HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for help

[fanofhardrock]

Hi all

I am really keen to get some views on a diamond that I have found which seems to fit the brief, but I am a mere novice.

So, basically, I am trying to do a lot with a relatively modest budget. I have found a diamond which is within budget and the spec is as below:

Carat weight: 2.01ct
Color: I
Clarity: VS2(has a few short twinning wisps and a feather)
Table: 57%
Depth: 62.9%

It is GIA certified and has cut grade of ex/ex/ex.

The HCA is 2.8, which I know is a nono here, typically.
Also, it has strong blue fluorescence.

The main concerns I have are:
1) Strong blue fluorescence - I am obtaining a visual appraisal to determine if the blue fluorescence affects the appearance negatively or even positively...
2) High depth: is this diamond a steep-deep diamond?
3) Structural intergrity - could the feather be a problem?
4) "Additional twinning wisps are not shown" - could this stone be ugly in its appearance - the twinning wisps shown are few, but how many additional inclusions could there be given it is a VS2, which one would think is a pretty good diamond?
5) "Surface graining is not shown" - sorry to ask a stupid question, but the polish is excellent, so I am really unclear how bad the surface graining could be. Can anyone help me out with understanding this comment?
6) Is 2.8 as an HCA score a definite write-off?

Given that this is within budget and, honestly, very few are - is this diamond acceptable, or not really?

I know that I should go just below 2ct, but I really cannot as this is what we have agreed and my word is my honor, I really have to deliver the 2ct, and the budget is just not large, as opposed to tiny. I am working within the parameters of what I can afford, so I hope that you can let me know your thoughts.

As mentioned, and as I'm sure this posting demonstrates, I am not a diamond expert at all, so would be grateful for your help.

Thanking you in advance.

 

[GreenBling]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Are you going to ask for an Idealscope image as well?

If you feel strongly about the diamond, why not investigate further?

 

[ecf8503]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

How about this one? 2.01 I SI1 GIA XXX HCA 1.7

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/...nd-Diamond-1511864.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Reserve it and request an idealscope if you are interested!

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Hi GreenBling

Thanks so much for replying to me.

I have asked for the IS image, but it seems that I cannot obtain one - only some vendors offer them, and even then I am only being offered an IS image where the diamond is being kept very local to the vendor.

I have asked for an appraisal visually by a gemologist, but a lot of the cheaper retailers will not provide much information. I know that this makes sense that they can sell the diamonds for less as they spend less on providing customers with information, additionally, they may just be a middleman, but I am trying all avenues to try and get a diamond which fits the brief.

I am hopeful this is the one, and it is close to my personal holy grail in terms of specification (except for the concerns I mention), but I am keen to understand more about this diamond, so thought I would ask here. I know only a tiny bit of information which I have obtained from this forum, so am grateful for any thoughts or opinions.

Also, should I be asking for more information in light of the fact that I will not receive an IS or ASET? If so, what kind of information? I am willing to have this diamond delivered so that I can see it and will be happy to pay for the postage to return it if it is not what I want. I have been told this will cost about $150. Would this be the next best option?

Are you going to ask for an Idealscope image as well?

If you feel strongly about the diamond, why not investigate further?

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Thank you so much, ecf 8505!

This is an awesome diamond - it is quite a bit above the budget, which is $15.5k, but I could take the money out of the setting and put it into the diamond, if this difference is very perceptible.

Just to understand - the I VS2 I found has far fewer inclusions on the certificate than this one, though admittedly this is pretty much eyeclean!

Is moving from a 2.8 on the HCA to a 1.7 on the HCA worth the extra $1.5k? (given that this is a lower clarity though has no fluorescence)?

If you think that this is worth it, I will reserve it. Just to let you know, I was holding the balance of the budget to try and get a halo setting... which is what the dream ring is and halos are pricey these days!!

How about this one? 2.01 I SI1 GIA XXX HCA 1.7

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/...nd-Diamond-1511864.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Reserve it and request an idealscope if you are interested!

