Initial thoughts on this 2ct G SI1 diamond ?? any advice appreciated

[ukdiamondvirgin]

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1238316.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Carat weight: 2.00
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Certificate: GIA
Crown 34
Pav Angle 40.8
Depth: 61.0%
Table: 56.0%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 8.07*8.22*4.97

 

[stone-cold11]

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1238316.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Looks good so far. Have you request for an Idealscope image?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/13/2009 1:20:14 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1238316.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Looks good so far. Have you request for an Idealscope image?

Ditto, though you might want to check the diameter, it says on the report too 8.07 - 8.22 which suggests the diamond is out of round or that could be a typo, not the diameter variance I would typically expect from a diamond of this cut quality. I would get James Allen to check.

 

[stitch]

Is it normal to see the inclusion at 4 without the added virtual loupe?

 

[stone-cold11]

Possible, depends on how the inclusions is orientated, the lighting set up, and the focal length of the lens when the image is taken.

Have you also ask if the stone is eye-clean?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/13/2009 1:29:46 PM
Author: stitch
Is it normal to see the inclusion at 4 without the added virtual loupe?

Depends, don't go by the loupe image to discern whether a diamond is eyeclean or not, it is always best ask the vendor to inspect the diamond for you and let them know your expectations.

 

[ukdiamondvirgin]

Hi

Thanks for replies - yes I have been focussing on cut and this did seem a great cut (to someone who a few weeks ago knew nothing about diamonds before i came accross this site!!)

Measurements are 8.07*8.22*4.97 as I have double checked the certificate from GIA.

thoughts ?

Will request Idealscope image and ask if eye clean.

HCA
Total Visual Performance 0.9 - Excellent
within TIC range

THANKS WONDERFUL PEOPLE!!!!

 

[stone-cold11]

Good luck.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/13/2009 2:10:12 PM
Author: ukdiamondvirgin
Hi

Thanks for replies - yes I have been focussing on cut and this did seem a great cut (to someone who a few weeks ago knew nothing about diamonds before i came accross this site!!)

Measurements are 8.07*8.22*4.97 as I have double checked the certificate from GIA.

thoughts ?

Will request Idealscope image and ask if eye clean.

HCA
Total Visual Performance 0.9 - Excellent
within TIC range

THANKS WONDERFUL PEOPLE!!!!

Yes its on the GIA report too but like I say its not what I would expect....Something similar to 8.07 - 8.12mm would be more like it, the variance is much wider than normally seen for such a well cut diamond. I would just mention it to JA.

 

[FB.]

I know that I'm going to get a telling off for posting this but here goes:

I think that it'll be eye clean - but only just.
Most SI1 are clean and although GIA plots are not 100% accurate, they are usually very close to the true size and location of the inclusion, so you can make an educated guess.

Crystals will usually appear black from at least one angle and lighting condition and the close proximity of the two crystals might make them appear as one larger but less intensely coloured inclusion, if you get them in a light that makes them show black.

GIA inclusion plots are usually very accurate regarding the size and location of the inclusion.
Therefore, knowing that the stone is 8.1mm (ish), you can guess that the largest inclusion is about 0.25mm, which is about the smallest black object that a normal human can see at six inches against a white background and if they know exactly where to look.
By my real-world tests (with mostly round diamonds) that I've been conducting recently on myself, family and friends, a black crystal inclusion needs to be at least about 0.4mm x 0.4mm or 0.3mm x 0.5mm, before an average person might see it at 12 inches - and about 0.2 x 0.2mm is the smallest that any normal eyesight might see it at six inches.
Realistically, you need 0.3mm at six inches and 0.6mm at 12 inches before the inclusions become reasonable to detect.

But the out-of-round measurements on the GIA cert seem a bit worrying; 8.07-8.22mm is quite a lot in absolute terms, but is only 2% in relative terms, which is not unusual for smaller stones where the 2% difference would only amount to 0.08mm.

 

[yssie]

Date: 11/13/2009 3:18:21 PM
Author: FB.
I know that I'm going to get a telling off for posting this but here goes:

I think that it'll be eye clean - but only just.
Most SI1 are clean and although GIA plots are not 100% accurate, they are usually very close to the true size and location of the inclusion, so you can make an educated guess.

Crystals will usually appear black from at least one angle and lighting condition and the close proximity of the two crystals might make them appear as one larger but less intensely coloured inclusion, if you get them in a light that makes them show black.

