Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Help deciding if this is a good diamond

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
B

BobHope1284

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
74
I''m new to this site and i need some advice on picking out a diamond engagement ring. my budget is right around 8K. I found a diamond I like on james allen. It is a 1.3, H, SI1

On the sit it''s number: 1270858

Is this a decent stone? Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Thanks!
 
Edit

I just saw that girdle is v-thin-slth, that's a pretty big variation. You want to avoid v-thin girdles - those areas are prone to chipping.


It might be okay if you're planning to bezel the stone, though I'd still be wary..
 
This is nice, but I was hoping to get something slightly bigger at this price (i.e. >1.3). Is this reasonable, or will I have to sacrifice too much on quality?
 
sorry wrong thread
 
You really can''t judge eyeclean IRL from photos. The photos, like the inclusion plot, tell you where the inclusions are - and if they''re feathers or needles, how far they stretch, and perhaps give you some idea of colour. The actual diamond is much, much smaller and 3D, is constantly in motion when worn, and is rarely viewed from exactly face-up - the best way to get this info is to ask your SA.
 
Date: 1/6/2010 9:05:06 PM
Author: yssie
You really can''t judge eyeclean IRL from photos. The photos, like the inclusion plot, tell you where the inclusions are - and if they''re feathers or needles, how far they stretch, and perhaps give you some idea of colour. The actual diamond is much, much smaller and 3D, is constantly in motion when worn, and is rarely viewed from exactly face-up - the best way to get this info is to ask your SA.
Click to expand...

How do you ask the SA online?
 
Just call JA, tell them you''re interested in this diamond and would like them to check if it''s eyeclean - first figure out exactly what you expect by the term "eyeclean". Generally it means clean from 10" face-up, so something that meets this criterion might disappoint you if you plan to stick it up to your eyeball or put it in a pavilion-showing setting
2.gif
.


Ask for the IS image too.
 
Date: 1/6/2010 9:33:01 PM
Author: yssie
Just call JA, tell them you're interested in this diamond and would like them to check if it's eyeclean - first figure out exactly what you expect by the term 'eyeclean'. Generally it means clean from 10' face-up, so something that meets this criterion might disappoint you if you plan to stick it up to your eyeball or put it in a pavilion-showing setting
2.gif
.


Ask for the IS image too.
Click to expand...
Ditto! It is interesting to note that Brian Gavin does not consider any SI2's to be *truly* eye clean, because in the vast majority in some lighting and at some angles and close distances you can see the inclusions. So he is not willing to say that any SI2 is truly truly eye-clean, even given the caveats that are often attached to the term.

As a new SI2 lover, to own one and love it you have to accept that you will probably be able to see an inclusion or two in some situations. Like, oh, I don't know, in the shower when the water is running over the diamond and you tilt it to the side
20.gif
You can find SI2s that are eye clean under normal viewing circumstances for sure, but you need to be ok with seeing them in abnormal situations
3.gif
 
Thanks for all the advice/recommendations.

I went to a store today to check some more out in person. Found one that I liked in a 1.34 ct, I, SI2, Ideal cut. (Looked at the stone through a 30X microscope - the inclusion is very light on the side - best SI2 I have seen, and it is 100% eye clean). The price is $7,200. Is this a good deal, or should I avoid this stone? GIA report is here: http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=1102643119&weight=1.34
 
Numbers look promising but check for obstruction issue. Got an VG in cut grade also because of the Good polish. Price is not really that great but normal given that it is a brick store.
 
Date: 1/7/2010 4:08:08 PM
Author: BobHope1284
Thanks for all the advice/recommendations.

I went to a store today to check some more out in person. Found one that I liked in a 1.34 ct, I, SI2, Ideal cut. (Looked at the stone through a 30X microscope - the inclusion is very light on the side - best SI2 I have seen, and it is 100% eye clean). The price is $7,200. Is this a good deal, or should I avoid this stone? GIA report is here: http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=1102643119&weight=1.34
Click to expand...

I have a little problem with advertising a diamond as "Ideal" cut when it only took a good polish. It may not have any visible issues, and might even have ideal light performance, but the benchmark for an overall Ideal grade in cut has typically been the highest level of performance, polish and symmetry. I can even see rationale for promoting it as top-cut if it had VG polish and symmetry, since naked eyes can't see the difference between EX and VG.

You should not be paying an "ideal craftsmanship" premium for a diamond with that finish grade, that's all. Could be a great stone.

One thing I'd do is check to see if the surface graining indicated on the report influenced the polish. Under certain lighting that could be visible.
 
OK, thanks again. I was looking at some more of James Allen''s offerings and I''ve found a few that seem decent. Can someone weigh in on which is the best option and why. I''m looking at diamonds numbered: 1275226, 1139709, 1260129, 1270858, 1276071, 1266592, 1260130.

Thanks again.
 
1275226 - numbers look great! IS to be sure, and confirm eyeclean.
1139709 - steep/deep - very visible in the still pic, too
1260129 - want IS.
1270858 - v-thin girdle could be prone to chipping. If it''s just one tiny portion it could be pronged to reduce vulnerability, but... not worth the worry when you have alternatives.
1276071 - numbers geared more toward brilliance than fire.
1266592 - definitely want an IS for this c/p combo
1260130 - again - IS needed, and I''d be nervous about those grade-making clouds.



I like the first one best - good all-rounder, no issues.
 
.double.
 
Date: 1/7/2010 7:58:54 PM
Author: yssie
1275226 - numbers look great! IS to be sure, and confirm eyeclean.

1139709 - steep/deep - very visible in the still pic, too

1260129 - want IS.

1270858 - v-thin girdle could be prone to chipping. If it''s just one tiny portion it could be pronged to reduce vulnerability, but... not worth the worry when you have alternatives.