 

[GreenBling]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

I was in similar situation... Found a triple Ex G VS2 that met my budget however it was a steep deep with strong fluor. The vendor would not call in the diamond to conduct an IS check but reassured me that the source said it was very firey and that I'd love it. The vendor could be right however it's such a substantial investment for me that I'd rather pass on a potentially great stone than risk buying a poor performer. So I moved on to search for another one. I've now found a candidate with help from Jonathan at Good Old Gold.

What I've learned from this experience is 1) there are plenty diamonds to chose from. You just need to know where to look. 2) if you are not an expert, engage one to help

 

[milton333]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Given what you are trying to accomplish with your budget, you will have to make compromises. I think a 2.8 HCA is a reasonable concession to the size you're trying to achieve with your budget, but of course we'd probably encourage you to come down a bit in size to go up in performance a bit.

Strong blue flour in itself is almost certainly not an issue, with the caveat being that the interaction of the flour with the inclusions could be the issue. VS2 is generally a pretty clean stone, though it's not guaranteed to be eye-clean in larger stones. But twinning wisps can sometimes give a "smoky" or hazy effect when the light hits just right, and combined with the flour, that may compromise the appearance of the stone in some lighting conditions.

If you want to give it a try, my advice would be to make sure you have a good return policy, and have the stone shipped to you loose, not set. Then eyeball it, and take it to an appraiser. Appraisals generally run $100-200. IMO, it's generally preferable to work with a trusted vendor who can give you images of the stone and evaluate it for you, but if you're truly bargain hunting, I can't say it's the only way to get a good diamond. Many people who would advise you to avoid stones sold by "no frills" vendors are themselves buyers of eBay stones, so it certainly is possible to get a stone that will make you happy, but just be aware that you could avoid some delay, cost of appraisal, costs of return shipping, etc., if you went with a more full-service vendor.

 

[Christina...]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Can you list the report? The depth is deeper than we recommend, and as a result will probably face up smaller than 2 ct stones with more ideal proportions. Steep/deep refers to the pavilion and crown angles and directly relates to it's LP.

This one may work for you. It's an SI2 but it looks very clean, and you can ask the GG to evaluate it for you.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI2-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1483142.asp
if your interested I would but it on hold and ask for IS images and a GG evaluation.

 

[Christina...]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Thank you so much, ecf 8505!

This is an awesome diamond - it is quite a bit above the budget, which is $15.5k, but I could take the money out of the setting and put it into the diamond, if this difference is very perceptible.

Just to understand - the I VS2 I found has far fewer inclusions on the certificate than this one, though admittedly this is pretty much eyeclean!

Is moving from a 2.8 on the HCA to a 1.7 on the HCA worth the extra $1.5k? (given that this is a lower clarity though has no fluorescence)?

If you think that this is worth it, I will reserve it. Just to let you know, I was holding the balance of the budget to try and get a halo setting... which is what the dream ring is and halos are pricey these days!!

How about this one? 2.01 I SI1 GIA XXX HCA 1.7

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/...nd-Diamond-1511864.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Reserve it and request an idealscope if you are interested!

I would definitely consider this option. I think it makes sense to purchases a great performing stone and set it in a simple solitaire and then consider upgrading the setting in the future. I think a simple solitaire is classic and elegant, especially when paired with a diamond wedding band.

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Hi GreenBling

Thanks for sharing your story.

I did speak to GOG, but I would have to move down to J SI1 there - is this the sort of trade off I should be making?

It seems like a lot to give up, though you make a good point of the substantial investment I am making.

If I were to order it for me to view - would I realistically be able to tell if it is dud? Or with my layperson's eye will a steep deep and a better diamond look the same?

I was in similar situation... Found a triple Ex G VS2 that met my budget however it was a steep deep with strong fluor. The vendor would not call in the diamond to conduct an IS check but reassured me that the source said it was very firey and that I'd love it. The vendor could be right however it's such a substantial investment for me that I'd rather pass on a potentially great stone than risk buying a poor performer. So I moved on to search for another one. I've now found a candidate with help from Jonathan at Good Old Gold.

