Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

I think I got a killer deal...let me know what you guys think!

Can you get an idealscope or an aset image?
 
When I plugged in I SI1 excellent cut 1.3ct, it seems there are some similar priced stones, but this is definitely towards the lower end of the pricing. My main issue with the stone is that it does not appear to be eye clean. I know it is SI1 grade, but even on the picture on the site you can see the inclusion at the 3 o clock position (corresponds to the inclusion at the 9 o clock position on the GIA certificate).

Were you specifically looking for 1.3ct? If not, I might consider looking for something a little smaller but improved clarity if you are trying to stay in this price range.

That being said, I have never seen it in person so it may be a beautiful stone. I shop mostly high color/clarity stones, so my mentality may be different than what you are looking for.
 
Last edited:
I think that's a great deal for a 1.3 carat at that price. Honestly, I think it's eye clean even with that inclusion especially since it is white colored and the cut is excellent and matching all the ideal proportions. I got an SI2 excellent cut diamond with a similar inclusion, but even longer. I tried looking for it in person and can only see it after looking through a 10x loupe for a while. Even through the loupe, it was hard to find because it blends in with the sparkles if that makes sense.
 
Ask if the fluorescence has any negative impact on the diamond at all.
 
aaapowercat said:
I think that's a great deal for a 1.3 carat at that price. Honestly, I think it's eye clean even with that inclusion especially since it is white colored and the cut is excellent and matching all the ideal proportions. I got an SI2 excellent cut diamond with a similar inclusion, but even longer. I tried looking for it in person and can only see it after looking through a 10x loupe for a while. Even through the loupe, it was hard to find because it blends in with the sparkles if that makes sense.
Click to expand...
If one is just going by size, then yes it is an inexpensive 1.3ct. This diamond has 2 of the 4 C's, cut and carat. Color and clarity are where it earns its price. May also take a little hit because of the fluorescence, in the I color range some say fluorescence helps color other still view as a negative.

All one can do is ask if it is eye clean, and then take the risk. The stone is 1.3ct, so that is a pretty large inclusion in a pretty obvious place imo. However, if in normal lighting one doesnt really see it, it may not bother. I know it would bother me if the picture is at all accurate. That being said, this is true of all inclusions, different people have different tolerance to inclusions. I would consider this inclusion to be pretty conspicuous as far as inclusions go. Its definitely not the worst inclusion by any means, but it is one of the types I would avoid when I am shopping for diamonds since it is right there glaring at you in the face up view. I think it may be a bit too far from the border, but maybe putting it next to a prong will mask it a bit.
 
Last edited:
I mean if the inclusion was on the table then it would be noticeable, but it's on the facets so the sparkle would mask it. Yeah, the price goes up with color and clarity, but I think it's a waste to spend more on color when the difference won't be noticeable. For white gold, it's okay to go down to I, and for yellow gold it can go down to K without the vast majority of people noticing. My friend has a 1.39 I diamond in a platinum setting and no one notices the yellow. I'm judging the diamond based on bang for the buck, prioritizing cut and carat. The public is going to notice the fire and brilliance, and the size. They won't notice the yellow or that white spot unless they're like jewelry professionals. I don't think the medium fluorescence is a problem especially since the diamond is I color. Diamonds are usually milky from strong or very strong and in D E F color. You can usually tell from the picture too.
 
kanise said:
* * * My main issue with the stone is that it does not appear to be eye clean. I know it is SI1 grade, but even on the picture on the site you can see the inclusion at the 3 o clock position (corresponds to the inclusion at the 9 o clock position on the GIA certificate). * * * r.
Click to expand...
kanise said:
* * * The stone is 1.3ct, so that is a pretty large inclusion in a pretty obvious place imo. However, if in normal lighting one doesnt really see it, it may not bother. I know it would bother me if the picture is at all accurate. That being said, this is true of all inclusions, different people have different tolerance to inclusions. I would consider this inclusion to be pretty conspicuous as far as inclusions go. Its definitely not the worst inclusion by any means, but it is one of the types I would avoid when I am shopping for diamonds since it is right there glaring at you in the face up view. I think it may be a bit too far from the border, but maybe putting it next to a prong will mask it a bit.
Click to expand...
Well, the site photo is far from accurate: it so greatly magnifies the stone. I shrunk the photo so it depicts the stone at its 7 mm diameter; even with adjusting the truly life-sized photo in various ways, the inclusion never leapt out screaming at me.
 
