help with loose diamond and comparison

[nard]

Dear PS!

first post, been silently observing for a couple months and trying to learn from the expertise here.

looking to buy a proposal diamond, dont mind online for the cost savings with quality. looking for an ideal cut and >1 carat, dont think i mind H and SI1. trying to keep it under 8-9000 usd

I came to these two, kindly help to comment and compare!

1.018 H SI1 Ideal, Table 57.6 Depth 61.7 Crown Angle 34.8 ~7.4k USD



1.027 H SI1 Ideal, Table 56.3 Depth 61.8 Crown Angle 34.8 ~7.5k USD


after learning abit from everywhere, i can tell aset/ideal scopes apart, but fine comparisons like these i'm not too sure about

also, i'd like to ask how fast online diamond purchases and turnover happens? i've been waiting for online inventories to be updated but the same diamonds seem to be the one in the catalog over 1 month, nothing is added and nothing is taken off. does this mean that the good ones are snatched up and the ones left for a month are those that aren't viewed upon too highly?

thanks for advice!

 

[nard]

Anyone?

 

[16ocean]

I think you have picked two very nice options. Your GF is a lucky lady.

If possible call whiteflash to double check if they are eye clean and perhaps they can make you a video with the diamonds side by side to help you choose the one.

As for your second question . . . sry I don't have the answer. Good question. Keep posting. Perhaps some one will be along to answer. Weekends are usually quieter on the forum so don't give up.

 

[pfunk]

I doubt you'd see any difference between the two. If it were me I would get the cheaper one as the tiny size difference will not be noticeable and the IS/ASET look so similar. Are these "A Cut Above" diamonds? If so, are you only looking at superideal stones or are you looking at virtual inventories as well?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

These are both gorgeous stones. I would choose the one that is the cleanest. Have them pull them and compare clarity. You want the one with the most invisible inclusions.

 

[nard]

Thanks so much for your replies!

Yep those are ACA diamonds. Its not a must for my diamonds to be branded ACA, and I don't mind virtual inventories, but the biggest problem i face when looking through virtual inventories is the lack of information (aset/is). I know some PSers turn to virtual invs on purpose since they're cheaper, but I dont think i'm informed/trained/assured enough to settle on something without as much info as possible.

Of note, I've been speaking to a local dealer plus also looking at Blue Nile, both of whom have promising stones that are much cheaper than these WF, but without aset/is. Any advice as to how to narrow the leap of faith?

Will write in the WF to help compare the clarity!

As to the second question, I appreciate any comments on the matter: if the same two diamond sits on the inv of a mega online diamond dealer for a month without being added to or bought off, is it just the common rate of turnover, or does it reveal that these particular stones may not be the best value, and the best ones have already been snatched off?

 

[pfunk]

Thanks so much for your replies!

Yep those are ACA diamonds. Its not a must for my diamonds to be branded ACA, and I don't mind virtual inventories, but the biggest problem i face when looking through virtual inventories is the lack of information (aset/is). I know some PSers turn to virtual invs on purpose since they're cheaper, but I dont think i'm informed/trained/assured enough to settle on something without as much info as possible.

Of note, I've been speaking to a local dealer plus also looking at Blue Nile, both of whom have promising stones that are much cheaper than these WF, but without aset/is. Any advice as to how to narrow the leap of faith?

Will write in the WF to help compare the clarity!

As to the second question, I appreciate any comments on the matter: if the same two diamond sits on the inv of a mega online diamond dealer for a month without being added to or bought off, is it just the common rate of turnover, or does it reveal that these particular stones may not be the best value, and the best ones have already been snatched off?

Well both stones you have selected are going to be beautiful diamonds as they are cut to strict proportions in order to produce consistent, repeatable performance and perfect ASET/IS/H&A images. They are some of the top cut diamonds you can buy, and as such they command a premium. Many are happy to pay the premium to take the guess work out and know you will end up with a stunner.

Others take the approach that slight compromises can be made on cut (like any of the other c's) in order to maximize something else that may be important to them, whether it be size, color, clarity, or cost. They may choose to stick to an ideal cut stone vs a superideal because the visual differences may be more subtle than the size/color/clarity difference they could buy with the money saved.

There are online vendors who do not specialize in superideal stones that can still get you additional information aside from the GIA report, but you often have to ask for it and they may not have it on every stone or have it immediately. Bluenile, however, does not. You can always purchase your own idealscope or ASET viewer to use at your local jewelers or for any stones you have shipped to you from online.