1276071 - numbers geared more toward brilliance than fire.

1266592 - definitely want an IS for this c/p combo

1260130 - again - IS needed, and I''d be nervous about those grade-making clouds.




I like the first one best - good all-rounder, no issues.
Click to expand...


What does IS mean?
 
Thanks, I will request that. I like the first one but I was concerned about the black crystals. Why don''t they concern you? Do you think they will not be visible?
 
Bob...


Date: 1/6/2010 9:05:06 PM
Author: yssie
You really can't judge eyeclean IRL from photos. The photos, like the inclusion plot, tell you where the inclusions are - and if they're feathers or needles, how far they stretch, and perhaps give you some idea of colour. The actual diamond is much, much smaller and 3D, is constantly in motion when worn, and is rarely viewed from exactly face-up - the best way to get this info is to ask your SA.
Click to expand...




 
Date: 1/7/2010 8:37:55 PM
Author: yssie
Bob...



Date: 1/6/2010 9:05:06 PM

Author: yssie

You really can't judge eyeclean IRL from photos. The photos, like the inclusion plot, tell you where the inclusions are - and if they're feathers or needles, how far they stretch, and perhaps give you some idea of colour. The actual diamond is much, much smaller and 3D, is constantly in motion when worn, and is rarely viewed from exactly face-up - the best way to get this info is to ask your SA.
Click to expand...





Click to expand...

Edit:

So you're saying, I should just ask an SA if it's eye clean, and even though they look big on the photo, they'll actually be quite small/invisible to the naked eye?
 
Date: 1/7/2010 9:04:33 PM
Author: BobHope1284

Date: 1/7/2010 8:37:55 PM
Author: yssie
Bob...




Date: 1/6/2010 9:05:06 PM

Author: yssie

You really can''t judge eyeclean IRL from photos. The photos, like the inclusion plot, tell you where the inclusions are - and if they''re feathers or needles, how far they stretch, and perhaps give you some idea of colour. The actual diamond is much, much smaller and 3D, is constantly in motion when worn, and is rarely viewed from exactly face-up - the best way to get this info is to ask your SA.
Click to expand...






Click to expand...

Edit:

So you''re saying, I should just ask an SA if it''s eye clean, and even though they look big on the photo, they''ll actually be quite small/invisible to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
1.gif
yup. Inclusions can look monstrous on those blown-up pics, but IRL when the stone is brilliant and sparkling they often get lost in everything else that''s going on, so there''s a good chance of finding an eyeclean SI - esp. in this size range.
 
Date: 1/7/2010 9:32:49 PM
Author: yssie
Date: 1/7/2010 9:04:33 PM

Author: BobHope1284


Date: 1/7/2010 8:37:55 PM

Author: yssie

Bob...





Date: 1/6/2010 9:05:06 PM


Author: yssie


You really can''t judge eyeclean IRL from photos. The photos, like the inclusion plot, tell you where the inclusions are - and if they''re feathers or needles, how far they stretch, and perhaps give you some idea of colour. The actual diamond is much, much smaller and 3D, is constantly in motion when worn, and is rarely viewed from exactly face-up - the best way to get this info is to ask your SA.
Click to expand...







Click to expand...


Edit:


So you''re saying, I should just ask an SA if it''s eye clean, and even though they look big on the photo, they''ll actually be quite small/invisible to the naked eye?
Click to expand...

1.gif
yup. Inclusions can look monstrous on those blown-up pics, but IRL when the stone is brilliant and sparkling they often get lost in everything else that''s going on, so there''s a good chance of finding an eyeclean SI - esp. in this size range.
Click to expand...

Just chatted with someone online...they will have a gemologist call tomorrow and if it is eyeclean they will send IS over. I''ll keep you posted.
 
Remember to ask the gemologist if it is eye clean to your standards, whatever those are.
 
Date: 1/7/2010 7:58:54 PM
Author: yssie
1275226 - numbers look great! IS to be sure, and confirm eyeclean.

1139709 - steep/deep - very visible in the still pic, too

1260129 - want IS.

1270858 - v-thin girdle could be prone to chipping. If it''s just one tiny portion it could be pronged to reduce vulnerability, but... not worth the worry when you have alternatives.

1276071 - numbers geared more toward brilliance than fire.

1266592 - definitely want an IS for this c/p combo

1260130 - again - IS needed, and I''d be nervous about those grade-making clouds.




I like the first one best - good all-rounder, no issues.
Click to expand...

Sorry to keep bugging everyone about this. I''m looking again at 1266592. What did you mean when you said "definitely want an IS for this c/p combo". What is a c/p combo. When compared to the first stone that you said you liked the best, it''ll be about $1,200 more. Is the first stone worth paying that much more?
 
c/p combo is crown and pavilion combination. In well-cut diamonds, the crown angle and pavilion angle should complement one another. Here's what to look for:

Crown angle: between 34-35.1 degrees
Pavilion angle: between 40.6-40.9, maybe 41

In general, shallower crowns need slightly steeper pavilions, and vice versa.
 
I''ve been looking at some other diamonds to lower the cost a bit - I know the 1.38 mentioned above is great, but it''s stretching the budget a bit. What is your take on these diamonds? 1278162, 1278161, 1278147, 1278147, 1246375. For those without pictures, I''m having them sent to me on monday
 
Just a quick note on very thin girdles here as they aren''t created equal - each needs evaluating on a case by case basis. Not all very thin girdles are a potential durability issue as some measure only in the microns in the very thin part or are placed in a non vulnerable area, best course of action is always get a trusted vendor or appraiser to inspect such diamonds to see if there will or won''t be an issue as the case may be.
 
thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top