of info on diamond has been pretty overwhelming and I did not know there was so much to look into, so here's some of my criteria so far:

My Budget is about 11k AUD
Shape - Round
Carat - Around 1.2 is ok
Colour - G or higher preferable
Clarity - no lower then S2 as long as it's eye clean

The main thing is I want it to be as white and clear as possible, I've heard fluorescence can make the diamond looks milky/hazy?

I've been looking online (blue nile / james allen) and found this one that I like, and would like some opinions on it.

1.40-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile AU

www.bluenile.com

Two things I'm concern about for this:

1. The diamond's photo doesn't look as shiny as something like this (https://www.bluenile.com/au/build-your-own-ring/diamond-details/LD12996042) is it just the photo or is the diamond actually not as white / shiny

2. On the GIA report it says "Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown", what does this mean exactly as no clouds is shown on the clarity characteristics.

 

[tyty333]

That one would be a no-go due to #2. It means that the clouds are causing an issue with clarity (light return). There maybe be one big cloud
throughout the stone so its not indicated on the clarity map and instead written under Comments.

Edit...since you are in Australia I think you should go with higher clarities. At least move up to SI1.

 

[sledge]

The 1.40 looks the way it does because of that note you found. That is a very bad note! It usually means you will have clarity issues as the stone will look cloudy/hazy and not clear like a normal stone.

While I worry about it in any clarity grade, it's like a death sentence in SI clarity stones.

Additionally the 1.40 has a cavity which I would avoid. Much like when in your teeth, they are bad news.

While talking clarity, we should be clear that finding a truly eye clean and rock solid SI2 is very difficult. They exist, but we call them unicorns for a reason as the vast majority are duds (assuming you don't want to see inclusions, which most don't).

There are certain boutique vendors like WF, HPD, BGD, etc where I would consider purchasing an SI2. But they are super ideal vendors who actually own their stones, and whose stones undergo a very thorough vetting process as they are primarily focusing on cut quality and things like bad clarity reduces light return performance so it's detrimental to their business philosphy. Consequently, they examine clarity not only for size and type of inclusions but how those inclusions will or will not affect the light return. Even then there are very few SI2's offered by them.

To maximize value and give yourself a decent shot at clarity, I would suggest SI1 as the minimum. If you happen to stumble onto a good SI2 then we can help you examine, just adjust your expectations accordingly is all.

 

[sledge]

In regards to fluor, it isn't as bad as some people give it a rep for being. I bought my wife a BGD H VS2 stone with medium blue fluor (MBF) and it performs beautifully.

It is true fluor can create a hazy/milky appearance.

So you should always be safe and ask the vendor if that is an issue if you are considering a stone with fluor.

FYI, while blue is the most common color of fluor, it can also be other colors. The exact color should be identified on the cert. Also, fluor exists in different strengths such as faint, medium, strong, very strong, etc. The higher the level the more potential of it being a problem. Even then a relative small percentage of stones with fluor are an issue.

Also, as.you go up the color scale, fluor and it's intensity becomes less desirable by buyers. For instance a D stone with SBF would be less desirable than a J stone with SBF.

If you are buying a stone with fluor you should expect a discount as stones with fluor trade for less than stones without. The intensity levels again help determine how much of a discount. But if you were looking at two identical stones except fluor levels you should expect the one with none/negligible to trade for more money than one with medium.

Lastly many people thin fluor makes a stone look whiter. It is true to a certain and limited extent. Diamonds can have various color undertones to them. The most common is yellow. So when you mix blue fluor with a yellow undertone it helps whiten the stone. Other color combos may have a different effect.

Also, a key element is fluor requires a strong enough source of UV lighting to activate and actually fluorescence, which then provides that benefit.

Even when you get the right UV lighting scenario, the effects are minimal. It doesn't raise an H color to a G color. And because it toggles on/off according to the UV light source and intensity it's not a constant thing.

Outside in intense sunlight, or at a dance club can activate it and create effects. At a night club it's really cool to see glow blue.