if you want it be careful it is not sold to someone reading this thread.
1. it will pass ideal-scope
2. it will be eye clean
3. you can not tell if the fluoro is making it hazy from the photo. You should ask for an opinion. It is very unlikely in a medium stone - but can happen.
 
Ok here is Aset and Idealimage...What do you guys think now? I'm not sure how to look at these. Can someone explain to me what I should be looking for? Thanks!
9200461 - Aset.JPG 9200461 - Idealscope image.JPG
 
Also vendor assures it is eyeclean
 
Take @Garry H (Cut Nut) 's advice and put the stone on hold if you're truly serious about it, and THEN keep asking questions. If it does turn out to be an amazing find, there will be plenty of others (both on and off this board) interested in it.
 
Oh yea, the stone is on hold right now, good advice though, thanks.
 
aaapowercat said:
Diamonds are usually milky from strong or very strong and in D E F color.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in hearing our trade member's thoughts on this from their personal experience because I have read conflicting information on the above statement; I'm wondering if it's just one of those folklores or old adages that have outlasted their proven life.

How often have you found fluorescence to have a negative impact if they are a high color @Garry H (Cut Nut)? @Rhino? @Wink? @Rockdiamond? @denverappraiser? @Karl_K?
 
wow, after talking with them again, they said it was sold already this morning and they didn't know. Someone must have saw it and bought it. Lesson learned. Ill have to look for another now. oh well, thanks everyone.
 
ILikeShiny said:
I'd be interested in hearing our trade member's thoughts on this from their personal experience because I have read conflicting information on the above statement; I'm wondering if it's just one of those folklores or old adages that have outlasted their proven life.

How often have you found fluorescence to have a negative impact if they are a high color @Garry H (Cut Nut)? @Rhino? @Wink? @Rockdiamond? @denverappraiser? @Karl_K?
Click to expand...
There is no correlation between color and fluoro milky hazy. Nonsense. Perhaps 25% of strong are milky in shaded strong daylight. Perhaps up to 50% of Very strong.
 
Interesting - almost everyone (even the vendors) told me if the color is H or below, it is not likely to be milky or hazy even with fluor. If it is H color or above, then we will have to worry about it.
 
What they mean is the milky bluish will make the stone look whiter if it is over blue.
And investors who buy high color high clarity avoid diamonds they can not sell from the paper or cert with no inspection
 
aaapowercat said:
I mean if the inclusion was on the table then it would be noticeable, but it's on the facets so the sparkle would mask it. Yeah, the price goes up with color and clarity, but I think it's a waste to spend more on color when the difference won't be noticeable. For white gold, it's okay to go down to I, and for yellow gold it can go down to K without the vast majority of people noticing. My friend has a 1.39 I diamond in a platinum setting and no one notices the yellow. I'm judging the diamond based on bang for the buck, prioritizing cut and carat. The public is going to notice the fire and brilliance, and the size. They won't notice the yellow or that white spot unless they're like jewelry professionals. I don't think the medium fluorescence is a problem especially since the diamond is I color. Diamonds are usually milky from strong or very strong and in D E F color. You can usually tell from the picture too.
Click to expand...
MollyMalone said:
Well, the site photo is far from accurate: it so greatly magnifies the stone. I shrunk the photo so it depicts the stone at its 7 mm diameter; even with adjusting the truly life-sized photo in various ways, the inclusion never leapt out screaming at me.
Click to expand...

