shape
carat
color
clarity

Help choosing between two stones

Discussion in 'Laboratory-Grown Diamonds /Man-Made Diamonds (MMD)' started by dabrain230, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:48 AM.

  1. dabrain230
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Tuesday
    by dabrain230 » Aug 13, 2019 at 5:48 AM
    stone_new.png 1565688739213_cert.jpeg
    Hi,

    I have been looking into lab growns for a while. My gf and I are on the same page and tbh I believe the ring to be the part where I can add some individuality as opposed to the price tag of the stone.

    I have bought a 1.37 carat stone from JA but I am not 100% sure. The inclusions in the middle of the table, albeit barely visible, are somewhat bugging me. Also, I think I could go a tad bit higher in size.

    Stone 1 (which I already purchased)
    HCA 0.5
    Carat: 1.37
    Depth: 59.7
    Table: 58
    Crown: 33.8
    Pavillion: 40.5
    Symmetry: Excellent
    Measurements: 7.22x7.24x4.32
    Somehow the inclusions that can be seen in the superzoom (when looking from the front, on the right side - 3 or more fairly visible inclusions) are not marked in the certificate and I dont remember seeing them when I made the purchase. If I had I likely wouldnt have bought. Not sure if they switched the image to a sample one? If they didnt, should I check again with JA?

    Stone 2 (considering switching to since its a bit bigger and seems roughly of the same quality)
    HCA 0.8
    Carat: 1.42
    Depth: 61.5
    Table: 58
    Crown: 35.5
    Pavillion: 40.5
    Symmetry: Excellent
    Measurements: 7.17x7.2x4.42

    Any input is greatly appreciated!
     
    


    


  2. OoohShiny
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    5,608
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    by OoohShiny » Aug 13, 2019 at 6:34 PM
    Welcome to the forum :)

    I am surprised that you can see the inclusions in a VVS2! but we must consider that IGI might be grading more generously than GIA and AGS (neither of whom give as much detail on Laboratory Grown Diamond grading reports, hence the use of IGI and other graders at the moment).

    I can see your point about the inclusions near the girdle in the superzoom - perhaps the graders felt they fell under the category of 'insignificant external details' that aren't shown?

    Is the stone set yet? If not it might be possible to put them under prongs and make them less noticeable.

    I don't think JA would have used a different stone in the listing then swapped it for the current one that accords with what you are seeing in real life. I guess it could have been a mistake but to do it deliberately would risk JA's reputation. There is no real way to confirm either way unless you have screengrabs of the original listing, I imagine.

    If the inclusions are bugging you now then I think they will probably always do so, so it might be wise to swap to another stone. I am a clarity freak as well :razz: so understand wanting a definitely eye-clean stone and mind-clean stone. The 1.42 does look very clean to me on this monitor.


    Take care to note that carat is a measurement of weight, not size, so in this case, the 1.42ct has a smaller 'spread' (physical length/width) than the 1.37ct. It is usually accepted on here that a size difference of 0.2mm is noticeable, so both should look basically the same in this case.

    The 1.42 has a higher crown than the 1.37, so it should give more coloured fire than white light, whereas the shallower crown on the 1.37 will give more white light than coloured fire. The 1.37 is also more of a '60/60' stone (60% depth, 60% table), which seem to be known for their tendency to give white light return.


    If you are considering buying an MMD then you should consider that it may have a very low resale value if you may ever need to sell it on, as the market is still new and the secondhand market even more so. Of course, one can frame it in the way that one is committing totally to a relationship without thinking about 'what if...', and I am pleased I did that with my ring - I could have had platinum but I chose Damascus steel (admittedly a 'designer' brand, Chris Ploof) even though it has no material value if melted. :)

    Whatever you buy, make the choices and buy in full awareness!
     
    dabrain230 likes this.
  3. dabrain230
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Tuesday
    by dabrain230 » Aug 14, 2019 at 4:50 AM
    Hi,
    thanks for the feedback! I very much agree with the "mind-clean" statement. Although I know that virtually to everyone looking at the stone it wouldnt make any difference, simply knowing about those "visible" inclusions is bugging me somehow.