Many here love and seek fluor. Others hate it. There is no right or wrong. Just being educated and doing your homework is what matters so you understand it.

 

[SouthernElle]

For me, the clouds don’t even matter because of the poor cut. The second diamond also isn’t cut very well. Diamond 1’s crown angle is too high and diamond 2’s pavilion angle is too high. I found a unicorn of an SI2, but it was by complete accident and I had been looking for a diamond for 1-2 years and I went over my original budget by $3-5000. I also still have to confirm with the jeweler I want to make my setting (DK), that it’s possibly to put a prong over the inclusion. So my unicorn might actually be a mule. Fingers crossed. Depending on your timeline, it’s possible but can be a bit mind numbing. The thought of searching again sort of makes me want to smash my face into a brick wall.

 

[Erakid]

Thanks for everyone's reply I think I'll stay away from the 1.40

The 1.40 looks the way it does because of that note you found. That is a very bad note! It usually means you will have clarity issues as the stone will look cloudy/hazy and not clear like a normal stone.

While I worry about it in any clarity grade, it's like a death sentence in SI clarity stones.

Additionally the 1.40 has a cavity which I would avoid. Much like when in your teeth, they are bad news.

While talking clarity, we should be clear that finding a truly eye clean and rock solid SI2 is very difficult. They exist, but we call them unicorns for a reason as the vast majority are duds (assuming you don't want to see inclusions, which most don't).

There are certain boutique vendors like WF, HPD, BGD, etc where I would consider purchasing an SI2. But they are super ideal vendors who actually own their stones, and whose stones undergo a very thorough vetting process as they are primarily focusing on cut quality and things like bad clarity reduces light return performance so it's detrimental to their business philosphy. Consequently, they examine clarity not only for size and type of inclusions but how those inclusions will or will not affect the light return. Even then there are very few SI2's offered by them.

To maximize value and give yourself a decent shot at clarity, I would suggest SI1 as the minimum. If you happen to stumble onto a good SI2 then we can help you examine, just adjust your expectations accordingly is all.

I understand that I'll will need to sacrifice some clarity in order to meet my other criteria, as long as the flaws are not too obvious I think it's acceptable for me.

How about these three rings below? They look much white/clearer then before, I can see some flaws on the 1.32 but it shouldn't be too obvious to the naked eye right?

1.32 - https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD13031924
1.18 - https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD13020799
1.14 - https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD12112808

 

[SouthernElle]

I would say no for sure to all but the 1.14. When looking for diamonds, use the advanced filters to narrow your table and depth percentages based on the following table. Then check out the crown and pavilion angles, best to stay in these parameters again.

 

[Erakid]

I would say no for sure to all but the 1.14. When looking for diamonds, use the advanced filters to narrow your table and depth percentages based on the following table. Then check out the crown and pavilion angles, best to stay in these parameters again.

Sorry I don't quite understand, are these parameters for a better cut diamond?

And as for the 1.32 and 1.18, are they not within these parameters? Is that why you are saying no to them? Sorry for all theses questions, I'm just trying to learn as much as I can to make an informed purchase.

 

[amoline]

Those parameters are the general proportions that relate to Marcel Tolkowsky's ideal cut diamond. On BN, if you scroll down, you can see some additional details about the measurements of the diamond.

For example, the case of the 1.18, the table measurement is 59%, which is outside of the generally recommended parameters of 54-57%.

The recommended ranges for those numbers is not always a hard and fast rule, but for someone who is new and looking to make a diamond purchase they certainly aren't bad ranges to stay within.

 

[SouthernElle]

The table I added is actually a bit stricter than Tolkowsky, but yes those are generally a good range to look for. I also use the AGS and GIA cut calculations. Maybe take a look at these, they are closer or within the given ranges and meet the cut for GIA Excellent and AGS Ideal. They are H’s, so that might be a deal breaker for you.

1.06-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile

www.bluenile.com

1.14-Carat Round Cut Diamond | Blue Nile

www.bluenile.com