Help With A Diamond?

[101116]

Hi! I am brand new to this forum and am not entirely sure how to navigate everything or make a post. Hopefully I'm doing it right! My husband and I are picking out a new LGD for an engagement ring to replace my old Tiffany ring. But we are stuck between stones and I was wondering if anyone could offer some guidance? These are the ones we are considering, they are form Do Amore. We were going to go with JA, as we've bought from them in the past, but honestly- trying to work with them was an absolute nightmare. We love what Do Amore is trying to do and that they are a smaller business.

20-M55381

3.34-Carat Round Diamond

www.doamore.com

^^^ Option one. It looks good. My concerns are that it does seem to have a slightly smaller table for its other proportions. Would this affect overall performance?

0-85972

3.29-Carat Round Diamond

www.doamore.com

^^^ Option 2. It does not have ideal proportions based on the report but it looks so lovely in the video!

Either should provide decent coverage as I have larger than normal fingers. But I was just curious if I could get any opinions or input? Thank you so much! I hope you all are having a lovely day

 

[musicloveranthony]

I very much prefer the second stone you listed

 

[101116]

I very much prefer the second stone you listed

Thank you so much! It does seem to perform better, which was surprising as its proportions weren't as good I don't think. Though my knowledge is very limited. Thank you so much for your feedback!

 

[AprilBaby]

#2

 

[vintageinjune]

The numbers on #1 are more "within ideal range" recommendations, but the internal graining seems more apparent in the video than the internal graining on #2, but I worry that #2 has more obstruction under the table? Any chance they could provide an Ideal Scope and ASET image of #2?

 

[Kim N]

#2 gets a 2.8 on the HCA, and I'm not liking its uneven pavilion.

The videos for the two diamonds were taken under different lighting, so I don't think looking at the videos is an apples-to-apples comparison.

Can you ask them if the internal graining on #1 is visible to the naked eye? Or if they have a risk-less return policy, can you buy it to view in person? If the graining isn't visible to the naked eye, I far prefer #1.

 

[101116]

#2 gets a 2.8 on the HCA, and I'm not liking its uneven pavilion.

The videos for the two diamonds were taken under different lighting, so I don't think looking at the videos is an apples-to-apples comparison.

Can you ask them if the internal graining on #1 is visible to the naked eye? Or if they have a risk-less return policy, can you buy it to view in person? If the graining isn't visible to the naked eye, I far prefer #1.

Yes! Their return policy is pretty good I believe so purchasing and returning if it's visible in person, not under scope, is an option!

The numbers on #1 are more "within ideal range" recommendations, but the internal graining seems more apparent in the video than the internal graining on #2, but I worry that #2 has more obstruction under the table? Any chance they could provide an Ideal Scope and ASET image of #2?

Yep, that's what I'm thinking as well. I'm kind of feeling like neither of these may be *great* options.

#2

Thank you for your input!

 

[101116]

I am also considering going a bit smaller for carat size in exchange of better numbers.

20-52830

www.doamore.com

Orrrr... I could just throw the budget out the door and go for this honker [We are 100% debt free and could afford it, I'm just trying to discern if I want to or not.]

20-50197

www.doamore.com

 

[Kim N]

I am also considering going a bit smaller for carat size in exchange of better numbers.

20-52830

www.doamore.com

Orrrr... I could just throw the budget out the door and go for this honker [We are 100% debt free and could afford it, I'm just trying to discern if I want to or not.]

20-50197

www.doamore.com

The first one has proportions that don't work well together. And I feel like if you do throw the budget out the window , you could do better than the second one.

Would you consider other vendors, if not James Allen?

 

[101116]

The first one has proportions that don't work well together. And I feel like if you do throw the budget out the window , you could do better than the second one.

Would you consider other vendors, if not James Allen?

I would, although we haven't loved our interactions with James Allen reps. Additionally we are getting a lot of mixed information regarding sizing, as I would need a larger size than 9. So I don't love the reps/ communication. But I was liking this stone from them, though I'm not sure how it stacks up in comparison. I would prefer an HPHT LGD vs CVD with treatment. I did ask about the surface graining on the first option from Do Amore and was told it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye but their info seems limited.

Here's the one we were liking from JA, it has faint blue which I kind of like.

