Is this a good diamond?

[cb36]

 

[OoohShiny]

That's quite a list of inclusions and inclusions not shown - I think this is an example of a VS2 that needs inspection to check if it is eye-clean.

Run the specs through the HCA tool to confirm it scores under 2-2.5, but my feeling is it will.

 

[sledge]

Echo the thoughts of making sure it's eye clean.

In addition to having what seems lots of inclusions I also noticed clouds are the grade setting inclusion and the notes say additional clouds not shown.

That can be a dangerous combo. Most VS2's are good but not all of them, so I would definitely check this stone out further.

Just curious...what's the ask price? For me, part of a good diamond is dependent on many factors including the bang for the buck I'm getting.

 

[headlight]

@sledge - a bit on being perhaps too shallow a stone???

 

[sledge]

@sledge - a bit on being perhaps too shallow a stone???

The 60.7 depth is okay.

Here are the proportions I recommend staying within for best results. As always, proportions & angles aren't the end all when it comes to evaluating stones. We have to consider the rounding & averaging of actual values and how precise the faceting is on each particular stone. However, this at least gets us in the ballpark.

• 54-57 table
• 60-62.4 depth (prefer < 62)
• 34-35 crown (maybe 35.5 w/ 40.6 pavilion)
• 40.6-40.9 pavilion (maybe 41 w/ 34 crown)
• 75-80 lower girdle facets (aka LGF's)(some prefer closer to 75 for "fat arrows")
• HCA score of 0-2 (ideally 1-2 for e-ring)
• Crown & pavilion have an inverse relationship, meaning steep crown/shallow pavilion & vice versa

The proportions of the stone listed by the OP meet this for the most part. The table is slightly off at 58, but it's still within an acceptable range. While acceptable, a larger table means reduced sized upper girdle facets, which is where rainbow light is produced. Everything is a trade off, meaning while fire is slightly reduced, white light return is increased.

Also, I'd prefer to see a 40.7 or 40.8 pavilion with the 34.5 crown but the 40.6 may be okay depending on actual values. If any of the actuals dip below 40.5 it may have some issues.

FWIW, this scores a 0.8 on the HCA, which is a passing score. I'd suspect this is due to the lower crown and shallower side of the depth. However, it does not appear to have "flat" enough proportions to push it into the "bigger" category, which is where a stone can appear dark close up and where stones slip from being ideal for e-rings (normally a 1-2 HCA score) to being ideal for pendants or earrings (normally a 0-1 score).

At this point, I'd say the stone is worth more serious consideration, depending on the price. Obviously if I can get a super ideal stone for the same money, I'd go that route have warm fuzzies coming out my ying yang and an awesome upgrade program to boot.

Assuming price is good, the next question to ask what I assume is the local jeweler is if they can provide an ASET or idealscope image to confirm light return performance, and possibly a hearts image to confirm symmetry. It's doubtful too many local jewelers will have these scopes, so at the least I'd want to buy my own ASET (about $50 from AGS directly, or David Atlas) and take into the store to verify performance.

 

[southernicetea]

I started playing around with the HCA calculator to learn more about it.

@sledge, you mention that HCA score 0 - 1 is better for pendants and earrings. Just for my understanding, although the op's HCA score is 0.8, it's still acceptable for a ring because the proportions aren't super flat, correct?

Would the HCA calculator tell us if a stone is more appropriate for earrings/pendant?

TIA