What I've learned from this experience is 1) there are plenty diamonds to chose from. You just need to know where to look. 2) if you are not an expert, engage one to help

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Hi Christina

I can't seem to access the report online as the diamond is being held for me, so the link to the report is no longer there. I did obtain all the measurements as I printed out the dimensions. Please can you help me with understand them better? I truly appreciate your help on this.

I will put this and two others on hold tonight - I am just hoping to find three that can be compared in one go, as I know that JA will only compare three and so doing it in one go is probably the best option.

Really appreciate the help!!

Crown angle 35.5 deg
crown height 15.5%
pavilion angle 40.8 deg
pavilion height 43.0%
table 57%
depth 62.9%
girdle is med-slightly thick (faceted) 4.0%
7.97 x 8.01 x 5.02mm

Can you list the report? The depth is deeper than we recommend, and as a result will probably face up smaller than 2 ct stones with more ideal proportions. Steep/deep refers to the pavilion and crown angles and directly relates to it's LP.

This one may work for you. It's an SI2 but it looks very clean, and you can ask the GG to evaluate it for you.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI2-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1483142.asp
if your interested I would but it on hold and ask for IS images and a GG evaluation.

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

I definitely am - when I have three stones, I will ask JA to compare all three and run an IS.

I am so grateful for your time and help on this.

Thank you so much, ecf 8505!

This is an awesome diamond - it is quite a bit above the budget, which is $15.5k, but I could take the money out of the setting and put it into the diamond, if this difference is very perceptible.

Just to understand - the I VS2 I found has far fewer inclusions on the certificate than this one, though admittedly this is pretty much eyeclean!

Is moving from a 2.8 on the HCA to a 1.7 on the HCA worth the extra $1.5k? (given that this is a lower clarity though has no fluorescence)?

If you think that this is worth it, I will reserve it. Just to let you know, I was holding the balance of the budget to try and get a halo setting... which is what the dream ring is and halos are pricey these days!!

How about this one? 2.01 I SI1 GIA XXX HCA 1.7

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/...nd-Diamond-1511864.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Reserve it and request an idealscope if you are interested!

I would definitely consider this option. I think it makes sense to purchases a great performing stone and set it in a simple solitaire and then consider upgrading the setting in the future. I think a simple solitaire is classic and elegant, especially when paired with a diamond wedding band.

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Hi Milton

Thanks for your feedback and for your understanding of my situation.

Essentially, I have about $19.5k to spend on the total ring including the diamond, setting and any insurance if I buy a diamond and have to insure it whilst it is being set. This is a tall order for a 2ct halo ring. I was planning to spend $16k on the diamond and $3.5k on the setting.

I also appreciate what you say about twinning wisps, as I have only seen the magnified photos of really severe cases and found them unsightly. I spoke to a few people and they suggested that these were not very unsightly compared to other inclusions. I am still awaiting the visual appraisal, which I hope will be honest. I can call it in and get it appraised, as this will give me the benefit of the expert opinion and still a material saving. Of course, if it's a dud, I will have to deal with it!

Are the issues perceptible to laypeople - would I ever be able to tell if the diamond is too steep? I admit if there is haziness I would see this. I can tell a beautiful diamond from an average one, as can my OH, but I want something that loks beautiful and given my budget can accept that there are constraints.

Please can you let me know if you have any idea on the surface graining mentioned - can you have unsightly surface graining when the polish is excellent - am I misunderstanding something?

Given what you are trying to accomplish with your budget, you will have to make compromises. I think a 2.8 HCA is a reasonable concession to the size you're trying to achieve with your budget, but of course we'd probably encourage you to come down a bit in size to go up in performance a bit.

Strong blue flour in itself is almost certainly not an issue, with the caveat being that the interaction of the flour with the inclusions could be the issue. VS2 is generally a pretty clean stone, though it's not guaranteed to be eye-clean in larger stones. But twinning wisps can sometimes give a "smoky" or hazy effect when the light hits just right, and combined with the flour, that may compromise the appearance of the stone in some lighting conditions.