GIA inclusion plots are usually very accurate regarding the size and location of the inclusion.
Therefore, knowing that the stone is 8.1mm (ish), you can guess that the largest inclusion is about 0.25mm, which is about the smallest black object that a normal human can see at six inches against a white background and if they know exactly where to look.
By my real-world tests (with mostly round diamonds) that I've been conducting recently on myself, family and friends, a black crystal inclusion needs to be at least about 0.4mm x 0.4mm or 0.3mm x 0.5mm, before an average person might see it at 12 inches - and about 0.2 x 0.2mm is the smallest that any normal eyesight might see it at six inches.
Realistically, you need 0.3mm at six inches and 0.6mm at 12 inches before the inclusions become reasonable to detect.

But the out-of-round measurements on the GIA cert seem a bit worrying; 8.07-8.22mm is quite a lot in absolute terms, but is only 2% in relative terms, which is not unusual for smaller stones where the 2% difference would only amount to 0.08mm.

Actually, I'm with you

Depends on your def. of eyeclean - and face up, I suppose.

My SI2 is completely, totally clean face up, even if I bring it close enough to poke my eye - and I have perfectly normal, average vision. My definition of face up includes tilting the diamond and looking through the crown facets. From the side, though, through the pavilion, I can see the wisps. I find it charming, my best friend would go crazy.

My old SI1 was also completely clean face up, but the spattering of crystals could be seen from the side.

I'm sure there are some 2ct+ SIs that are clean face up *and* from the side, but I'll wager that they're few and far between.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/13/2009 3:18:21 PM
Author: FB.
I know that I''m going to get a telling off for posting this but here goes:

I think that it''ll be eye clean - but only just.
Most SI1 are clean and although GIA plots are not 100% accurate, they are usually very close to the true size and location of the inclusion, so you can make an educated guess.

Crystals will usually appear black from at least one angle and lighting condition and the close proximity of the two crystals might make them appear as one larger but less intensely coloured inclusion, if you get them in a light that makes them show black.

GIA inclusion plots are usually very accurate regarding the size and location of the inclusion.
Therefore, knowing that the stone is 8.1mm (ish), you can guess that the largest inclusion is about 0.25mm, which is about the smallest black object that a normal human can see at six inches against a white background and if they know exactly where to look.
By my real-world tests (with mostly round diamonds) that I''ve been conducting recently on myself, family and friends, a black crystal inclusion needs to be at least about 0.4mm x 0.4mm or 0.3mm x 0.5mm, before an average person might see it at 12 inches - and about 0.2 x 0.2mm is the smallest that any normal eyesight might see it at six inches.
Realistically, you need 0.3mm at six inches and 0.6mm at 12 inches before the inclusions become reasonable to detect.

But the out-of-round measurements on the GIA cert seem a bit worrying; 8.07-8.22mm is quite a lot in absolute terms, but is only 2% in relative terms, which is not unusual for smaller stones where the 2% difference would only amount to 0.08mm.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/14/2009 6:44:03 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/13/2009 3:18:21 PM
Author: FB.
I know that I''m going to get a telling off for posting this but here goes:

I think that it''ll be eye clean - but only just.
Most SI1 are clean and although GIA plots are not 100% accurate, they are usually very close to the true size and location of the inclusion, so you can make an educated guess.

Crystals will usually appear black from at least one angle and lighting condition and the close proximity of the two crystals might make them appear as one larger but less intensely coloured inclusion, if you get them in a light that makes them show black.

GIA inclusion plots are usually very accurate regarding the size and location of the inclusion.
Therefore, knowing that the stone is 8.1mm (ish), you can guess that the largest inclusion is about 0.25mm, which is about the smallest black object that a normal human can see at six inches against a white background and if they know exactly where to look.
By my real-world tests (with mostly round diamonds) that I''ve been conducting recently on myself, family and friends, a black crystal inclusion needs to be at least about 0.4mm x 0.4mm or 0.3mm x 0.5mm, before an average person might see it at 12 inches - and about 0.2 x 0.2mm is the smallest that any normal eyesight might see it at six inches.
Realistically, you need 0.3mm at six inches and 0.6mm at 12 inches before the inclusions become reasonable to detect.