Being magnified does not make the photo inaccurate. Diamonds are evaluated on magnified levels for grading purposes, and it is standard practice online to allowed potential buyers to inspect the diamond at magnified levels. Some people may notice an inclusion, some may not, based on their vision and what settings they look at their stone. But SI grading is standard terminology to indicate the degree of inclusion, and there is a glaring inclusion on the face up view that matches the GIA report. Whether one sees it in person, is debatable. None of us have the stone right now to personally inspect.

I agree, carat and cut are generally most important. However, when somebody comes here asking about opinion on a stone for a certain price, you have to factor in other variables that are used to determine price and aesthetics. I was simply stating that this stone is inexpensive because it is I color and SI1 with a visible inclusion on the face up view of the stone.

I am not saying it is a bad stone, but that is why it has earned its price.

If your emphasis is just carat and cut, then you can save a lot cutting down on color and clarity. Once you have a sparkly stone, that is when things like color and clarity come into play when differentiating stones and price. If you do not care about those, or you do not notice things like D/E/F versus I or do not notice inclusions on the face of your stone, consider yourself lucky! You can save a lot!

If you are just emphasizing what the "public" sees, then yes you can definitely save a lot of money and get a stone that looks good from afar and to those outside of the diamond community. Most people come to Pricescope looking for a stone better than what one might see in the general "public". Most ring wearers end up scrutinizing their own stone more than the "public", so may notice more than the minimal to pass it off as a good stone to the public in sparkly light.

You can even get a fake diamond that looks much better than a real diamond if you are just looking for bang for the buck.

It is hard to say what will or will not be noticeable to the wearer. Some people are very picky about color. Some people are very picky about inclusions. Some people are very picky about size. I think it is hard to generalize.

My personal opinion would be to drop the stone in size a tiny bit and get rid of the inclusion that is easily visible on the face up view, maybe even bump the color a little. If that inclusion does not bother you, then this is towards the lower end of the pricing for a 1.3 ct SI1 I color stone.

I would notice a better color/clarity 1.2 more than a lower color/clarity 1.3 of equal cuts.

We can back and forth as much as we want about the compromises or about how things look in most settings etc. I am not here to argue about which color and clarity somebody should buy. I was simply stating that this diamond is priced this way because of its color and clarity. If it is the color and clarity you want, then by all means go for it!
 
Last edited:
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
There is no correlation between color and fluoro milky hazy. Nonsense. Perhaps 25% of strong are milky in shaded strong daylight. Perhaps up to 50% of Very strong.
Click to expand...
The concern with the haze primarily comes with appearance in sunlight, I have personally seen this and think there are some videos online even on youtube showing what this is talking about. There are other variables, so the debate is some people claim it is not the fluorescence but something else causing the haze as even non-fluorescence stones can appear milky. And as you pointed out, it is not 100% of stones people notice this with.

That being said, although visually fluorescence may not make a huge impact in most stones in most settings, in the current market fluorescence is generally viewed as a flaw or "risk", and thus you often see these stones at a discount.

Allow me to restate, when somebody is trying to sell you a fluorescent stone it is not a big deal. When they are trying to sell you a non-fluorescent stone then it is a plus it is non-fluorescent.

The MAIN visual reason I would advise somebody not get a fluorescent stone (higher fluorescent grades) is that it is possible that it will appear bluish in sunlight so check it out in person first and make sure you do not mind if it does. Some people like the bluish glow and use it as an excuse to buy cheaper strong fluorescent stones.

I personally do not think medium fluorescence on a I color stone is a big risk. But just be aware of the controversy about fluorescence in the diamond market.
 
Last edited:
kanise said:
The concern with the haze primarily comes with appearance in sunlight, I have personally seen this and think there are some videos online even on youtube showing what this is talking about. There are other variables, so the debate is some people claim it is not the fluorescence but something else causing the haze as even non-fluorescence stones can appear milky. And as you pointed out, it is not 100% of stones people notice this with.

That being said, although visually fluorescence may not make a huge impact in most stones in most settings, in the current market fluorescence is generally viewed as a flaw or "risk", and thus you often see these stones at a discount.

