Immediae help on idealscope and diamond!

[dmus]

Is this a good diamond. I''m really concerned by idealascope. It looks painted. Need honest expert opinions on this one quickly.Thanks.

GIA cert .6 HCA score eyeclean $3500
.96ct
6.42mm x 6.45mm
polish VG, cut VG, symmetry EXC
I
SI1
table 54
depth 60.3
pav 40.6
crown 33.5
medium fluorescence

 

[dmus]

Just bumped myself to see if strmrdr, Gary, Stone Seeker, Kal;eigh, Ellen, John or one you of other marvelous sharp folks might give me your opinion. Thanks.

 

[strmrdr]

The base angles using the numbers provided is around AGS2.
The painting would likely be a downgrade.
The GIA VG grade is appropriate.

 

[strmrdr]

I just did a search and that is a lot of diamond for the money so Id have to weigh that against the cut.
Something better is going to be a lot more.
Tough one.

 

[JulieN]

I''ve a weird question/suggestion, but I don''t know how plausible it is. Can the girdle be redone? Would it solve the issues?

 

[Stephan]

A shallow/shallow diamond with painting can sometimes look dark and lack of scintillation, but it could be nice, especially with such a price.
Try to find out if this SI1 will be eye clean FOR YOU, as the definition of eye clean is very subjective.
My guess is that this diamond is not eye clean, that would be an explanation for the price.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This would not be suitable (for the reasons others gave you) for a ring but can work very well in an erring or pendant

 

[dmus]

I really appreciate your input. Needless to say I am trying to get a diamond that shows like a one carat but on a limited budget. It is supposedly eyeclean, but I am concerned for the reasons you all pointed out.

A question: How can this score a .6 on the HCA and be so unsuitable for purchase??? I know HCA was intended to be a first level weeder, but based on this finding I find it hard to be of any value given what I''ve found and your observations. By the way, I really appreciate being able to get expert assistance from folks such as youself. Forever indebted. Thanks.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/28/2008 8:05:52 PM
Author: dmus
I really appreciate your input. Needless to say I am trying to get a diamond that shows like a one carat but on a limited budget. It is supposedly eyeclean, but I am concerned for the reasons you all pointed out.

A question: How can this score a .6 on the HCA and be so unsuitable for purchase??? I know HCA was intended to be a first level weeder, but based on this finding I find it hard to be of any value given what I''ve found and your observations. By the way, I really appreciate being able to get expert assistance from folks such as youself. Forever indebted. Thanks.

Painting shallow stones is a no no

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 8/28/2008 8:05:52 PM
Author: dmus
I really appreciate your input. Needless to say I am trying to get a diamond that shows like a one carat but on a limited budget. It is supposedly eyeclean, but I am concerned for the reasons you all pointed out.

A question: How can this score a .6 on the HCA and be so unsuitable for purchase??? I know HCA was intended to be a first level weeder, but based on this finding I find it hard to be of any value given what I''ve found and your observations. By the way, I really appreciate being able to get expert assistance from folks such as youself. Forever indebted. Thanks.

An inclusion is clearly visible at 0800 hours in the IS shot, but it seems transparent.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/29/2008 6:31:47 AM
Author: oldmancoyote

Date: 8/28/2008 8:05:52 PM
Author: dmus
I really appreciate your input. Needless to say I am trying to get a diamond that shows like a one carat but on a limited budget. It is supposedly eyeclean, but I am concerned for the reasons you all pointed out.

A question: How can this score a .6 on the HCA and be so unsuitable for purchase??? I know HCA was intended to be a first level weeder, but based on this finding I find it hard to be of any value given what I''ve found and your observations. By the way, I really appreciate being able to get expert assistance from folks such as youself. Forever indebted. Thanks.

An inclusion is clearly visible at 0800 hours in the IS shot, but it seems transparent.

One should never go by pics to even guess whether a stone is eyeclean or not. They have to be seen in person.

dmus, I appreciate/understand what you''re trying to do, but you will most likely have to trade too much to get there. If I were you, I wouldn''t worry about the size so much, just concentrate on the cut. There is nothing wrong with a very well cut stone in the .75-.85 range.

 

[stone_seeker]

what Ellen said....

You need to see it or work with someone who is well trusted to determine eyeclean. "supposedly" isnt good enough.

 

[dmus]

They had their person in NY check it and said it was definitely eyeclean. Thanks Ellen for your comment. I understand. I''m trying to accomplish the impossible here. My daughter is about size and my future son in law is about a limited budget. My dilemma is you folks have taught me too well and I can''t sacrifice on cut or everything else I know to be important. I''m trying to stretch those limits in this case and till have peace of mind. I still think this might be a very good performing stone, if only the idealscope had not come back indicating it was painted.

Thanks for your counsel.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/29/2008 10:22:38 AM
Author: dmus
They had their person in NY check it and said it was definitely eyeclean. Thanks Ellen for your comment. I understand. I''m trying to accomplish the impossible here. My daughter is about size and my future son in law is about a limited budget. My dilemma is you folks have taught me too well and I can''t sacrifice on cut or everything else I know to be important. I''m trying to stretch those limits in this case and till have peace of mind. I still think this might be a very good performing stone, if only the idealscope had not come back indicating it was painted.

Thanks for your counsel.

Just to clarify, I assumed that. My clarity comment was really for omc. Sorry if I wasn''t clear all.


dmus, would you/she/he consider going to a well cut J? and as low in clarity as you can? If I knew the budget, I''d love to help you find something.

 

[dmus]

Ellen, I get a bit nervous at J but if we can get just under a one carat well cut that you think will show white and in his budget we''d be interested. For now I think we are going to try one of the diamonds we''ve already checked out at JA. Maybe even this one. If it doesn''t workout we''ll return it and I''ll most definitely take you up on your offer. I don''t want to delay his popping the question any longer. It''s about time one of our kids tied the knot! I just wish I had more time to look. Thanks.

 

[Ellen]

I understand. Good luck, and let us know how it goes!

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 8/29/2008 9:04:08 AM
Author: Ellen
One should never go by pics to even guess whether a stone is eyeclean or not. They have to be seen in person.

dmus, I appreciate/understand what you're trying to do, but you will most likely have to trade too much to get there. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about the size so much, just concentrate on the cut. There is nothing wrong with a very well cut stone in the .75-.85 range.

I know, but knowing where to look kind of helps, doesn't it?

I should have said "it seems transparent, but the only way to know for sure is to look at it".

To be honest, I am of the firmly held opinion that you shouldn't guess too much about a stone's other aspects either, without seeing it. There's too much personal preference in what is judged to be "beautiful".