Help with Final Decision; On HOLD until 5PM TODAY

[hipbone]

I have narrowed down my original three diamonds to a single diamond that I plan to buy today, but am slightly worried about the feathers and twinning wisps. I have been told it will look eye clean, but may be picked up by a sensitive eye, because of contrast between the grayish feathers and the whiteness of the diamond. In all honesty I don't really know what that means.

Here is the idealscope and regular magnified image for the diamond. It is on hold until 5PM today.
0.85 G SI2
Depth: 60.4%
Table: 59.0%
Measurements: 6.12*6.14*3.70
Crown Angle: 33.5
Pavilion Angle: 40.8

HCA
Score: 1.3
Light Return: Excellent
Fire: Excellent
Scintillation: Excellent
Spread: Very Good

And here is the diamond I stumbled across this morning while looking for a comparable. There is no way JA is going to get me an ideascope image of this before 5pm today so I would have to purchase it without one or let the other diamond fall off hold.
0.81 H VS2
Depth: 61.9%
Table: 53.0%
Measurements: 5.98*6.02*3.72
Crown Angle: 32.5
Pavilion Angle: 41.0

HCA
Score: 1.0
Light Return: Excellent
Fire: Excellent
Scintillation: Excellent
Spread: Very Good

My concerns with the 2nd diamond is the depth (resulting in low spread) and a darker diamond, but with the HCA score I am somewhat confused.

Price difference is negligible. All I want is a white (looking) diamond that is eyeclean face up sparkles as much as possible. Please help choose which is the better diamond based on my wants!

Thank you

 

[TitanCi]

Stone 1 looks good in IS and in live pic, so does stone 2.

Stone one has proportions of a 60/60: https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/60-60-proportioned-diamond

The spread is a little bigger, but the way the stone is cut will behave differently (different light properties) than the other one. Can you buy both and see for yourself which one you like more than return the other one?

Do you have an IS of #2?

 

[hipbone]

Are you suggesting that stone 1 may look poor in person? The gemologist has said that it was the best stone out of the original bunch. As for stone 2, I do not have IS images, but have asked if they have them on hand to forward them to me.

I can buy both diamonds financially and have been truly considering doing this; I have already emailed a customer service rep about doing this earlier today, but have not heard a response. I was not sure if this would lead to problems when I return the weaker performer. I am having a custom setting made (slightly modified solitaire) that they have said is refundable and resize-able, but don't know if they will follow through with that if I dick them around with buying two diamonds in the exact same settings.

 

[LibbyLA]

I think she means having both diamonds shipped to you unset so you can choose which you prefer, then send both back and get the keeper set.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

No, you wouldn't buy both and have them set. You could buy them both unset and then return them and have them set the one you choose. SI2 is not mind-clean for me for an engagement ring, so I would rather personally have the H VS2. But that is a personal preference. Nothing is wrong with the spread on the second diamond. It faces up exactly like it should for an excellent cut .81 ct. stone. It is not deep.

 

[hipbone]

No, you wouldn't buy both and have them set. You could buy them both unset and then return them and have them set the one you choose. SI2 is not mind-clean for me for an engagement ring, so I would rather personally have the H VS2. But that is a personal preference. Nothing is wrong with the spread on the second diamond. It faces up exactly like it should for an excellent cut .81 ct. stone. It is not deep.

Would you do that without a gemologist report, or IS image?

 

[hipbone]

No, you wouldn't buy both and have them set. You could buy them both unset and then return them and have them set the one you choose. SI2 is not mind-clean for me for an engagement ring, so I would rather personally have the H VS2. But that is a personal preference. Nothing is wrong with the spread on the second diamond. It faces up exactly like it should for an excellent cut .81 ct. stone. It is not deep.

That makes a lot more sense.

 

[yssie]

#2 does not have a high depth - 62% is fine, well within "well-cut" range. What is girdle variance? Bigger issue is signficant region over overly thin girdle + low crown (= chipping risk, girdle is measured as percentage of diameter).. what is girdle on #1?

Age of reports?


The group of inclusions at 3 o'clock on #1 can likely be put under a prong
-close to the girdle
-stone is small enough that a prong will extend far enough to cover
-doesn't have a high crown so settling a prong on the raised UGF facet-meet is less of an issue



There will be differences in appearance and light return that you may notice if you have both in-hand... but either will be a nice *bright* white stone, so if that's what you want you have two promising choices (pending girdle measurements and age of reports). Table on #2 is small so it has a high crown (height) despite the lower crown angle - ~15% vs. ~13.5% by the calculator, higher crown + larger area of angled crown surface = better odds of seeing coloured light return through a variety of lighting types, if you particularly like coloured light return

Anything in the comments area regarding the inclusions in the SI2?

