Having problem making decision - 2.4ct RB diamond

[JackDaniels]

Hey All,

Pretty excited to post my first post here. You guys are really doing some amazing things on here.

So I found a diamond and was hoping you guys could provide some color (no pun intended ) regarding whether or not it is something you feel I should jump on. For the last 2 weeks I have been doing a lot of this -

So here are the specs:
2.40 CT, I SI1 GIA XXX
No Fluor
8.54 - 9.58 x 5.32 mm
Table: 56%
Depth: 62.2%
Crown: 35%
Pavillon: 40.8
pointed culet: 0
Medium to slightly thick girdle (faceted)
HCA 1.6 (X,X,X,VG)
I have an ideal scope but I think the lighting was off.


The stone is very clean, only one inclusion under the table and it is not black. My issue is that I am having an issue pulling the trigger. I am going to set this as a solitaire, and wanted to make it happen before year end. By the time you guys respond I may have picked up the stone, but I have 30 days. There was a nice 2.5 with big spread, (8.91mm) that HCAed at like 1.9, but it's a 33% crown with a 41.2 pavilion - and you can see some light loss in the ideal scope. Also not as clean. I guess I keep saying to myself maybe I can find another deal, but this stone is priced fairly. Thanks for everyones help in advance - I appreciate it!

 

[kenny]

I have an ideal scope but I think the lighting was off.

Can you post the Idealscope pic?

 

[JackDaniels]

The top one is brightness corrected.

 

[JackDaniels]

Please note that the two images above are for the same stone.

 

[Diamond2014]

You posted with the title that this is a Round Brilliant diamond, but the dimension you posted are NOT round

8.54 - 9.58 x 5.32 mm


Diamond is 8.54mm vertical measurement then 9.58mm horizontal measurement. That's not round! OMG, even the ideal scope shows that it's not round. The diamond cutter was testing himself to see if he can cut a round brilliant diamond while blind fold.

The center culet is not even centered

Depth is 5.32mm

 

[JulieN]

It seems to not be centered in the IS.

Usually at this carat weight, unless you are willing to pay for a top cut, small irregularities/minor leakage that are visible under IS but not visible to the naked eye is more acceptable.

 

[junebug17]

You posted with the title that this is a Round Brilliant diamond, but the dimension you posted are NOT round

8.54 - 9.58 x 5.32 mm


Diamond is 8.54mm vertical measurement then 9.58mm horizontal measurement. That's not round! OMG, even the ideal scope shows that it's not round. The diamond cutter was testing himself to see if he can cut a round brilliant diamond while blind fold.

The center culet is not even centered

Depth is 5.32mm

I think it's a typo and the OP meant 8.58?

 

[msop04]

You posted with the title that this is a Round Brilliant diamond, but the dimension you posted are NOT round

8.54 - 9.58 x 5.32 mm


Diamond is 8.54mm vertical measurement then 9.58mm horizontal measurement. That's not round! OMG, even the ideal scope shows that it's not round. The diamond cutter was testing himself to see if he can cut a round brilliant diamond while blind fold.

The center culet is not even centered

Depth is 5.32mm

I think it's a typo and the OP meant 8.58?

This was my first thought as well -- the diamond doesn't appear to be incredibly "off round" to me. Hmmmm... maybe the OP will clarify the measurements.

 

[msop04]

It seems to not be centered in the IS.

Usually at this carat weight, unless you are willing to pay for a top cut, small irregularities/minor leakage that are visible under IS but not visible to the naked eye is more acceptable.

Is it possible that the diamond isn't positioned correctly? It looks like the IS was taken at an angle -- maybe lying sideways on it's girdle??

 

[JackDaniels]

You posted with the title that this is a Round Brilliant diamond, but the dimension you posted are NOT round

8.54 - 9.58 x 5.32 mm


Diamond is 8.54mm vertical measurement then 9.58mm horizontal measurement. That's not round! OMG, even the ideal scope shows that it's not round. The diamond cutter was testing himself to see if he can cut a round brilliant diamond while blind fold.

The center culet is not even centered

Depth is 5.32mm

I think it's a typo and the OP meant 8.58?

While I appreciated the laugh, I do hope the poster did not think this was an actual diamond based on those dimensions. Yes, it was a typo as the last posted mentioned.

And the reason the stone isn't centered was due to some camera tilt. I didn't take the picture unfortunately.

