I think I found it

[Roupey03]

After much reading and searching I think I found it.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1007266

Shape: Round
Carat weight: 0.63
Cut: Hearts & Arrows Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
Certificate: AGS

Depth: 61.6%
Table: 54.5%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Neglible
Measurements: 5.5*5.55*3.40

Crown Angle: 33.2°
Crown %: 14.90
Pavillion Angle: 40.9°
Pavillion %: 43.10

$1690

Setting
http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones.asp?module=setting&cid=58&item=874

Is there anything I should be aware of before purchasing this diamond? Thoughts?

 

[Maisie]

I can see quite a big inclusion right on the middle of that stone. Have you asked if its visible with the naked eye? I am not an expert by any means but I probably wouldn''t go for that if you could see it.

 

[Finding_Neverland]

Date: 1/24/2007 1:23:03 PM
Author: Maisiebelle
I can see quite a big inclusion right on the middle of that stone. Have you asked if its visible with the naked eye? I am not an expert by any means but I probably wouldn''t go for that if you could see it.

I''m like Maisie. I see the inclusion under the table even without the extra magnifier. If it were a white crystal, that would be different. But this one appears dark. May just be the photography. Hard to say for sure.

You might wanna call and see if this diamond is "eye clean" or not before you pay to bring it in to look at yourself.

 

[Maisie]

I just looked at it again and I didn't realise that even when you move the magnifier its still x12 magnified. You might not be able to see the inclusion with just your eyes but I would ask them to be sure.

Maisie

 

[:)]

It looks beautiful! It will most likely be eyeclean - the 'unmagnified' image is 12x, and the magnified one is 24x. In all probability it will be eyeclean - just call JA to check!

 

[kcoursolle]

You can call Jim Schultz and ask him whether it is eye-clean, he will give you an honest answer. The crown angle is a little more shallow than I prefer, but these are just my cut preferences, it should be a gorgeous stone regardless.

 

[Roupey03]

I was on james allen today and did the live help. They went ahead and checked the diamond. It is eye clean. I too was unsure about it being kind of on the shallow side. Do you have any other recomendations that would be better?

 

[JulieN]

it's only Very Slightly shallow (VS)

looks like a winner to me.

 

[Roupey03]

I was also considering this one at Blue Nile

http://www.bluenile.ca/diamonds_details.asp?__fun_frm=i&pid=LD00918693&filter_id=0

But what are Blue Niles Upgrade and Return Policies? I cant seem to find them.

 

[JulieN]

30 days, no upgrade.

 

[Roupey03]

The crack right on the center of the diamond and the slightly shallow table does kind of bother me. Do you think that the diamond from Blue Nile would be a better choice?

 

[JulieN]

It is not a "crack."

Doesn''t bother me too much. Has nice Ideal Scope. Falls into GIA EX for proportions. And it has good crown height.

The .66 looks good, too.

 

[Roupey03]

So if you were chosing between the two diamonds. Which would you choose?

 

[JulieN]

i'm bad at that sort of thing.

a waiter's nightmare.

H looks good. plotted inclusions are on the side. it's a VVS1 shallow crown, just a little bit for leeway is good since no Ideal Scope.

 

[Roupey03]

Could you please explain what you mean by VVS1 crown. Also is it possible to request the idealscope from BlueNile?

 

[JulieN]

So. Of course we can mathematically get some kind of "perfect" proportions, but there is a range of proportions...for each table. The H has a totally normal table, 55%. You can pull up the AGS 0 chart for 55% table. Then you go to 40.8 pavilion angle, and crown angle can be (it seems using HCA) from 34-35.2 in order to be an AGS 0 candidate. Using Ideal Scope, you will also notice there is a large range of crown angles that work." The H has a CA of 34.2, which is on the low end of the range. Shallower combinations are safer than deeper combinations because symmetry variations will cause some angles to be deeper than the average and some to be shallower. With an Ideal Scope, you would be able to check that out, but BN does not supply those.