But the out-of-round measurements on the GIA cert seem a bit worrying; 8.07-8.22mm is quite a lot in absolute terms, but is only 2% in relative terms, which is not unusual for smaller stones where the 2% difference would only amount to 0.08mm.

I''ve hardly been "conventional" since I arrived and I know that I''ve stated some controversial things and caused some heated discussion.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/14/2009 7:11:56 AM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/14/2009 6:44:03 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/13/2009 3:18:21 PM
Author: FB.
I know that I'm going to get a telling off for posting this but here goes:

I think that it'll be eye clean - but only just.
Most SI1 are clean and although GIA plots are not 100% accurate, they are usually very close to the true size and location of the inclusion, so you can make an educated guess.

Crystals will usually appear black from at least one angle and lighting condition and the close proximity of the two crystals might make them appear as one larger but less intensely coloured inclusion, if you get them in a light that makes them show black.

GIA inclusion plots are usually very accurate regarding the size and location of the inclusion.
Therefore, knowing that the stone is 8.1mm (ish), you can guess that the largest inclusion is about 0.25mm, which is about the smallest black object that a normal human can see at six inches against a white background and if they know exactly where to look.
By my real-world tests (with mostly round diamonds) that I've been conducting recently on myself, family and friends, a black crystal inclusion needs to be at least about 0.4mm x 0.4mm or 0.3mm x 0.5mm, before an average person might see it at 12 inches - and about 0.2 x 0.2mm is the smallest that any normal eyesight might see it at six inches.
Realistically, you need 0.3mm at six inches and 0.6mm at 12 inches before the inclusions become reasonable to detect.

But the out-of-round measurements on the GIA cert seem a bit worrying; 8.07-8.22mm is quite a lot in absolute terms, but is only 2% in relative terms, which is not unusual for smaller stones where the 2% difference would only amount to 0.08mm.

I've hardly been 'conventional' since I arrived and I know that I've stated some controversial things and caused some heated discussion.

LOL! But thats refreshing to hear a different opinion expressed politely - and thats the main thing! Its good to have different points of view, stops us from getting soggy and makes us think, its all in the delivery which gets the opposing POV across and you do that well!

 

[FB.]

Thanks, Lorelei.
Does that mean you''re going to put down the rolling pin now?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/14/2009 7:31:36 AM
Author: FB.
Thanks, Lorelei.
Does that mean you're going to put down the rolling pin now?

 

[ukdiamondvirgin]

Have asked Jim

1) Can I request an Idealscope image?

2) Eye clean report.

3) Measurements are 8.07*8.22*4.97 . Is this correct as something similar to 8.07 - 8.12mm would be more like the normal, this variance is much wider than normally seen for such a well cut diamond. If correct then what effect does this have?

will post when I get a reply

thanks folks

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/14/2009 1:44:48 PM
Author: ukdiamondvirgin
Have asked Jim

1) Can I request an Idealscope image?

2) Eye clean report.

3) Measurements are 8.07*8.22*4.97 . Is this correct as something similar to 8.07 - 8.12mm would be more like the normal, this variance is much wider than normally seen for such a well cut diamond. If correct then what effect does this have?

will post when I get a reply

thanks folks

That sounds fine, yes JA should be able to give you an IS image on request. If the diameter is correct then it means the diamond is out of round, I am leaning more towards it being a typo on the report as I have very rarely seen diameters that wide on such a well cut diamond, so thats my guess. It is possible it is correct but in my experience it is unlikely for a stone of this cut quality.

 

[ukdiamondvirgin]

thanks for your knowledge. yeah emailed him last night (uk time) so hopefully ill have something to report back soon.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/14/2009 1:54:29 PM
Author: ukdiamondvirgin
thanks for your knowledge. yeah emailed him last night (uk time) so hopefully ill have something to report back soon.

Glad to help and keep us posted!

 

[ukdiamondvirgin]

well lovely people i have the idealscope image for this diamond.

