Engagement ring - would like some feedback

[niagarafalls]

Hi everyone! I have been quietly stalking PS for a while and looking to make THE purchase very soon. I have been looking at quite a few diamonds online mainly due to the better selection and pricing and am pretty much set to buy from Blue Nile (great customer service, and easy returns for Canada) and I'd like your opinion on this diamond:

1.54, I, SI1, Excellent cut with Medium Blue fluorescence

Depth 62.8
Table 55
Crown 34.5
Pavilion 41

Comes out as 1.9 TIC in HCA but "Light Return" is the only one that comes up as "Excellent" when you drill down, the other 3 come up as "Very Good" (not sure how that rolls up to an excellent 1.9 TIC overall, have never drilled down in the details before)...the price seems really great compared to other comparable 1.5 range diamonds at I/SI1 and I wonder if it's something in the other stats affecting the price (too deep)? It's priced at $9.8k Canadian dollars, which are slightly higher than the same prices on Blue Nile's US website.

I haven't contacted their customer service yet to get the details on whether the SI1 is "eye clean" or not but it seems to have a slight inclusion (crystal or cloud) right on the face of the diamond...is that going to affect how the light reflects? My girlfriend is mostly concerned about the "sparkly" factor and size.

Last but not least, I would like to set this in Blue Nile's classic halo setting in platinum. My research has taught me that a J-H diamond with medium blue fluorescence will appear "whiter" therefore making up the color a bit to match the halos diamond. Blue Nile claims to use diamonds on "average H" color in the halo setting I have selected; do you think an I will medium blue fluorescence will look ok or really off in that halo setting?

Thanks in advance, looking forward to your feedback!

 

[Diamond2014]

The reason why you don't get excellent of everything is because of the Pavilion angle. If it was 40.8, it would have been perfect.

BUT the good news is that GIA average their numbers to the 0.2
If they say 41 Pavilion Angle, some side may have 40.8 some side may have 40.9 some side may have 41.2 some side may have 41 etc etc

I don't like the 62.8 depth. Carat is measurement of weight, not size. Alot of the carat weight is stretched downward of the diamond.

If you're around Buffalo, NY area, I have Ideal Scope and Aset Scope available that you can borrow to take a look at your diamond when you get the ring. I bought the professional Ideal Scope and Aset Scope to look at my Blue Nile purchase, but it has been laying around after I found the perfect diamond.

 

[JulieN]

Don't worry about the HCA, 1.9 is an excellent HCA. Ask BN for a picture. A 1.5 ct should be around 7.4mm, so if you're in that ballpark, the extra depth is not a big deal.

 

[niagarafalls]

Don't worry about the HCA, 1.9 is an excellent HCA. Ask BN for a picture. A 1.5 ct should be around 7.4mm, so if you're in that ballpark, the extra depth is not a big deal.

Thanks for the reply Julie. The measurements from the GIA report are "7.33 - 7.37 x 4.62 mm", not sure which way to read those for a diamond lol.

 

[niagarafalls]

The reason why you don't get excellent of everything is because of the Pavilion angle. If it was 40.8, it would have been perfect.

BUT the good news is that GIA average their numbers to the 0.2
If they say 41 Pavilion Angle, some side may have 40.8 some side may have 40.9 some side may have 41.2 some side may have 41 etc etc

I don't like the 62.8 depth. Carat is measurement of weight, not size. Alot of the carat weight is stretched downward of the diamond.

If you're around Buffalo, NY area, I have Ideal Scope and Aset Scope available that you can borrow to take a look at your diamond when you get the ring. I bought the professional Ideal Scope and Aset Scope to look at my Blue Nile purchase, but it has been laying around after I found the perfect diamond.

Thanks for the feedback. That's what I thought too about the depth, I feel like I wouldn't be getting the best bang for my buck size wise (visually) with that depth potentially.