First ring in my life, can you help?

[silverfoxs]

hi, guys:
I'm little bit nervous to buy this first ring in my life.
It's for my gf as engagement ring.
I found this H&A at http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1360366.asp

Shape: Round
Carat weight: 1.20
Cut: Hearts & Arrows Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: SI2
Certificate: AGS
Depth: 62.3%
Table: 56.0%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to slightly thick
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Medium blue
Measurements: 6.77*6.82*4.24
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown %:
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion %:

To be honest, I'm little bit worried about inclusion since JamesAllen customer service told me that anything below VS1 will not be "eye-clean". So She won't even to check out diamond for me.
so what do you guys think about this diamond?
Thank you very very much.

 

[silverfoxs]

The thing is:
1. the HCA is not excellent.
2. Is this a rare diamond or shall I just get it now? or It's a very common diamond and I can wait for couple of weeks?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

First of all, that is not true that anything below VS1 is not eyeclean! Most VS2's are eyeclean and many SI1's are. I personally wouldn't buy most SI2's unless I was told by a reliable source that they were 100% eyeclean from all angles and from any distance. And that would rule out most SI2's.

I do not like it one bit that they refused to look at the stone for you. I would definitely forget this stone and move on. It is a bit safer to stick with SI1's, but you absolutely have to have an expert evaluate it for eyecleaness!!!

In addition, you do not need to put AGS0 stones into the HCA. They have already been evaluated for light performance by AGS.

 

[stone-cold11]

Ditto on the eye-clean issue. The SA is out of line, it is not her say if a stone is eye-clean or not but that of a gemologist, I would complain to someone up the line.

 

[silverfoxs]

As matter of fact, she refuses to send anyone to check since it's SI2 level.
so Is eyecleaness that important?
I thought most of people think cut is more important.

 

[autumngems]

Move on to antoher jeweler with better customer service. What is your price range?

 

[autumngems]

Check this out?
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2219628.htm

 

[AnneinGA]

Silver, I agree with everyone here - they should look for you and eyeclean is not "just" about the clarity grade.

I noticed that the one from James Allen had strong blue flor. If you like that, how about a Brian Gavin Blue? It's an AGS ideal cut - not sure about your budget, but this one's gorgeous:

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/diamond-detail/?product_id=BLAGS-104050981015

 

[autumngems]

My diamond is an K SI1 and with an ideal cut. I cannot see anything with the eye and the cut makes the diamond really stand out. Mine was from Whiteflash and they took the time and answered all my questions and I had someone there look it over closely for me.

I know Brian Gavin has some nice stones as well.

 

[0-0-0]

As matter of fact, she refuses to send anyone to check since it's SI2 level.
so Is eyecleaness that important?
I thought most of people think cut is more important.

A good cut certainly helps hide inclusions, but a stone that is not eye-clean may not be as pretty and perhaps look "dirty''.

I doubt that the James Allen stone is eye-clean anyhow, as there appears to be a lot of dark crystals and needles.

 

[cardinal74]

Maybe James Allen has a policy that SI2 is not going to be eye clean (how many eye-clean SI2s are out there anyway?), so they won't have somebody track down the diamond to verify that it isn't (when they know it isn't in the first place).

I dunno, that seems reasonable to me.

 

[slg47]

As matter of fact, she refuses to send anyone to check since it's SI2 level.
so Is eyecleaness that important?
I thought most of people think cut is more important.

on PS, most people think cut is most important, closely followed by eye-cleanliness. (this is a generalization, some people will have different priorities). I wouldn't want a diamond that is not eye-clean for an engagement ring. Are you specifically looking for a SI2 for budget reasons?

 

[tyty333]

Ditto on the eye-clean issue. The SA is out of line, it is not her say if a stone is eye-clean or not but that of a gemologist, I would complain to someone up the line.

I agree...maybe you should ask for a gemologist to talk you through the stone. Maybe thats a way to get more info on it. They
may not want to give you a binary answer on the eye-clean but they should be able to tell you what they are seeing.

BTW - if they refuse, I think I would move on to a company that is willing to talk about their products. Maybe BGD?

 

[stci]

I agree with all friends. Move to another seller if JA don't want to help you! It's not fair IMO!

 

[yssie]

As matter of fact, she refuses to send anyone to check since it's SI2 level.
so Is eyecleaness that important?
I thought most of people think cut is more important.

An SI2 of this size can certainly be clean, depending on how that vendor defines the term 'eyeclean' and what 'eyeclean' means to you. I wonder if JA administration knows about this particular SA's policies, as I rather think it must be losing them quite a few sales?