A summary of the diamond from Jim @ JA and Darin who have been very helpful;

"I reviewed the photograph I do not believe this diamond is eye-clean. The feather at the girdle should be seen easily once you know what you're looking for. With that said, however, the inclusion is in a *perfect* location and can be completely hidden by a prong and I have asked the gemologist to give us a definitive answer at the same time she does the Idealscope..........You can see that I already disagree with the stone being eye-clean and I also disagree with any assessment that 8.07x8.22 is to far out of round. It's a big stone - the variances will be bigger as well. It took me about twenty seconds to find another AGS diamond with the exact same variance (about 2%), so I'm not concerned about that issue"

"Based upon the image you will definitely have a big, beautiful and brilliant diamond. The redder the Ideal-Scope image, the brighter the diamond will appear. All diamonds leak some light, generally less leakage is better. Light leakage appears as white areas in an Ideal-Scope. This diamond has small areas of leakage around the girdle which will add contrast in the spaces between the star tips and increase fiery flashes."

Thoughts ?

pretty sure i will get my diamond from JA but whether this one or not would be good to get your views.

 

[ukdiamondvirgin]

*bump*

hi sorry for the bump but this diamond got a good debate going when i started the forum due to it being such a good cut but the diameter caused some debate. quite a few said to keep you posted when i got the ideal scope image which i have provided in the posting above. would love those who posted previously and anyone else to give their opinions ??

Regards

Robert

 

[stone-cold11]

Sorry, didn''t notice the post.

IS looks good. Inclusions, depends on if you are comfortable with it.

 

[ukdiamondvirgin]

thanks stone cold . yeah for me cut is most important and this seems a great cut, obviously the stone is carrying some issues over the diameter and inclusions. altho i am just looking for a good value diamond at the same time which this does seem to be if these factors can be overlooked.

i have an IS image coming for a similar diamond which is eye clean then I might look at a couple of more expensive VS2 / G 2 carat and make a decision . I am tempted to go the extra for these as I am looking maybe £12-13k for good cut VS2/G ( versus £28,500 in Boodles ! )

 

[stone-cold11]

ya, look around first and then decide which one you are comfortable with.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/17/2009 5:52:15 PM
Author: ukdiamondvirgin
well lovely people i have the idealscope image for this diamond.

A summary of the diamond from Jim @ JA and Darin who have been very helpful;

''I reviewed the photograph I do not believe this diamond is eye-clean. The feather at the girdle should be seen easily once you know what you''re looking for. With that said, however, the inclusion is in a *perfect* location and can be completely hidden by a prong and I have asked the gemologist to give us a definitive answer at the same time she does the Idealscope..........You can see that I already disagree with the stone being eye-clean and I also disagree with any assessment that 8.07x8.22 is to far out of round. It''s a big stone - the variances will be bigger as well. It took me about twenty seconds to find another AGS diamond with the exact same variance (about 2%), so I''m not concerned about that issue''

''Based upon the image you will definitely have a big, beautiful and brilliant diamond. The redder the Ideal-Scope image, the brighter the diamond will appear. All diamonds leak some light, generally less leakage is better. Light leakage appears as white areas in an Ideal-Scope. This diamond has small areas of leakage around the girdle which will add contrast in the spaces between the star tips and increase fiery flashes.''

Thoughts ?

pretty sure i will get my diamond from JA but whether this one or not would be good to get your views.

Idealscope looks good, as to the diameter my concern is it could be a typo on GIA''s part as this is appears to be such a well cut stone, and also if it is correct it is a very wide diameter variance hardly ever seen in fine make cuts even of this size. I have looked at the diameters of thousands of diamonds and the diameter is unusual.

 

[ukdiamondvirgin]

could the diamond then represent some value as the price represents this wide diameter ?! only real issue os with the clarity issue.

have an IS for a similar stone and now looking for a couple of VS2 G 2 carat which will offcourse be more expensive.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/18/2009 5:40:33 AM
Author: ukdiamondvirgin
could the diamond then represent some value as the price represents this wide diameter ?! only real issue os with the clarity issue.

have an IS for a similar stone and now looking for a couple of VS2 G 2 carat which will offcourse be more expensive.

No way to tell really. All I can tell you is that if I were buying this diamond I would want the diameter checked out. The JA rep says it isn't an issue and it is accurate which is fine, it is just in my experience this diameter is unusual for such a well cut stone that I wonder if it might be a typo - I have seen this happen before, investigated and it was in fact the case. I could be completely wrong granted but if I see something that gives me pause - I have to point these things out.

Post what you have on the others and we can take a look for you.

 

[stone-cold11]

or ask them to run a sarin scan to check the diameter again?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/18/2009 5:51:47 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
or ask them to run a sarin scan to check the diameter again?

That is an option if they would do it.