Lab-Created 4.02 Carat round diamond

This 4.02 carat Lab-Created round diamond H color vs1 clarity has Ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from IGI

www.jamesallen.com

Also thank you so much for all of your input, I greatly appreciate it!

 

[Kim N]

I would, although we haven't loved our interactions with James Allen reps. Additionally we are getting a lot of mixed information regarding sizing, as I would need a larger size than 9. So I don't love the reps/ communication. But I was liking this stone from them, though I'm not sure how it stacks up in comparison. I would prefer an HPHT LGD vs CVD with treatment. I did ask about the surface graining on the first option from Do Amore and was told it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye but their info seems limited.

Here's the one we were liking from JA, it has faint blue which I kind of like.

Lab-Created 4.02 Carat round diamond

This 4.02 carat Lab-Created round diamond H color vs1 clarity has Ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from IGI

www.jamesallen.com

Also thank you so much for all of your input, I greatly appreciate it!

I actually like that one from JA as long as you're okay with the faint blue. DA and JA both have good return policies, so no harm in checking one of these options out in person.

 

[mwilliamanderson]

I like that JA stone too .

 

[DejaWiz]

I would, although we haven't loved our interactions with James Allen reps. Additionally we are getting a lot of mixed information regarding sizing, as I would need a larger size than 9. So I don't love the reps/ communication. But I was liking this stone from them, though I'm not sure how it stacks up in comparison. I would prefer an HPHT LGD vs CVD with treatment. I did ask about the surface graining on the first option from Do Amore and was told it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye but their info seems limited.

Here's the one we were liking from JA, it has faint blue which I kind of like.

Lab-Created 4.02 Carat round diamond

This 4.02 carat Lab-Created round diamond H color vs1 clarity has Ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from IGI

www.jamesallen.com

Also thank you so much for all of your input, I greatly appreciate it!

Clean SI1, colorless, better light return:

Lab-Created 4.11 Carat round diamond

This 4.11 carat Lab-Created round diamond E color si1 clarity has Ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from IGI

www.jamesallen.com

 

[101116]

Clean SI1, colorless, better light return:

Lab-Created 4.11 Carat round diamond

This 4.11 carat Lab-Created round diamond E color si1 clarity has Ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from IGI

www.jamesallen.com

Awesome, thank you so much!! I appreciate it

 

[101116]

The numbers on #1 are more "within ideal range" recommendations, but the internal graining seems more apparent in the video than the internal graining on #2, but I worry that #2 has more obstruction under the table? Any chance they could provide an Ideal Scope and ASET image of #2?

I was able to get a few images but I don't have any clue what they mean ‍ I was told the internal graining wouldn't be visible to the naked eye.

 

[Kim N]

I was able to get a few images but I don't have any clue what they mean ‍ I was told the internal graining wouldn't be visible to the naked eye.

This is #1, right? The light return looks excellent to me. And that's very good to hear about the internal graining. IMO this one is definitely worth viewing in person.

 

[101116]

Clean SI1, colorless, better light return:

Lab-Created 4.11 Carat round diamond

This 4.11 carat Lab-Created round diamond E color si1 clarity has Ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from IGI

www.jamesallen.com

Can I trouble you to ask if you think the inclusions would be visible to the naked eye? We're heavily considering it, the inclusions just make us a little hesitant as I've never seen a stone in person with that clarity. I apologize if this is an inappropriate question or an inconvenience. But thank you again so much for pointing out this stone to us!

 

[DejaWiz]

Can I trouble you to ask if you think the inclusions would be visible to the naked eye? We're heavily considering it, the inclusions just make us a little hesitant as I've never seen a stone in person with that clarity. I apologize if this is an inappropriate question or an inconvenience. But thank you again so much for pointing out this stone to us!

Highly doubtful it would be visible to my eyes or anyone else that is a casual admirer in normal viewing situations. But that is my eyes and casual admirers eyes from a distance of at least 9 inches away while it's doing its thing as a diamond, which is throwing out tons of light, sparkles, and flashes that'll drown out that needle in the crown. If it's not acceptably clean in your *mind*, then it's not clean. We all have a different level of what is or isn't mind-clean.

JA has a heck of a great return policy, so maybe think about buying as a loose diamond to inspect first and make that determination...you can work with them to ship it back for setting if there's a ring they have you want if it turns out to be acceptable, or get a full refund if it's not.
Something to consider, at least.