You want to decide what eyeclean does mean to *you* - clean from 6" face-up? from 15"? from the sides as well? And have your rep vet the stones you consider to those specifications, whatever they are.

 

[noobieloobie]

I worked with James Allen a month ago in searching for a stone and they also refused to evaluate whether any stones with clarities lower than VS2 were eye-clean or not. The rep stated that any stones with a clarity lower than VS2 would definitely not be eye-clean. Eventually I ended my search with them and moved on.

 

[slg47]

I worked with James Allen a month ago in searching for a stone and they also refused to evaluate whether any stones with clarities lower than VS2 were eye-clean or not. The rep stated that any stones with a clarity lower than VS2 would definitely not be eye-clean. Eventually I ended my search with them and moved on.

is this a new change in policy?

 

[silverfoxs]

Thank you very much, guys. I'm very impressed with all those answers.
sorry for this late reply since I am in the different time zone.
To be honest, my budget is around $7000 but no more than $8000 since I have to put a ring set on it.
To AutumnG:
Yeah, that diamond looks fantastic and much better than the JA one. I will try to talk to SA in WF and see what they say about it with how they define "eye-clean"

To Anne:
I have no intention to have strong blue flor but does it mean the diamond would reflect blue ray under normal light?
1.17 is little bit small and I think I would go for Autumn Gems diamond. But I'm very open for suggestion and appreciate your help.

Yes, I think you guys are right about engagement ring shouldn't be SI2. -_-b
I will continue to search for it.
will post more later on.
Thanks again.

 

[YoungPapa]

To be honest, I'm little bit worried about inclusion since JamesAllen customer service told me that anything below VS1 will not be "eye-clean". So She won't even to check out diamond for me.
so what do you guys think about this diamond?
Thank you very very much.

Silver,

I'm a little concerned over this statement, as the CSR you're working with has been with our team for over a year and I've never heard her say anything like that in the past. While I'm certainly not trying to doubt you, I think there is a very good chance what she said or meant to say was something a little different than what you've posted above.

Generally speaking I teach my staff that a customer should stick to VS2+ if they want to be sure their diamond is 100% eye-clean from all directions. Even that rule isn't absolute, but it's generally true and helpful to most customers. At the same time I teach about VS2, I also express to the staff that to me, SI1 is really the "sweet spot" of diamond clarity, as many diamonds in this category are eye-clean (at least in the face-up position) and offer incredible value for the money. When it comes to SI2, I generally advise that these stones are very rarely eye-clean to the discerning eye, but can still be beautiful choices and perfectly appropriate for an engagement ring, assuming the inclusion/s are not obvious or offensive in nature.

This is all well and good, but what happens sometimes is that customers call/email and say "I want to make sure this diamond is 100% eye-clean from all angles." We look at the picture and use that (combined with our understanding of how those images are taken and what the diamond probably looks like in real life) and will often tell the client something along the lines of "Based on the image and clarity grade we are confident this diamond is not going to be eye-clean (by your definition), so we can't schedule a gemological inspection for the diamond." In those circumstances we are guilty of refusing to do a GG inspection, but it's only because we know with 99% certainty that the customer isn't going to be happy with the GG results. It's exactly the same as when a customer requests an Idealscope on a diamond that has obvious leakage under the table. We'll tell them "no". It's not because we're lazy or trying not to be helpful - it's actually because we want to help them find the *best* stone and because we know that the diamond in question isn't going to meet their requirements for color, clarity cut, etc.

With all of that said, I wasn't on any of your phone calls nor have I read any of the emails that you might have exchanged with our office, so much of what I've said might not apply. Regardless, I hope it's helpful to you and the forum in better understanding why we might do something that seems contradictory to good customer service. I will also sit down with the CSR tomorrow morning and review this thread with her, just to be sure she understands what happened and can make any necessary corrective action in her communications.

As to the diamond itself, I can't comment on my own stones, but if I could (which I can't) I would tell you it's not eye-clean.

All the best,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Jim,

I find your generalisations about SI2 mostly not being eye-clean and SI1 in many cases eye-clean face-up as rather harsh. Then again, if you are talking about GIA's clarity-grading, you may be correct.

My experience is more with AGS and it is really odd to have a SI2 that is not eye-clean face-up there.

Live long,

 

[YoungPapa]

Paul,

I think it has less to do with lab and more to do with expectation. If I lined 10 SI2 diamonds up on my desk and showed them to a couple shopping for an engagement ring, most of the diamonds would be "eye-clean" to their eyes. If you asked me to GG inspect those same 10 diamonds and report back how many were 100% eye-clean at 6" after louping, the answer would be very few.

This has always been troublesome for us, given we talk customers out of buying more often than we talk them into buying. Figuring out that balance is tough.