 

[hipbone]

Here is the IS for stone 2

#2 does not have a high depth - 62% is fine, well within "well-cut" range. What is girdle variance? Bigger issue is signficant region over overly thin girdle + low crown (= chipping risk, girdle is measured as percentage of diameter).. what is girdle on #1?

Girdle: Medium
Age of reports?

I had the reports done this week.

The group of inclusions at 3 o'clock on #1 can likely be put under a prong
-close to the girdle
-stone is small enough that a prong will extend far enough to cover
-doesn't have a high crown so settling a prong on the raised UGF facet-meet is less of an issue

That is what I was thinking too, but I have hard time realizing how much bigger these images and scaling back down to reality

There will be differences in appearance and light return that you may notice if you have both in-hand... but either will be a nice *bright* white stone, so if that's what you want you have two promising choices (pending girdle measurements and age of reports). Table on #2 is small so it has a high crown (height) despite the lower crown angle - ~15% vs. ~13.5% by the calculator, higher crown + larger area of angled crown surface = better odds of seeing coloured light return through a variety of lighting types, if you particularly like coloured light return

Anything in the comments area regarding the inclusions in the SI2?

"I'm happy to say that the brightest diamond of the group is diamond 1518525 (0.85crt G SI2)! It offers great fire, brilliance, and scintillation and has a true "G" color. Its inclusions blend well but its feather near the girdle might be picked up by the unaided eye. It has an excellent cut and will look fantastic in person.... it has multiple feathers and that some of them are partially prongable. This means at least one (possibly located at 3 o'clock in the magnified and idealscope image) is partially prongable. Others, such as the one showing in the magnified image at the edge of the table, will not be. When the gemologist said that a sensitive eye might pick up on some of the feathers, they are saying that some people will view the diamond as eye clean while others with a more particular vision will find them. This is often the case with rather clean SI graded diamond s... There's no reason for worry regarding cloudiness or any impact from the inclusions on the diamonds light performance because that information would have been shared up front if it were a concern. .."

And could you please explain coloured light return? I really am a newb and don't fully understand the difference.

Thanks you, you have been a big help.

 

[hipbone]

I just put an order in for both of them to be shipped, but have not confirmed it yet.

0.85

0.81


I have a feeling the .81 is the better diamond.

 

[yssie]

Ah, I think we may be having some disconnects in communication.

Both stones have medium girdle by the report?
Okay on girdle.

GIA reports (numbers sound like GIA?) are both from Sept 2012?
Okay, no concerns re. reports not indicating current condition of stone.

Those specific inclusions *can* be pronged, at least enough to divert the eyes to the prong and away from the inclusion under it. If someone tells you differently you need a new bench. It is not ideal if you choose a 4prong design but it is far from difficult or problematic... of course if you choose a bezel it's a different question.
This is coming from someone who has similar inclusions that are considerably more difficult to prong.

Anything *on the GIA report* re. inclusions in the SI2?


Light return - all well-cut (both of these are well-cut) diamonds will return light, that's the big issue addressed right there.

There are small differences in what type of light they return - whether it's white or coloured, whether the flashes are mostly big and bold and slow or smaller and quicker and twinkly or a mix... one type of stone isn't better than another, but if you know that you personally happen to have a strong preference it *may* be something to consider. The differences will depend on the proportions and the type of lighting environment - in diffuse office lights all RBs are white, in the elevator spotlights all RBs will show coloured flashes, in "in-between" types of lights some stones will err one way and other stones will err more the other. A stone with higher crown and smaller table means that the crown facets are larger and angled further away from each other, allowing light outputs to travel in different directions and increasing your odds of catching a single ray, or a single wavelength of a single ray (a single colour).
When you look into the stone you see a ton of facets, those are "virtual" facets - they aren't actually cut into the stone, they're reflections of other facets. Bigger but fewer "virtual" facets will return bigger, slow flashes, more smaller facets will return smaller, faster sparkles as you move the stone. Again, just depends on your personal preferences. Not much difference between these two in this department anyway.




-----

Having both of them shipped out to look at in-person is the BEST way to choose, just go with whichever one you like better when you see them. There's no wrong choice!

 

[hipbone]

Ah, I think we may be having some disconnects in communication.

Both stones have medium girdle by the report?
Okay on girdle.

GIA reports (numbers sound like GIA?) are both from Sept 2012?
Okay, no concerns re. reports not indicating current condition of stone.

Those specific inclusions *can* be pronged, at least enough to divert the eyes to the prong and away from the inclusion under it. If someone tells you differently you need a new bench. It is not ideal if you choose a 4prong design but it is far from difficult or problematic... of course if you choose a bezel it's a different question.
This is coming from someone who has similar inclusions that are considerably more difficult to prong.