This is an example of an ideal cut stone that has hearts and arrows images available.
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R120-HHP2CX

While it would not qualify as a superideal, it has the benefit of additional size and higher clarity at reduced cost. The images suggest a diamond cut with a high degree of symmetry but could never qualify as H&A because of the clefts in the hearts that result from lower girdle facets longer than 78%. Still, it has very good optical symmetry that, when combined with ideal proportions, will lead to a very pretty diamond.

As to your last question, just because a diamond isn't sold shortly after it becomes available does not make it a bad diamond. There are times of year when diamonds are purchased like mad and inventory shuffles rapidly. Good stones may sit on the market for awhile just like bad stones may. I would be more weary of any stone of common size and color that has a report from more than a year or two.

Hope this info is helpful in making it clear to you which route you might want to go with your purchase. Everyone is different and places different emphasis on what is important to them. If you stick around here, people will help make sure you don't end up with a stone that is unlikely to be beautiful. The ones you listed will certainly be beauties.

 

[nard]

Thank you all for your help!

It's time now for my last decision before making the commitment (for the diamond of course heh). I guess the ultimate question is: Do you guys think, all in all, the above diamonds are worth the price tag it comes with? Will I do better if I look elsewhere? Any advice if I look at other bigger inventories with likely less readily available information as a trade off for a cheaper price? Any specific stone recommendations out there that may rival the ones listed above?

Thanks again PS!

 

[pfunk]

Thank you all for your help!

It's time now for my last decision before making the commitment (for the diamond of course heh). I guess the ultimate question is: Do you guys think, all in all, the above diamonds are worth the price tag it comes with? Will I do better if I look elsewhere? Any advice if I look at other bigger inventories with likely less readily available information as a trade off for a cheaper price? Any specific stone recommendations out there that may rival the ones listed above?

Thanks again PS!

What the diamonds are worth is a personal decision for you and only you based on your needs. If you are someone who places a lot of value on having as much information as possible going into the purchase, then the two you posted are good choices. They have all the images you need to show they have great performance. If you think she will like to upgrade often, whiteflash has a nice upgrade policy ad well.

In my personal opinion, I choose to go the unbranded route because I feel like I get better value. Making a small sacrifice on cut means you can get a bigger diamond or better color or clarity. Note,however, that I don't worry about upgrade policies much because I don't see her wanting to part with her engagement stone. Remember that you can still find diamonds that have images if you get an unbranded stone. Sometimes you just have to ask for them and be patient.

Can you find stones that rival the ones above? You won't likely find any stones with all that information to prove they are as well cut without staying in the area of branded diamonds. It takes time to cut it to absolute perfection and those stones don't just end up floating in virtual inventories. Now, will your eyes tell the difference in cut from a branded diamond to one like I posted above? Maybe, but you might have to be told what to look for, and differences will be subtle. Will you see a difference between a 1 carat and a 1.2 size wise? Very likely.

It all comes down to what you want. If you want the peace of mind of knowing you didn't sacrifice at all on cut, buy a branded stone like you listed. If you are ok with sacrificing a bit on cut, but still have the info to see the diamond is cut very well just not the best, then you can make less sacrifices elsewhere, including cost. But that is all up to you.

 

[pfunk]

Examples of what I was talking about:

1. Higher clarity, similiar size, $800 saved, all images included.
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R105-55UH69

2. Higher clarity, larger size, $400 saved.
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R120-HHP2CX

3. Higher clarity, slightly larger size, $900 saved.
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R109-1JQS5U

As always, I would ask the vendor any additional information they might have on the stones. Just posting these as examples of stones that do have additional info but are not branded. They offer some savings and, in this vendors case, come with a 30 day return policy if for some reason you aren't happy.

 

[nard]

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R105-55UH69 6.3k USD vs http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3236265.htm 7.2k USD

pfunk! thanks for your reply! you've helped me a great deal

the 1.05 h vs2 that you sieved out looks pretty good to me! I'd like to seek your expertise on a few things regarding that stone though:

1. Table 54 with depth of 62 seemed non-ideal to me at first from what I usually see, but in the HCA calculation it comes out as 0.8. Is this really a good proportion to have, and does it mean it will face up smaller than the carat would imply?
2. The ASET image actually looks pretty darn good to me, and though the res/colours are different from the ACA, the amount of green (and hence light leakage) seems comparably little. Am I missing something?
3. The arrows in the tip facing the table seems to be the major flaw. I've read optical symmetry doesnt represent light performance, and assuming the ASET in point 2 is truly good, does it mean the performance won't be affected by the non-ideal HA?