Allow me to restate, when somebody is trying to sell you a fluorescent stone it is not a big deal. When they are trying to sell you a non-fluorescent stone then it is a plus it is non-fluorescent.

The MAIN visual reason I would advise somebody not get a fluorescent stone (higher fluorescent grades) is that it is possible that it will appear bluish in sunlight so check it out in person first and make sure you do not mind if it does. Some people like the bluish glow and use it as an excuse to buy cheaper strong fluorescent stones.

I personally do not think medium fluorescence on a I color stone is a big risk. But just be aware of the controversy about fluorescence in the diamond market.
Click to expand...
Agreed about resale. But no diamond that is well cut looks good in direct sunlight. The better the cut the worse it will look. Non fluoro stones look black / dark.
 
Overblues, which are the hazy stones in sunlight that people are so worried about, are WAY less than 50% of the Very Strongs. Not even 1%.
 
You will not get any agreement on haziness among the experts. The truth is no one has solid numbers.
There is not universal agreement on what constitutes haziness either. The best advise is talk to a vendor who has the diamond in hand on stong/v-strong stones and make sure you have a return policy on any diamond you buy.
 
@Karl_K and @denverappraiser - Thanks for sharing your experience/opinion :). It falls in line with what I've been reading, which is essentially that fluorescence isn't nearly as big of a concern as people tend to state it is.

Now, any guesses on it the market will eventually recognize this fact (ie: no longer discount a stone due to fluorescence)?
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
But no diamond that is well cut looks good in direct sunlight. The better the cut the worse it will look. Non fluoro stones look black / dark.
Click to expand...
Interesting!! I never knew that! I thought they'd shine brightest of all in direct sun.
 
Quite a bit of scholarly thought has gone into this. Here’s a fairly meaty article from GIA on the topic for example.

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/winter-1997-fluorescence-diamonds-moses

Predicting the future is a task for a psychic, not an appraiser. Personally, I think fluorescence is kind of cool. The fact that it’s cheaper is a bonus, not a problem.
 
blingblingdiamond said:
Interesting - almost everyone (even the vendors) told me if the color is H or below, it is not likely to be milky or hazy even with fluor. If it is H color or above, then we will have to worry about it.
Click to expand...

I think fluorescence should be evaluated case by case & isn't something you should run from.
My stone is GIA graded very strong blue. Yet to me it displays no haziness/milkiness/oiliness (which I asked specifically about before purchasing). Also - B2C had a good return policy if we decided we did not like it. It does take on a "bluish" look outside at times but I think it's super cool. My appraiser thought it was a great deal after evaluating the stone - no neg effects from the fluor. I have received many compliments on it from friends and strangers - most recently this past weekend from a few guys at a tire shop:) The fact that this probably significantly lowered the purchase price was a bonus!
 
denverappraiser said:
Quite a bit of scholarly thought has gone into this. Here’s a fairly meaty article from GIA on the topic for example.

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/winter-1997-fluorescence-diamonds-moses

Predicting the future is a task for a psychic, not an appraiser. Personally, I think fluorescence is kind of cool. The fact that it’s cheaper is a bonus, not a problem.
Click to expand...
The crazy thing about that 1997 article is that they said they could not find enough hazy stones to consider in their research or study.
I think it is potentially a matter of criminal liability that GIA do not inform buyers that a diamond has reduced brilliance ( caused by Fluoro or clouds or other types of inclusions).

It is also a matter of historical stupidity that GIA and labs use 365nm UV light source to grade fluorescence. From their own 2013 paper it is clear there is more effect from visible violet light (that passes through windows and is all around us from various light sources) than from invisible UV.
The visible light boundary is around 400nm and at 415nm there is a huge violet absorption that makes a huge violet emission. then all the other red bumps make blue to the border of green emissions - the ones that make fluoro diamonds look whiter.
Capture.PNG

Here the more recent article with this interesting chart. note that the red is what causes grade whitening by adding the blue light.
https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2013-luo-fluorescence-optical-defects
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top