    I do know about the issue of resale value but then again, I don't intend to buy to sell later. I am in the investment industry and there are far better vehicles for that purpose than diamonds ;-)

    I have to say its quite interesting how much more you can learn about diamonds even after spending weeks of research. I guess there is so many things you don't find on the average diamond buyers guide. One question I have is regarding fire vs white light. Is that just a matter of personal preference or is there like a general assumptions that most people like one better than the other? Tbh I dont really know what the difference is ...

    I ll have to check again with JA and ask about those inclusions on the right side of the stone. If they are actually there, I would return the stone. I haven't put it in a setting yet but I'd prefer to start thinking about the setting once I have committed to one stone.
     
    OoohShiny likes this.
  4. OoohShiny
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    5,608
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    by OoohShiny » Aug 14, 2019 at 6:45 AM
    Diamonds can be a lifelong learning subject! I came here thinking it would be easy, but five(!!) years later I still feel like a total noob :lol: lol

    White Light vs Coloured Fire is an interesting one. I think it is entirely personal preference so ideally you'd be able to check what your intended prefers but I appreciate that may be difficult!

    I'm trying to find a YouTube video showing the differences - if I find one, I'll post it up :)
     
    dabrain230 likes this.
    


    


  5. whitewave
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    7,627
    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    by whitewave » Aug 14, 2019 at 8:23 AM
    Well, it’s not resale investment we are discussing these days. It’s lack of upgrade policy in case you want to go bigger at a later date— you will be stuck with this stone. If you are ok with that— make it into a pendant or whatnot, then great. You won’t be able to sell it for much if you want a different option down the road.

    Plus, prices will likely come down more, so you could maybe be buying High right now. How will you feel if this stone is 30% less in 1-2 years than what you paid today? (I just grabbed that number out of my head).

    It’s something to consider...

    Also, HCA under 1 is more suited for pendants or earrings.

    As mentioned, #2 is smaller than #1.
     
    dabrain230 likes this.
  6. dabrain230
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Tuesday
    by dabrain230 » Aug 14, 2019 at 9:14 AM
    @OoohShiny
    Thanks, i ll also try to look into the difference.

    @whitewave
    Yeah, I get that. I mean the technology will improve and production costs will come down. But its the same with new tech or cars. And as you said, I'd rather not think about money afterwards and turn it into a pendant or something should she decide to upgrade to something bigger. However, as she does not necessarily fancy diamonds too much I am fairly relaxed.

    Is there any good resource on how to interpret the HCA score? Why is HCA under 1 more suited for pendants etc and what is the more ideal range for center stones in a ring?
     
    MelloYello8 and OoohShiny like this.
  7. OoohShiny
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    5,608
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    by OoohShiny » Aug 14, 2019 at 6:58 PM
    HCA under 1 usually means the stone is shallow (i.e. crown and pavilion angles are both shallow), which means it can have more spread (physical size) for a given carat weight.

    Some stones can have issues with contrast/obstruction/leakage when it gets towards the shallower cuts, though, which is why <1 is recommended for pendants and earrings - the viewer will be further away so any obstruction (from the viewer's head) will be smaller and have less impact on the stone (whereas a ring can be held right up to the face!).

    IIRC it is only when pavilion angles risk being under 40.45 degrees that the danger exists, so <1 is not an automatic disqualifier for a ring.

    (All the above IIRC!)
     
  8. dabrain230
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Tuesday
    by dabrain230 » Aug 16, 2019 at 9:41 AM
    @OoohShiny

    Thanks, thats very helpful.

    between the two mentioned above, the one I was considering switching to is not available anymore. Also JA confirmed that the image is the original one and that the stone I bought does have these inclusions that I must have missed when I made the purchase. When I was at the showroom and looking at the stone with the loupe, I didnt really see them as I was more focused on the inclusions marked on the certificate. I just find it .... "suboptimal" that these fairly visible inclusions (at least at 20x) are not marked. They will always have an excuse though saying that inclusions are checked for at 10x. I have roughly 10 days to make my decision whether to keep or return. I will keep looking while incorporating the things I am learning from you guys!
     
    OoohShiny likes this.
  9. OoohShiny
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    5,608
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    by OoohShiny » Aug 16, 2019 at 2:02 PM
    I hear what you are saying about inclusions - I need a mind-clean stone myself!
     

Share This Page