Anything *on the GIA report* re. inclusions in the SI2?


Light return - all well-cut (both of these are well-cut) diamonds will return light, that's the big issue addressed right there.

There are small differences in what type of light they return - whether it's white or coloured, whether the flashes are mostly big and bold and slow or smaller and quicker and twinkly or a mix... one type of stone isn't better than another, but if you know that you personally happen to have a strong preference it *may* be something to consider. The differences will depend on the proportions and the type of lighting environment - in diffuse office lights all RBs are white, in the elevator spotlights all RBs will show coloured flashes, in "in-between" types of lights some stones will err one way and other stones will err more the other. A stone with higher crown and smaller table means that the crown facets are larger and angled further away from each other, allowing light outputs to travel in different directions and increasing your odds of catching a single ray, or a single wavelength of a single ray (a single colour).
When you look into the stone you see a ton of facets, those are "virtual" facets - they aren't actually cut into the stone, they're reflections of other facets. Bigger but fewer "virtual" facets will return bigger, slow flashes, more smaller facets will return smaller, faster sparkles as you move the stone. Again, just depends on your personal preferences. Not much difference between these two in this department anyway.




-----

Having both of them shipped out to look at in-person is the BEST way to choose, just go with whichever one you like better when you see them. There's no wrong choice!

Thank you for all of your help. I understand very little "diamond" jargon, but understood all light talk.

Here are the two diamond IDs:
Item # 1518525
Round 0.85 carat G color SI2 clarity diamond
inclusions: feather, twinning wisps
Item # 1519696
Round 0.81 carat H color VS2 clarity diamond
inclusions: cloud

I have feeling you would be able to find out more from the GIA reports if it wasn't for my lack of getting you the information you are asking for.

 

[hipbone]

I purchased both.

Thanks for the help and education. I will make sure to let everyone know which one I choose.

 

[yssie]

Alrighty reports on both look fine, no flags. That's what I wanted to check.

Do update us on what you think when you get them!
The Octonus site has lots of neat stuff if you want to read more - papers, articles, stuff like that http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/

 

[hipbone]

Hey Everyone,

So I received both of the diamonds a few weeks back and went with the .85 G SI2. The difference between the the SI2 and VS2 was indistinguishable to my eye ... and, well about 50 other random people I asked. It was an easy decision seeing as it was the larger of the two diamonds and a little cheaper too.

I know have the diamond on hand in setting and am starting to think I would have liked to go bigger. I know the GF keeps saying something .25ct -.5ct, but even at .85ct I feel like it is a little small. I don't know if I am just stirring the pot inside my head because I originally wanted to go with something over 1ct it really is too small. It has nothing to do with the look of the diamond, it looks bright and white, with tons of sparkle; it's everything I could have asked for in that respect.

I was also thinking about maybe changing the setting to have some diamonds down the side or go with something with vintage style metal work to bring a little more to it. I know the girl has always said she loves solitaires, but I do catch her admiring some pave set bands or something with a little bit of intricacy to the band. Does anyone have any recommendations? Keeping the band to under $1000 with setting it.

I think I will keep it for now and if the GF wants to after the proposal in mid-December we can just use the upgrade policy and go bigger or/and change the bad.

 

[distracts]

If she loves solitaires but also admires pave bands, rather than changing the setting maybe what you should do is pick a pave wedding band. Since I think you said your ring came in as less than you were able to spend since she wanted a smaller stone, you could get her a pave wedding ring and a plain one so she can pick depending on how she feels that day, or whatever. I know some people are very emotionally attached to the band used in the wedding ceremony, so it might be advantageous to have both a sparkly one and a plain one used on the wedding day!

Also, we need pictures!

 

[lin_ny]

Congrats on getting the ring!

Sounds like she told you she wants a .25-.5 ct solitaire. You got her a .85 ct solitaire. It's exactly what she wants with a diamond 2-3 times the carat weight. Seems like you did great!

 

[hipbone]

If she loves solitaires but also admires pave bands, rather than changing the setting maybe what you should do is pick a pave wedding band. Since I think you said your ring came in as less than you were able to spend since she wanted a smaller stone, you could get her a pave wedding ring and a plain one so she can pick depending on how she feels that day, or whatever. I know some people are very emotionally attached to the band used in the wedding ceremony, so it might be advantageous to have both a sparkly one and a plain one used on the wedding day!

Also, we need pictures!

That sounds like a fair compromise. I like it!

I will try to put some pictures up soon, but all I have to use is my iPhone so the quality will be on the low end.


Thanks for the input everyone.

 

[hipbone]

Here are a couple pictures. One from JA and one I took myself. Trying to capture the full H&A is a lot harder than I anticipated.

JA Image


My attempt at a H&A shot