Faint Fluorescence in round 2.5 carat H??

[arnoviml]

Hey everyone - been reading a lot on here and appreciate everyone's insight, but curious of people's thoughts on the below diamonds.

I saw it in person and it looked great inside and outside of the jewelry store. We also took it into a dark room with a UV light and didn't notice any fluorescence but was curious if this was an issue given the "faint" fluorescence (full GIA specs below).

It seemed very eye clean for an SI 1 as well but any help our guidance would be appreciated!

Of everything I'm reading the proportions fall in line with where a diamond like this should fit and the price offered is $26k, which feels like a good deal? I'd much rather prefer to buy from this local jeweler who I trust and they had also offered a 2.43 carat, I, VS2 cut diamond for $23k with the proportions of (triple excellent, no fluorescence, 58% table, 36.0% crown, 41.0% pavilion, 62.0% depth).

Both diamonds looked very similar in person but I'm leaning toward the one with better proportions and was curious what people's thoughts were and if the faint flourescence truly matters.

Thanks in advance!

 

[OoohShiny]

Run the numbers through the HCA under the Tools tab at the top of the forum and tel! us how they score.

Do you/the jeweller have an IdealScope and an ASETscope to analyse cut quality?

If you let us know your budget and required/desired colour/clarity/carat size, we can find options from the PS-recommended vendors.

 

[Todd Gray]

Of everything I'm reading the proportions fall in line with where a diamond like this should fit and the price offered is $26k, which feels like a good deal? I'd much rather prefer to buy from this local jeweler who I trust and they had also offered a 2.43 carat, I, VS2 cut diamond for $23k with the proportions of (triple excellent, no fluorescence, 58% table, 36.0% crown, 41.0% pavilion, 62.0% depth).

The supplier for the 2.55 carat, H-color, SI-1 clarity, GIA Excellent cut round diamond provides the following images within the listing details:

Notice how light is reflecting under the table facet in the relative one o'clock position compared to the rest of the diamond.

Here is the Ideal Scope image:


Notice the translucent region under the table facet in the relative one o'clock region. My assumption is that the darker region visible in the one o'clock region of the clarity photograph is the same area pictured here in the 12 o'clock region.

I believe that this is the lab report for the 2.43 carat, I-color, VS-2 you are considering:

In my experience, a pavilion depth of 43.5% is "the critical tipping point" where light begins not to strike fully off the pavilion facets (lower half of the diamond) which means this diamond will probably be less bright than the 2.55 carat which has a pavilion angle of 40.6 degrees.

I find that round diamonds with a steeper 36 degree crown angle tend to look amazing when viewed under pin-fire lighting situations, such as jewelry store halogen lighting.

However, those same diamonds seem to flatten out and go dead when viewed under the diffused lighting situations that we live and work under in this modern age (but does serve to enable diamond cutters to make higher profits because they retain more carat weight).

Here's the clarity photograph provided by the supplier for this diamond:

Notice how much darker this diamond appears to be under the table facet?

Also take note of how light is reflecting along the edge of the diamond where the upper girdle facets run along the girdle edge, especially in the five and seven o'clock regions as compared with the rest of the diamond.

Can you see the correlation between the darker regions visible in this 2.43 carat diamond with those visible in the 2.55 carat for which the Ideal Scope image provides the additional insight that we can learn from?

With that in mind, which diamond do you think offers better light performance?

 

[arnoviml]

Thanks Todd!

Yes, I'm amazed but that is the 2.43 carat diamond I'm also considering. Out of curiosity, where did you find these pictures as my jeweler didn't even have them?

Both diamonds looked very similar in person (both indoors and outdoors), but I'm leaning toward the 2.55 carat because of the better performance and felt like it had better light performance.

Do you think this is a decent price for it? It's light performance seemed to look good under the idealscope picture, right?

From what I've read, the faint fluorescence should never really affect the diamond. Is that consistent with your experience?

Thanks for the help

 

[Todd Gray]

I located the diamond on one of the multiple listing services that we use to trade diamonds globally and then pulled the images from the supplier...

I can't comment on price, but you can determine whether it is reasonable or not by searching for diamonds of comparable quality.

There is a little bit of leakage visible under the table facet in the 12 o'clock region of the Ideal Scope image, but it's not full blown. Only you can determine what degree of light performance is acceptable to you and where to draw the line.

Diamond cut quality, including optical precision, can affect diamond prices by up to 60% and thus a diamond that exhibits better light performance will cost more.

Think of it like this... In terms of proportions and the degree of optical precision that this diamond exhibits, we could say that it's in the performance class of a Porsche 911 non-turbo.

There are ideal cut diamonds cut to higher degrees of optical precision, which will deliver a higher level of performance, such as a Porsche 911 Turbo and a G3, but those will cost more. Make sense?

Faint blue fluorescence is nothing more than an identifying characteristic and is not likely to have any impact, positive or negative, upon the appearance of the diamond under normal lighting conditions.

 

[arnoviml]

Thanks Todd - makes sense and appreciate the insight.

Would you by chance have the ideal scope image of the 2.43 carat diamond as well? Was curious what that may look like in comparison.

 

[arnoviml]

I'd also be curious your quick thoughts on this diamond as well - seeing from another jeweler in the similar price range $26k. Understand you can't comment on price but not sure how I feel about the pavilion angle. It's a nice stone but also feels like I'm paying up for VVS2 which isn't necessarily needed.

Thanks again.

 

[Todd Gray]

Thanks Todd - makes sense and appreciate the insight.

Would you by chance have the ideal scope image of the 2.43 carat diamond as well? Was curious what that may look like in comparison.

The only image available for the 2.43 carat is the clarity image, but you can clearly see that light is not reflecting evenly in the photograph...

The 41.6 degree pavilion angle is way too steep for the 2.60 carat, I-color, VVS-2 clarity, GIA Excellent cut diamond. The pavilion depth of 44.5% is a full percent beyond the critical tipping point of 43.5% where I find that light begins not to strike fully off the pavilion facets, so it's not likely to exhibit good light return.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Stick with crown angles between 34-35 and pavilion angles 40.6-40.9. So the H SI1 seems to be the only one that would be worth considering, as Todd has shown you. Look at the clarity on that one carefully, though.

 

[arnoviml]

Thanks for the additional feedback. I had a feeling the proportions on the 2.6 carat felt off and it didn't show as well in person as the H SI1 stone.

Although the inclusions are easier to see in the above images for the H SI1 stone, in person they were very hard to notice and I wasn't really able to notice them with the naked eye.