If you want to give it a try, my advice would be to make sure you have a good return policy, and have the stone shipped to you loose, not set. Then eyeball it, and take it to an appraiser. Appraisals generally run $100-200. IMO, it's generally preferable to work with a trusted vendor who can give you images of the stone and evaluate it for you, but if you're truly bargain hunting, I can't say it's the only way to get a good diamond. Many people who would advise you to avoid stones sold by "no frills" vendors are themselves buyers of eBay stones, so it certainly is possible to get a stone that will make you happy, but just be aware that you could avoid some delay, cost of appraisal, costs of return shipping, etc., if you went with a more full-service vendor.

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Or even $15.5k on the rock and $4k on the setting, as those halos are pricey!

Hi Milton

Thanks for your feedback and for your understanding of my situation.

Essentially, I have about $19.5k to spend on the total ring including the diamond, setting and any insurance if I buy a diamond and have to insure it whilst it is being set. This is a tall order for a 2ct halo ring. I was planning to spend $16k on the diamond and $3.5k on the setting.

I also appreciate what you say about twinning wisps, as I have only seen the magnified photos of really severe cases and found them unsightly. I spoke to a few people and they suggested that these were not very unsightly compared to other inclusions. I am still awaiting the visual appraisal, which I hope will be honest. I can call it in and get it appraised, as this will give me the benefit of the expert opinion and still a material saving. Of course, if it's a dud, I will have to deal with it!

Are the issues perceptible to laypeople - would I ever be able to tell if the diamond is too steep? I admit if there is haziness I would see this. I can tell a beautiful diamond from an average one, as can my OH, but I want something that loks beautiful and given my budget can accept that there are constraints.

Please can you let me know if you have any idea on the surface graining mentioned - can you have unsightly surface graining when the polish is excellent - am I misunderstanding something?

Given what you are trying to accomplish with your budget, you will have to make compromises. I think a 2.8 HCA is a reasonable concession to the size you're trying to achieve with your budget, but of course we'd probably encourage you to come down a bit in size to go up in performance a bit.

Strong blue flour in itself is almost certainly not an issue, with the caveat being that the interaction of the flour with the inclusions could be the issue. VS2 is generally a pretty clean stone, though it's not guaranteed to be eye-clean in larger stones. But twinning wisps can sometimes give a "smoky" or hazy effect when the light hits just right, and combined with the flour, that may compromise the appearance of the stone in some lighting conditions.

If you want to give it a try, my advice would be to make sure you have a good return policy, and have the stone shipped to you loose, not set. Then eyeball it, and take it to an appraiser. Appraisals generally run $100-200. IMO, it's generally preferable to work with a trusted vendor who can give you images of the stone and evaluate it for you, but if you're truly bargain hunting, I can't say it's the only way to get a good diamond. Many people who would advise you to avoid stones sold by "no frills" vendors are themselves buyers of eBay stones, so it certainly is possible to get a stone that will make you happy, but just be aware that you could avoid some delay, cost of appraisal, costs of return shipping, etc., if you went with a more full-service vendor.

 

[milton333]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Ideal cut diamonds are a single-digit percentage of diamonds used in jewelry. IMO, the visual difference between an ideal-cut stone with HCA < 2 and a GIA excellent stone with a 2.8 HCA is likely to be minimal, and so long as you understand that you are sacrificing optimal performance for size, it's a reasonable compromise in my opinion. You're still going to have a better performer than the majority of diamonds out there. The point was more that it's going to face up a bit small for the carat weight because it's a bit deep. That is, the cutter likely sacrificed cut a bit to hit the magic 2 ct number.

Twinning wisps can be a great inclusion, they show up under magnification but are generally not visible to the naked eye, with the smokey/hazy caveat above. I wouldn't worry about surface graining for your stone. VS2 and ex polish, should be fine.

Ultimately, for me, if you've got a good return policy, buy it and look at it, then send it off to be set if you're happy with it.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

1) Strong blue fluorescence - I am obtaining a visual appraisal to determine if the blue fluorescence affects the appearance negatively or even positively...

