Narrowed it down to 10, need to make final decision!!

[SalanG]

My girlfriend finally went to bed and I have been searching James Allen for about two hours. The list has been narrowed down to ten. All have HCA cut scores of at least under 1.8. I am going to try and narrow the list down to five and then request IS images.

Which 5 would you choose? Which is your favorite? Lease favorite?


http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1245478.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-866263.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1248256.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1248262.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1248244.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1247515.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1251629.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1247509.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1204041.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1248046.asp


Thanks to everyone who has helped me get to the point I am at!

 

[Ellen]

Narrow it down to 3, and you'll get more input. That's a lot to ask someone to look through.

Also, I believe JA will only produce 3 IS pics on request.

 

[tyty333]

Nothing going on here so I looked at ALL of them...here is what I see...

1) crown too shallow (33 with 40.8 pav). Not really sure how it would affect stone...need experts comments.
*2) numbers look good but is it eye clean (for some reason this pic is not very pretty??? but is it just the pic?)
*3) numbers are good - is it eye clean?
4) numbers are good but no picture - is SI1 (not enough info)
5) numbers look good but no picture - its SI1 (not enough info?)
6) not enough info - no report, no picture
*7) numbers look good to me and so does picture and its a 1.02 ...I think this would be a contender for me
not enough info - no report no picture
*9) numbers are good and picture is good - H&A - this would also be a contender (.9 stone)
*10) numbers are good and picture is good - this would be another contender (.93)

That would be my top 5...starting with 7, 9, and 10. I did not check the girdle on any of these. For number 2
I would need someone to evaluate it for me and tell me that it does not look like the picture (and is eye clean).
Number 3 looks good but needs check for eye clean.

EDIT - number 1 looks pretty but need expert advice on how the angles affect the light return

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/4/2009 8:34:54 AM
Author: tyty333

Nothing going on here so I looked at ALL of them...here is what I see..

You get a cookie!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/4/2009 8:34:54 AM
Author: tyty333
Nothing going on here so I looked at ALL of them...here is what I see...

1) crown too shallow (33 with 40.8 pav). Not really sure how it would affect stone...need experts comments.
*2) numbers look good but is it eye clean (for some reason this pic is not very pretty??? but is it just the pic?)
*3) numbers are good - is it eye clean?
4) numbers are good but no picture - is SI1 (not enough info)
5) numbers look good but no picture - its SI1 (not enough info?)
6) not enough info - no report, no picture
*7) numbers look good to me and so does picture and its a 1.02 ...I think this would be a contender for me
not enough info - no report no picture
*9) numbers are good and picture is good - H&A - this would also be a contender (.9 stone)
*10) numbers are good and picture is good - this would be another contender (.93)

That would be my top 5...starting with 7, 9, and 10. I did not check the girdle on any of these. For number 2
I would need someone to evaluate it for me and tell me that it does not look like the picture (and is eye clean).
Number 3 looks good but needs check for eye clean.

EDIT - number 1 looks pretty but need expert advice on how the angles affect the light return

Should be ok, Idealscope would be useful - well done for going through all those!!

 

[SalanG]

I will try and narrow it down some more. All are in price range, size etc so now I''m looking for best light return/sparkle/fire which is nearly impossible without actually seeing them. Any advice? Maybe I will take tytys picks because they obviously know much more than I do. Thanks so much TyTy, the people on this board are fantastic. I probably would have bought a piece of coal already if it weren''t for all the help here!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/4/2009 8:54:16 AM
Author: SalanG
I will try and narrow it down some more. All are in price range, size etc so now I''m looking for best light return/sparkle/fire which is nearly impossible without actually seeing them. Any advice? Maybe I will take tytys picks because they obviously know much more than I do. Thanks so much TyTy, the people on this board are fantastic. I probably would have bought a piece of coal already if it weren''t for all the help here!

Narrow it down to 3 or 4 then we can take a look for you, I would go through them all but it will take me some time.

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 8/4/2009 8:34:54 AM
Author: tyty333
Nothing going on here so I looked at ALL of them...here is what I see...

1) crown too shallow (33 with 40.8 pav). Not really sure how it would affect stone...need experts comments.
*2) numbers look good but is it eye clean (for some reason this pic is not very pretty??? but is it just the pic?)
*3) numbers are good - is it eye clean?
4) numbers are good but no picture - is SI1 (not enough info)
5) numbers look good but no picture - its SI1 (not enough info?)
6) not enough info - no report, no picture
*7) numbers look good to me and so does picture and its a 1.02 ...I think this would be a contender for me
not enough info - no report no picture
*9) numbers are good and picture is good - H&A - this would also be a contender (.9 stone)
*10) numbers are good and picture is good - this would be another contender (.93)

That would be my top 5...starting with 7, 9, and 10. I did not check the girdle on any of these. For number 2
I would need someone to evaluate it for me and tell me that it does not look like the picture (and is eye clean).
Number 3 looks good but needs check for eye clean.

EDIT - number 1 looks pretty but need expert advice on how the angles affect the light return

Wow, tyty! Very helpful.

Well, you know I like 7. The others that tyty flagged look good, too. I would ask someone at James Allen about #2, the GIA report is three years old, so it is possible it is a trade-in and something has happened to it since the original report was issued or it could just be a horrible photo.

 

[SalanG]

Just requested IS for 1, 7 and 10. Also requested report for 6 and 10. Today will be stressful!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/4/2009 9:41:33 AM
Author: SalanG
Just requested IS for 1, 7 and 10. Also requested report for 6 and 10. Today will be stressful!