 

[JackDaniels]

So I have more photos:

The first is the ASET for the 2.4. The second is an ASET for a SUPER SPREAD 2.5 icolor - SI1. The third is the ideal scope for the 2.5. The 2.5 is same color, clarity but not as clean and 8.86 x 8.91 x 5.35. 57% table, 60.2 depth, 33 crown, 41.2 pavilion. I mean, it was a clean stone but there was something it wasn't doing that the 2.4 was. I also felt like the spread was a little extreme but maybe I am wrong. Is it bigger, yeah - but in mock settings they were tough to tell apart - only if they were side by side could you really notice Tell the difference. A customer that came in while we were looking even pointed at the 2.4 - saying it stood out more. Just giving you guys some background


This is the 2.4 ASET


This is the 2.5 ASET



This is the 2.5 Ideal Scope

 

[luvdajules]

I'd stick with the 2.4 ct, sounds incredible and one that you'd be happy with forever, 8.5mm diameter is BIG. The 2.4 probably has more fire and the cut is overall better than the bigger spreadier one. You can make it look even bigger with a dainty halo.

Having said that, if you really want a bigger option and "better value", I'd opt for an ideal cut J color than compromising cut quality. Have you seen J color IRL? I have one and it's very white in most lighting, in dimmer light it's a soft creamy white. By making sure you have a top cut and great ASET/IS, you will have a very bright stone. It's safer to go I color in an engagement ring, unless you know your intended wants to hit a certain size over other Cs. I picked out my own stone so I knew the color difference and went for size. You can also play around with James Allen to compare I color to J by spinning the stones around to see the side view until you can view IRL. I also opted for medium fluoro in my stone to help with color in certain lighting when uv is present.

Hope this helps!

 

[JackDaniels]

I'd stick with the 2.4 ct, sounds incredible and one that you'd be happy with forever, 8.5mm diameter is BIG. The 2.4 probably has more fire and the cut is overall better than the bigger spreadier one. You can make it look even bigger with a dainty halo.

Having said that, if you really want a bigger option and "better value", I'd opt for an ideal cut J color than compromising cut quality. Have you seen J color IRL? I have one and it's very white in most lighting, in dimmer light it's a soft creamy white. By making sure you have a top cut and great ASET/IS, you will have a very bright stone. It's safer to go I color in an engagement ring, unless you know your intended wants to hit a certain size over other Cs. I picked out my own stone so I knew the color difference and went for size. You can also play around with James Allen to compare I color to J by spinning the stones around to see the side view until you can view IRL. I also opted for medium fluoro in my stone to help with color in certain lighting when uv is present.

Hope this helps!

Thanks for the feedback! Yes, the diameter of the 2.5 was hard not to notice, but I think the diameter is past what's appropriate for a 2.5. The 2.4, overall, is a better choice - but that "desirability" factor was a tough one to get over from a psychological perspective.

 

[JackDaniels]

I appreciated luvdajules response - but is there a way to get some of the gemologists to respond to this thread? This is my first time posting on PS and was hoping to really put this to bed. If there in an obvious answer it seems I may have missed it.

Thanks guy!

 

[Diamond2014]

No offense JackDaniels, but if you're looking for "gemologists", you probably are not going to find them anywhere here on this board. If you're looking for a "gemologist", you'll have to pay for one. There are alot of "prosumers" here and if you're looking for advice from "prosumers" then you'll get alot of those replies here.

Here's the thread of what happen to all the "gemologists", [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-happen-to-all-the-professional-jewelers-on-pricescope.208092/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-happen-to-all-the-professional-jewelers-on-pricescope.208092/[/URL]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't consider a "prosumer", I just consider myself a newbie who likes perfection for the simple fact that I like math and science, so take it or leave it, that's up to you.

Since you can go as low as an I color with SI1 clarity, then I can see that you try to maximize your bang for the bux with keeping your diamond size as big as you can, and you're trying to find the best cuts to hide all the imperfections of an I color and SI clarity.

Between the 2.4ct and the 2.5t, I don't like neither of your selection.

The 2.4ct has a depth of 62.2% with a Medium to Slightly Thick girdle (about 3.5% - 4.0%), that tells that some of the weight is stretched downward and some weight is hidden inside the girdle. Looking at the Aset scope of the 2.4ct, you see some green on the outside perimeter of the diamond instead of white, that means that the diamond has a slight painting, probably crown painting (if crown painting then they use it to improve the performance, if pavilion painting then they're trying to retain weight). You see the blue triangles toward the base of the arrow shaft, there are almost none, which suggest the star facet is about 45%. You see the skinny arrow shaft of the 2.4ct, that suggest the lower girdle facets is about 80%. Overall this 2.4ct will look smaller for its size, hence I wouldn't choose this.

The 2.5ct has a depth of 60.2%, the spread is "good" not extreme, but that's not the problem. And if you pay for a 2.5ct that looks like a 2.8ct, then why consider it bad? It probably doesnt look as firey as the 2.4ct because of its 33 crown and 41.2 pavilion, this diamond obviously you already know, favors brightness over firey. From the Aset, it looks like a 55% star facet along with a 75% lower girdle facets.

