Help on Round H&A

[Tony2tyger]

I am a newbie and have done considerable research before posting. I think I found a good diamond. I would appreciate your opinion on this round brilliant. Here's the specs from the website. HCA = 1.9 based on the below measurements. I've also included the specs from a Sarin report below. HCA = 2.1 when using the Sarin report specs.

Website|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sarin
Depth: 62.3% ||||||||||||||||||| 61.8%
Table: 55.3% ||||||||||||||||||| 55.4% (55.1%-55.6%)
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to slightly thick ||||| 3.6% (3.2%-3.8%)
Culet: None |||||||||||||||||||||| 0.4% (None)
Fluorescence: Negligible
Crown Angle: 34.9 |||||||||||||||||||| 34.8 (34.6-35.0)
Crown %: 15.60 ||||||||||||||||||| 15.2% (15.1%-15.5%)
Pavilion Angle: 40.9 |||||||||||||||||||| 41.0 (40.9-41.1)
Pavilion %: 43.20 ||||||||||||||||||| 43.0% (42.9%-43.3%)
Star / Upper %: |||||||||||||||||||||||| 48.2 : 51.8

I've attached pictures of the diamond, idealscope, hearts, AGS clairty plot, and AGS ASET image form their report. The feather inclusion was verified by a gemologist as eye clean to the untrained eye, but could be detected by the trained eye at 6 inches in certain lighting. Also, the feather does breach the surface just under the table, but the gemologist stated that this does not impact the durability of the diamond.

 

[Tony2tyger]

Here's the ASET along with the loupe showing where the inclusion is:

 

[slg47]

IS image looks good but if this is sold as H&A I would request a retake of the hearts pic.

 

[Tony2tyger]

I will ask for them to retake the picture. Before I do, why would you request a retake?

 

[slg47]

does not look like true H&A...bottom hearts are clefted

 

[Dancing Fire]

..this is not a H&A stone.

 

[Tony2tyger]

I will keep looking since it's not a true H&A. It is advertised as such. I want to get a stone that has the best light return and sparkle. Thanks for your help!

 

[slg47]

I will keep looking since it's not a true H&A. It is advertised as such. I want to get a stone that has the best light return and sparkle. Thanks for your help!

you can get excellent light return without H&A.

 

[Tony2tyger]

Would you recommend buying this stone if I want the best sparkle as well? It is a good price, and it does have a risk free return policy.

 

[yssie]

Would you recommend buying this stone if I want the best sparkle as well? It is a good price, and it does have a risk free return policy.

Request that they retake the hearts pic if you're interested - the asymmetries actually look pretty symmetric, which indicate it might just be bad photography (stone tilted relative to the scope when they were taking the photo).

From all the info you've posted I'd expect it to be a pretty stone. I'm a bit confused on the inclusions issue - is "visible from 6" to the trained eye" okay with you and your SO? Most women do put their rings up to their eyeballs, so her eyes might 'train' themselves pretty quickly - or might not. If they do, do you think she'd be okay with that? And the surface breaking feather - is that on the top of the stone or on the bottom pavilion side? I personally would not want an engagement stone with a top surface-breaking feathers whether or not it's a durability concern - something about that just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[MissStepcut]

I will keep looking since it's not a true H&A. It is advertised as such. I want to get a stone that has the best light return and sparkle. Thanks for your help!

you can get excellent light return without H&A.

Agreed. I would look for a non-H&A that isn't being billed that way to better maximize your budget.

 

[Tony2tyger]

Request that they retake the hearts pic if you're interested - the asymmetries actually look pretty symmetric, which indicate it might just be bad photography (stone tilted relative to the scope when they were taking the photo).

From all the info you've posted I'd expect it to be a pretty stone. I'm a bit confused on the inclusions issue - is "visible from 6" to the trained eye" okay with you and your SO? Most women do put their rings up to their eyeballs, so her eyes might 'train' themselves pretty quickly - or might not. If they do, do you think she'd be okay with that? And the surface breaking feather - is that on the top of the stone or on the bottom pavilion side? I personally would not want an engagement stone with a top surface-breaking feathers whether or not it's a durability concern - something about that just doesn't sit well with me.

I've requested them to retake the hearts pic. The feather inclusion breaks the surface on the top just under the table. She's not that picky, but I know it would bug me if I could see it every time I looked at the diamond. The gemologist did say the feather blended in with the stone, but when you were looking for it, you could see it under certain lighting conditions.

I will keep looking since it's not a true H&A. It is advertised as such. I want to get a stone that has the best light return and sparkle. Thanks for your help!

you can get excellent light return without H&A.

Agreed. I would look for a non-H&A that isn't being billed that way to better maximize your budget.

How would you begin looking for such a stone? Most websites that advertise non H&A just give the lab grading report and maybe a picture of the diamond. I know from my research that I should look for the following dimensions:

Depth 60-62.5%
Table 54-58%
Crown Angle 34-35°
Pavilion Angle 40.6-41°
Where:
Pavilion--- Crown
40.6°------ 34.5-35°
40.8°------ 34-35°
41°-------- 34-34.5°

And I know to stay with a HCA score of <= 2.0, but can go above 2 if the stone looks good visually.