Thanks! sorry for the list of questions, only asking them cos this gem seems like a good contender that you suggested.

 

[pfunk]

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R105-55UH69 6.3k USD vs http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3236265.htm 7.2k USD

pfunk! thanks for your reply! you've helped me a great deal

the 1.05 h vs2 that you sieved out looks pretty good to me! I'd like to seek your expertise on a few things regarding that stone though:

1. Table 54 with depth of 62 seemed non-ideal to me at first from what I usually see, but in the HCA calculation it comes out as 0.8. Is this really a good proportion to have, and does it mean it will face up smaller than the carat would imply?
2. The ASET image actually looks pretty darn good to me, and though the res/colours are different from the ACA, the amount of green (and hence light leakage) seems comparably little. Am I missing something?
3. The arrows in the tip facing the table seems to be the major flaw. I've read optical symmetry doesnt represent light performance, and assuming the ASET in point 2 is truly good, does it mean the performance won't be affected by the non-ideal HA?

Thanks! sorry for the list of questions, only asking them cos this gem seems like a good contender that you suggested.

To clarify, I am by no means an expert and I would urge you to seek more information from vendors on any stone you are considering, as well as from a qualified independent appraiser after you receive your stone. My opinion is just that, an opinion, but that is what we are here to share so I am happy to do so. I am glad my input has been helpful, as I am simply trying to give you the full perspective on what your options are. On to your questions....

1. A table of 54 is not too small and many people here actually prefer smaller tables. Tolkowsky's original "ideal cut" had a table of 53% and the range commonly accepted as ideal is 53-57.5%. A depth of 62% is not too deep. You will see a lot of superideal stones cut in the 61.x% depth range, but 62% is fine. As you can see, it measures up a little over 6.5 mm in diameter, which is what I would expect, as a well cut 1 carat stone will usually be around 6.5mm.

2. It looks like they are using an ASET scope that uses black instead of blue to indicate obstruction as you pointed out. I would agree that both look to have very good light return as they are predominantly red in color. Personally, I would be happy with either of these ASET's in I were the one buying it.

3.You seem to have this correct as well. Light performance doesn't suffer as a result of less than perfect H&A as evidenced by the good looking ASET. The enchanted diamond doesn't have as perfect optical symmetry, but it is still very good. You can see at the bases of each heart that the 2 halves of the heart don't always come together at the same spot (i.e. one half of the heart is a little taller than the other half). But the sizes of the hearts all look about the same and the v's are all pretty similar as well. The clefts in the top of each heart are present because the LGF's of this diamond are longer than 77%. Probably around 79-80%. But again, most of the clefts are the same size showing that there is consistency in the cutting.

Hope this helps! Oh and I would also suggest putting any diamonds you are considering on hold if the vendors allow so that someone else doesn't snag them. You are in a very popular color and size range.

 

[nard]

Hi PSers!

I asked around further, and found that some people say pink-white on an ASET image represents light leakage, while others say as long as it's not completely white, not green, it falls under red.

Is there a difference between the shade of red on the spectrum of dark red to pink on the ASET image? I've noticed this also gets affected depending on how the ASET image was captured (computer generated or photographed)

The stone in reference is https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R105-55UH69

Thanks again!

 

[pfunk]

Hi PSers!

I asked around further, and found that some people say pink-white on an ASET image represents light leakage, while others say as long as it's not completely white, not green, it falls under red.

Is there a difference between the shade of red on the spectrum of dark red to pink on the ASET image? I've noticed this also gets affected depending on how the ASET image was captured (computer generated or photographed)

The stone in reference is https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R105-55UH69

Thanks again!

If comparing two stones whose IS images were taken in the same conditions, I think a less saturated/pink color can indicate partial leakage. If taken in different lighting, conclusions are hard to draw. If the backlighting is strong it can make the area under the table appear washed out and pink as opposed to red. That may be what you are seeing in that stone, though it doesnt look like it to me. If the photo is taken when outside light is accidentally allowed to enter the scope, that can lead to inaccurate images as well. It would be nice if there was a standard for how to take consistent IS images, but there is not.