Out of 10 people: 3 people would choose firey diamond, 2 people would choose bright diamond, 5 people would choose a balance of both. For me, I go along with that 5 people.

Take it or leave it, that's my 2 cents. But you won't find any "gemologists" around here. Even if they are, they're not going to reply to your thread, because there are too many people with the same thread "SOMEONE LOOK AT THIS DIAMOND, TELL ME IF IT'S A GOOD DIAMOND". And gemologists are not going to tainted their business because opinions they give will be stuck online forever.

Before you choose a diamond, spend 2 months straight with 6 hours a day, and learn everything there is about diamonds, and KNOW what perfection means to you, then go out to the market and choose a diamond.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Hi, Jack, I think the 2.4 is your best bet! I think it looks great in the images (even though the images are not professionally done). In addition, if it is cleaner than the 2.5, I'd take it any day because inclusions may be more apparent the larger the stone. I like it's measurements over the 2.5 as well. The only conceivable reason that I would consider the 2.5 in your case is if all her friends wear 3 ct stones and size is the most important factor. I'd personally prefer the 2.4. Best of luck to you!

 

[cflutist]

I have a Gemologist Diploma from the GIA but do not work in the trade (am a retired VP Software Engineering).

The 2.4 is nice, but I am a little more anal about cut than most.

For me (my personal opinion only):

Depth: 62.2% - I would keep it below 62%
Crown: 35% - this would bother me too.
Also, I prefer Thin to medium girdles rather than slightly thick (more weight held here).

Personally, I would check the inventory on Wink's High Performance Diamonds website and see what is available in your budget.
If nothing, then you can commission a custom Cut to Order Crafted By Infinity diamond as I recently did.

People talk about "Cut is King" on PS all the time, this is why I have a CBI diamond because I really do believe Cut is King. This
was more important to me than carat weight or clarity (I sacrificed clarity to a SI1 so I could get an F in color).
If not, look at the AGS0 diamonds that are available from other vendors as well (as another Prosumer has posted, get an AGS0 and they do all the homework for you).
But AGS0's are not created equal either, some are better than others and all CBI diamonds are among the best.

 

[msop04]

Hey Jack
I would get the 2.4 ct stone. The images look good and it's within your budget. As a couple of other posters have commented, there are a few little nit-picky things that keep this stone from being "best of the best", but quite honestly, it's gonna look really nice. It'll probably be the nicest cut of all her friends. I have a GIA 2.43 J/SI1, and I absolutely love it -- your FF is one lucky lady!

Also, if you put a delicate halo on it, it will look larger than a 3 ct stone. Best of luck to you!

 

[JackDaniels]

Hi, Jack, I think the 2.4 is your best bet! I think it looks great in the images (even though the images are not professionally done). In addition, if it is cleaner than the 2.5, I'd take it any day because inclusions may be more apparent the larger the stone. I like it's measurements over the 2.5 as well. The only conceivable reason that I would consider the 2.5 in your case is if all her friends wear 3 ct stones and size is the most important factor. I'd personally prefer the 2.4. Best of luck to you!

Thanks for the feedback - especially from someone that has posted 43,000 TIMES??? The thing is my gf did actually say once that a 3 carat was too large. I naturally wanted to go with the 2.5 because of the huge spread, but then I felt like I was trying to go for something that may not be as important to her while sacrificing other aspects of the stone. I did want to go for "wow" and "beautiful" rather than the sole "wow." She isn't into jewelry really, but I do want to get something special. I think the larger diameter may actually make her feel uncomfortable, and I didn't want the large hot spots to turn her off when she looks down at the stone. Also, he does have very very small hands even for a size 5 finger. I think I did pretty well, since I was nowhere near what these super precision cuts are going for. I should have mentioned earlier that it was not my objective to acquire a stone that was anywhere in the Brian Galvin range of $30-$36k for a 2.4-2.5ct. Nonetheless, I really appreciate what everyone has to say. If I was in the market for a best of the best I would really be driving myself nuts. As they say - perfection is the enemy of good. In this case, I think there comes a time where being so specific may begin to take away from the pleasure - but that's just a thought. Though, none of us want to buy a "bad stone" either. Personally, I think it is great how diamond enthusiasts or "prosumers" come on here to share their thoughts. Very heartening.