It is rare for SBF to cause ill effects but have this examined. The diamond is priced WAY lower than comparables and usually there is a reason for that.

2) High depth: is this diamond a steep-deep diamond?
Need more information, can you post all the specs from the report?

3) Structural intergrity - could the feather be a problem?
not in a GIA VS2.

4) "Additional twinning wisps are not shown" - could this stone be ugly in its appearance - the twinning wisps shown are few, but how many additional inclusions could there be given it is a VS2, which one would think is a pretty good diamond?
Again, not in a GIA VS2. The additional twinning wisps were not enough to affect the clarity grade which means they are VS2 level or better.

5) "Surface graining is not shown" - sorry to ask a stupid question, but the polish is excellent, so I am really unclear how bad the surface graining could be. Can anyone help me out with understanding this comment?
Doesn't matter

6) Is 2.8 as an HCA score a definite write-off?
No, it means you should try to obtain additional information. Can you get photos or see it in person at least?

Given that this is within budget and, honestly, very few are - is this diamond acceptable, or not really?
The question is WHY is the diamond in budget when nothing else is in budget at this size? Diamonds are priced by market value/desires. A low price is a red flag on the primary market.

I know that I should go just below 2ct, but I really cannot as this is what we have agreed and my word is my honor, I really have to deliver the 2ct, and the budget is just not large, as opposed to tiny. I am working within the parameters of what I can afford, so I hope that you can let me know your thoughts.

Does your intended know what diamonds cost? Is she willing to accept a less than perfect stone? Does she know your budget?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Hi Christina

I can't seem to access the report online as the diamond is being held for me, so the link to the report is no longer there. I did obtain all the measurements as I printed out the dimensions. Please can you help me with understand them better? I truly appreciate your help on this.

I will put this and two others on hold tonight - I am just hoping to find three that can be compared in one go, as I know that JA will only compare three and so doing it in one go is probably the best option.

Really appreciate the help!!

Crown angle 35.5 deg
crown height 15.5%
pavilion angle 40.8 deg
pavilion height 43.0%
table 57%
depth 62.9%
girdle is med-slightly thick (faceted) 4.0%
7.97 x 8.01 x 5.02mm

[/quote]

The depth and girdle are making it face up the same size as a 1.9ct right? Sort of defeats the whole 2ct things.

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Thanks for the details on this, Dreamer - I appreciate that you responded to each of my concerns!

I listed the details from the spec and appreciate what you say about the face up as 2ct is usually from 7.9-8.2mm, so this one is on the smaller side. I guess that the difference between 7.9mm and 8.3mm is perceptible, but as this is pretty much spot on at 8mm, I didn't think it was too small.

If you think it may have visual issues from the girdle, please let me know.

I had wondered if there is an issue with the stone, but I suspected it was because the stone has SBF and not as good spread. I can only see the diamond in person if I have pay for it and have it delivered to me. If it is not right, I will have to pay to send it back, which is not an issue, as I don't expect to get anything for free. However, I will need to validate how long I would have.

My intended will accept anything. Even a haribo ring. And that's all the more why I would love to get her something amazing. I hoped that the budget was enough, but diamonds are expensive little things! She would not mind if it is less than perfect, but I would love to buy her 2ct and when a diamond presents itself and seems pretty close to the brief and cheaper than the others, I am pretty tempted!

1) Strong blue fluorescence - I am obtaining a visual appraisal to determine if the blue fluorescence affects the appearance negatively or even positively...

It is rare for SBF to cause ill effects but have this examined. The diamond is priced WAY lower than comparables and usually there is a reason for that.

2) High depth: is this diamond a steep-deep diamond?
Need more information, can you post all the specs from the report?

3) Structural intergrity - could the feather be a problem?
not in a GIA VS2.

4) "Additional twinning wisps are not shown" - could this stone be ugly in its appearance - the twinning wisps shown are few, but how many additional inclusions could there be given it is a VS2, which one would think is a pretty good diamond?
Again, not in a GIA VS2. The additional twinning wisps were not enough to affect the clarity grade which means they are VS2 level or better.

