feedback on this diamond

[tigerbei]

1.14 carat
6.65-6.68 - 4.20mm
color: F
clarity: SI1
polish: excellent
symmetry: excellent
florescence: strong blue
table: 57%
inclusions: none, except for one "crystal" in the center
price: USD 5840
GIA certificate

 

[stone-cold11]

What shape is this stone?

Also, what is the report number?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/5/2009 10:51:31 PM
Author:tigerbei
1.14 carat
6.65-6.68 - 4.20mm
color: F
clarity: SI1
polish: excellent
symmetry: excellent
florescence: strong blue
table: 57%
inclusions: none, except for one 'crystal' in the center
price: USD 5840
GIA certificate

Hi Tiger

The crown and pavilion angles are needed please if you can post that info, also the girdle thickness, star and lower girdle facet percentages. Check also the strong blue fluorescence isn't making the diamond look cloudy, this is rare but best to check, also colourless diamonds are often discounted for this.

Is the diamond for sale with an online vendor or store jeweller?

 

[tigerbei]

Thanks Lorelei and stonecold. Unfortunately I don't have the certificate. This diamond is front a trusted wholesaler (not retailer) in Hong Kong.

The only other notes I made were that it is "medium faceted", that the "side" (my term) was 55%, which probably refers to the crown height. From memory, I think the pavillion depth is 75%. I think the cutlet was 0%.

As for florescence, I only viewed the stone indoors. At the time I didn't know what this term meant, but subsequently have read about the big debates as to whether it matters. I certainly didn't see any difference between the stone and others of the same color with "no florescence".

Shape is Brilliant Round.

Given the above, are you able to make any comments?

 

[thelvyn123]

I think it would be difficult to make any further judgements unless you can find out the depth %, crown and pavilion angles.

On another note, even a "Very Good" cut F SI Round Brilliant sells for about $6,132 on Blue Nile so the price should be good.

http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-very-good-cut-f-color-si1-clarity_LD01473542

 

[tigerbei]

stonecold - the report number is GIA 2101794105

I''ve attached an image from the GIA report that lays out the dimensions you all have asked for. Hope this helps. Looking forward to your views!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/6/2009 10:38:43 PM
Author: tigerbei
Thanks Lorelei and stonecold. Unfortunately I don''t have the certificate. This diamond is front a trusted wholesaler (not retailer) in Hong Kong.

The only other notes I made were that it is ''medium faceted'', that the ''side'' (my term) was 55%, which probably refers to the crown height. From memory, I think the pavillion depth is 75%. I think the cutlet was 0%.

As for florescence, I only viewed the stone indoors. At the time I didn''t know what this term meant, but subsequently have read about the big debates as to whether it matters. I certainly didn''t see any difference between the stone and others of the same color with ''no florescence''.

Shape is Brilliant Round.

Given the above, are you able to make any comments?

TB
my $100 USD vs your $100 HKD that this stone is cut too deep.

i have a friend whom buys GIA diamonds everytime when he goes to HK,comes back to the U.S. and ask my opinion about his new purchase....so far,every stone he show me was cut too deep!!

 

[stone-cold11]

The stone is cut way too deep, there will be leakage and the stone will look dull. Avoid at all cost.

 

[Lorelei]

Pass on this diamond for sure, it is what we call a steep deep angled diamond, it will leak light and be lifeless - also there is too much physical depth, you can do much better.

 

[tigerbei]

wow, thank you so much. I am in HK now on a short trip; hoping to buy an engagement ring this trip but am all alone and your feedback means a lot.

Here''s the other one I was looking at. USD6580. Comments please:

 

[Lorelei]

This one looks much better! There is a grade setting cloud, check that isn't interfering with brilliance by asking the vendor and that it is eyeclean to your standards.

 

[tigerbei]

Thanks Lorelei. I''ve read a lot of your posts and value your opinion -- so this one looks "much better", but that''s compared to a stone you to pass on for sure. What do you actually think of this stone, as a straight up view? And can you explain in more detail what the potential risk is of this inclusion?

 

[stone-cold11]

Yap, numbers look much better.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/7/2009 5:38:04 AM
Author: tigerbei
Thanks Lorelei. I've read a lot of your posts and value your opinion -- so this one looks 'much better', but that's compared to a stone you to pass on for sure. What do you actually think of this stone, as a straight up view? And can you explain in more detail what the potential risk is of this inclusion?

I would be glad to explain in more detail! The first diamond has crown and pavilion angles which are not a good fit for each other, what we call steep deep. As they don't work well together for directing light back to the viewer's eye, what happens is the light escapes or leaks through the diamond when it should be bouncing back as the sparkle we want to see from diamonds. The inevitable result with many steep deep diamonds is a dull, lacklustre stone which doesn't sparkle as well as it should. A good analogy is a bucket with a hole in, as water or liquid would leak from the bucket's hole, with diamonds - steep deep angles can act like a " hole" to allow light to leak out of the stone. A diamond with well balanced proportions and crown and pavilion angles will keep leakage to a minimum and make the most of the light entering the diamond by reflecting it back efficiently to the observer's eyes.

The second has much better crown and pavilion angles, these are the main ' engines' which are driving the light return, these two angles are critical. So from the info we have on this diamond it should be a much better performing diamond than the first. Grade setting cloud inclusions in SI clarities can sometimes cause a diamond to lose brilliance and affect performance negatively, so it is always best to check with a trusted vendor or appraiser concerning this.