 

[msop04]

Thanks for the feedback - especially from someone that has posted 43,000 TIMES??? The thing is my gf did actually say once that a 3 carat was too large. I naturally wanted to go with the 2.5 because of the huge spread, but then I felt like I was trying to go for something that may not be as important to her while sacrificing other aspects of the stone. I did want to go for "wow" and "beautiful" rather than the sole "wow." She isn't into jewelry really, but I do want to get something special. I think the larger diameter may actually make her feel uncomfortable, and I didn't want the large hot spots to turn her off when she looks down at the stone. Also, he does have very very small hands even for a size 5 finger. I think I did pretty well, since I was nowhere near what these super precision cuts are going for. I should have mentioned earlier that it was not my objective to acquire a stone that was anywhere in the Brian Galvin range of $30-$36k for a 2.4-2.5ct. Nonetheless, I really appreciate what everyone has to say. If I was in the market for a best of the best I would really be driving myself nuts. As they say - perfection is the enemy of good. In this case, I think there comes a time where being so specific may begin to take away from the pleasure - but that's just a thought. Though, none of us want to buy a "bad stone" either. Personally, I think it is great how diamond enthusiasts or "prosumers" come on here to share their thoughts. Very heartening.

I really love the bolded quote -- I'm gonna steal that one from ya! I'm super excited to see the ring you'll give her, so don't forget to post lots of photos!!

 

[JackDaniels]

Hey Jack
I would get the 2.4 ct stone. The images look good and it's within your budget. As a couple of other posters have commented, there are a few little nit-picky things that keep this stone from being "best of the best", but quite honestly, it's gonna look really nice. It'll probably be the nicest cut of all her friends. I have a GIA 2.43 J/SI1, and I absolutely love it -- your FF is one lucky lady!

Also, if you put a delicate halo on it, it will look larger than a 3 ct stone. Best of luck to you!

Thanks MSOP! Going with a solitaire setting, 6 prong - nice and simple. Like said in my other reply - I know it sounds nuts - but there was a chance of the larger stone looking to big to the point where she would feel uncomfortable. Thanks so much for the feedback!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Hi, Jack, I think the 2.4 is your best bet! I think it looks great in the images (even though the images are not professionally done). In addition, if it is cleaner than the 2.5, I'd take it any day because inclusions may be more apparent the larger the stone. I like it's measurements over the 2.5 as well. The only conceivable reason that I would consider the 2.5 in your case is if all her friends wear 3 ct stones and size is the most important factor. I'd personally prefer the 2.4. Best of luck to you!

Thanks for the feedback - especially from someone that has posted 43,000 TIMES??? The thing is my gf did actually say once that a 3 carat was too large. I naturally wanted to go with the 2.5 because of the huge spread, but then I felt like I was trying to go for something that may not be as important to her while sacrificing other aspects of the stone. I did want to go for "wow" and "beautiful" rather than the sole "wow." She isn't into jewelry really, but I do want to get something special. I think the larger diameter may actually make her feel uncomfortable, and I didn't want the large hot spots to turn her off when she looks down at the stone. Also, he does have very very small hands even for a size 5 finger. I think I did pretty well, since I was nowhere near what these super precision cuts are going for. I should have mentioned earlier that it was not my objective to acquire a stone that was anywhere in the Brian Galvin range of $30-$36k for a 2.4-2.5ct. Nonetheless, I really appreciate what everyone has to say. If I was in the market for a best of the best I would really be driving myself nuts. As they say - perfection is the enemy of good. In this case, I think there comes a time where being so specific may begin to take away from the pleasure - but that's just a thought. Though, none of us want to buy a "bad stone" either. Personally, I think it is great how diamond enthusiasts or "prosumers" come on here to share their thoughts. Very heartening.

Yes, it is a bit scary to see that huge number of posts! But I came here almost NINE years ago when we were looking for an anniversary diamond ring! So thankful we found PS, too! I stuck around because it is a hobby and I certainly can't buy new diamonds for myself all the time! May as well help people like you!

Even though this isn't a perfect H&A stone, it IS an EXCELLENT stone that you can be very proud of (and far better than most of the diamonds you'll ever come across)! I think you read her preferences well, and this diamond is going to be plenty huge on her finger! I hope you'll come back with handshots after you propose!

 

[JackDaniels]

Yes, it is a bit scary to see that huge number of posts! But I came here almost NINE years ago when we were looking for an anniversary diamond ring! So thankful we found PS, too! I stuck around because it is a hobby and I certainly can't buy new diamonds for myself all the time! May as well help people like you!

Even though this isn't a perfect H&A stone, it IS an EXCELLENT stone that you can be very proud of (and far better than most of the diamonds you'll ever come across)! I think you read her preferences well, and this diamond is going to be plenty huge on her finger! I hope you'll come back with handshots after you propose!

Well, I definitely appreciate it! Funny enough - this stones looks pretty darn close to hearts and arrows - the seller and I both viewed it through the viewer. I mean - I think, maybe it's arbitrary but this thing was extremely sharp. I should have taken some pics. I will say that the 2.5 was absolutely not hearts and arrows. Although, H&A wasn't a huge requirement of mine.