5) "Surface graining is not shown" - sorry to ask a stupid question, but the polish is excellent, so I am really unclear how bad the surface graining could be. Can anyone help me out with understanding this comment?
Doesn't matter

6) Is 2.8 as an HCA score a definite write-off?
No, it means you should try to obtain additional information. Can you get photos or see it in person at least?

Given that this is within budget and, honestly, very few are - is this diamond acceptable, or not really?
The question is WHY is the diamond in budget when nothing else is in budget at this size? Diamonds are priced by market value/desires. A low price is a red flag on the primary market.

I know that I should go just below 2ct, but I really cannot as this is what we have agreed and my word is my honor, I really have to deliver the 2ct, and the budget is just not large, as opposed to tiny. I am working within the parameters of what I can afford, so I hope that you can let me know your thoughts.

Does your intended know what diamonds cost? Is she willing to accept a less than perfect stone? Does she know your budget?

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Am I stupid for even considering this diamond? I know that there are well cut 1.9ct diamonds that face up the same size and some bigger. The irony is that even those are too pricey!

Based on the details is this steep deep?

I have found a VG/EX/EX I VS2 which is 8.24mm by 8.27mm - but I thought that having cut grade excellent is more important.

I am really unsure what to do, now...

Hi Christina

I can't seem to access the report online as the diamond is being held for me, so the link to the report is no longer there. I did obtain all the measurements as I printed out the dimensions. Please can you help me with understand them better? I truly appreciate your help on this.

I will put this and two others on hold tonight - I am just hoping to find three that can be compared in one go, as I know that JA will only compare three and so doing it in one go is probably the best option.

Really appreciate the help!!

Crown angle 35.5 deg
crown height 15.5%
pavilion angle 40.8 deg
pavilion height 43.0%
table 57%
depth 62.9%
girdle is med-slightly thick (faceted) 4.0%
7.97 x 8.01 x 5.02mm

The depth and girdle are making it face up the same size as a 1.9ct right? Sort of defeats the whole 2ct things.[/quote]

 

[fanofhardrock]

Re: HCA of 2.8 and strong blue fluorescence - grateful for h

Hi Milton 333

Thank you so much for this information - I was trying to understand exactly this: can one see the difference between this diamond and one which is a few thousand dollars more? Should I be re-assessing my split between the setting and the rock?

You make a good point that it will face up a little smaller, I have found a VG cut diamond which has excellent symmetry and excellent polish which is I VS2 and has HCA of 2.5. It is 8.24mm by 8.27mm. Would this be better? Or does the excellent trump the additional 0.25m? Which one is more perceptible?

I was trying for 8mm myself, but there aren't any good diamonds out there in budget, so I'm really trying to work with what I have.

I am glad that you have explained twinning wisps, as I have not see them IRL, so I am very relieved. I am also getting them to re-check if the diamond has any kind of smoke/haze. They have confirmed no negative effects of the fluorescence, which I wrongly assumed covers this. I have explicitly asked this after you mentioned it to me.

thanks again and any advice in choosing would be awesome.

Ideal cut diamonds are a single-digit percentage of diamonds used in jewelry. IMO, the visual difference between an ideal-cut stone with HCA < 2 and a GIA excellent stone with a 2.8 HCA is likely to be minimal, and so long as you understand that you are sacrificing optimal performance for size, it's a reasonable compromise in my opinion. You're still going to have a better performer than the majority of diamonds out there. The point was more that it's going to face up a bit small for the carat weight because it's a bit deep. That is, the cutter likely sacrificed cut a bit to hit the magic 2 ct number.

Twinning wisps can be a great inclusion, they show up under magnification but are generally not visible to the naked eye, with the smokey/hazy caveat above. I wouldn't worry about surface graining for your stone. VS2 and ex polish, should be fine.

Ultimately, for me, if you've got a good return policy, buy it and look at it, then send it off to be set if you're happy with it.