1, 7 and 10 look good, the last one is a little deep for me, also an Idealscope image will be very useful to check out that angle combo. Also check with JA if these are eyeclean to your standards, if for example you don''t want to see any visible inclusions from any angle or distance, make sure you tell them that so you are both on the same page.

 

[SalanG]

So the funny thing is, I requested an ideal scope image for those three...and I''m not really sure what I will be looking for in the image...

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 8/4/2009 10:09:32 AM
Author: SalanG
So the funny thing is, I requested an ideal scope image for those three...and I''m not really sure what I will be looking for in the image...

Here''s a great tutorial.

http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=education-performance

Also, if you post the images, we will be glad to help you evaluate them.

 

[SalanG]

The suspense is killing me. Do you know how long it usually takes for them to provide the images?

After reading about the ideal scope, I learned black and white are bad. Would this knock #9 out?

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 8/4/2009 11:56:52 AM
Author: SalanG
The suspense is killing me. Do you know how long it usually takes for them to provide the images? 24-48 hours, depending on whether the stone is in house or if it has to be called in from whoever is holding it.

After reading about the ideal scope, I learned black and white are bad. Would this knock #9 out? No way--it is a great IS image. Read the tutorial again and look at the reference images compared to #9. Black is light blocked by the viewer, you want an even pattern of black, though not too much. These are facets that alternately reflect light and go dark as the diamond is moved, producing the sparkle. The white tips of the star and around the girdle are controlled leakage points and are intentional. They help with the scintillation, as well. What you don't want to see is large patches of white in other areas of the diamond--the worst being a white ring around the table.

A diamond that showed all red in the IS would be like looking at a flashlight. It would blind you at certain angles and do nothing at others.

Here is a page that explains head shadow better http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.light_return_and_shadow.asp

 

[tyty333]

Date: 8/4/2009 10:00:43 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/4/2009 9:41:33 AM
Author: SalanG
Just requested IS for 1, 7 and 10. Also requested report for 6 and 10. Today will be stressful!

1, 7 and 10 look good, the last one is a little deep for me, also an Idealscope image will be very useful to check out that angle combo. Also check with JA if these are eyeclean to your standards, if for example you don''t want to see any visible inclusions from any angle or distance, make sure you tell them that so you are both on the same page.

Somehow I missed the depth on #10...oops!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/4/2009 1:25:04 PM
Author: tyty333

Date: 8/4/2009 10:00:43 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/4/2009 9:41:33 AM
Author: SalanG
Just requested IS for 1, 7 and 10. Also requested report for 6 and 10. Today will be stressful!

1, 7 and 10 look good, the last one is a little deep for me, also an Idealscope image will be very useful to check out that angle combo. Also check with JA if these are eyeclean to your standards, if for example you don''t want to see any visible inclusions from any angle or distance, make sure you tell them that so you are both on the same page.

Somehow I missed the depth on #10...oops!

Don''t worry, that was a lot of info to read through!

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 8/4/2009 1:36:03 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/4/2009 1:25:04 PM
Author: tyty333

Date: 8/4/2009 10:00:43 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 8/4/2009 9:41:33 AM
Author: SalanG
Just requested IS for 1, 7 and 10. Also requested report for 6 and 10. Today will be stressful!

1, 7 and 10 look good, the last one is a little deep for me, also an Idealscope image will be very useful to check out that angle combo. Also check with JA if these are eyeclean to your standards, if for example you don''t want to see any visible inclusions from any angle or distance, make sure you tell them that so you are both on the same page.

Somehow I missed the depth on #10...oops!

Don''t worry, that was a lot of info to read through!

Yes, the depth seems a little much at 62.6, but the angles at 40.8 and 35 are complimentary. I am guessing the higher depth means angles were rounded down. Still could be a nice diamond, but would definitely want an IS.

 

[ct-appr]

Nice job on your selections. I would eliminate anything under a carat (size matters). Next, I would eliminate anything SI2 or lower. Then just pick the best color and I think you are there. No need to over think it. I think if you saw all of these diamonds together you would have a tough time separating them. Good luck!

 

[jmw5016]

FYI....numbers 1 and 10 are gone. I think I would drop the color a little to an I or J and go up in clarity and possibly size for the same price (stay with top notch cut) but thats just my opinion. To each their own. Good luck.

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 8/4/2009 3:15:47 PM
Author: jmw5016
FYI....numbers 1 and 10 are gone. I think I would drop the color a little to an I or J and go up in clarity and possibly size for the same price (stay with top notch cut) but thats just my opinion. To each their own. Good luck.

Just so you know, when someone requests an IS from James Allen, they mark the stone as unavailable so that it doesn''t sell while the person who requested the IS is waiting for the images. They will keep the stone "on hold" and unavailable for purchase until 24 hours after they send the Idealscope images.

 

[SalanG]

Just got the IS images back, they all look nearly the same. (Have the arrow look)

#7 is a little bit off center as I already knew because of "very good" opposed to "excellent"

Not sure how the girdles make an impact on the diamond but they vary between the three

Any more advice for me?

I am leaning towards #10...the only thing is I wouldn''t mind going down to a VS2 and increasing the ct weight; JamesAllen seems to have no reports for anything with a similar cut, G-H, above a ct and a VS2-SI1...I feel like the whole process will be starting over again, if I don''t pick one of the three I narrowed it down to.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/5/2009 3:23:32 PM
Author: SalanG
Just got the IS images back, they all look nearly the same. (Have the arrow look)

#7 is a little bit off center as I already knew because of 'very good' opposed to 'excellent'

Not sure how the girdles make an impact on the diamond but they vary between the three

Any more advice for me?

I am leaning towards #10...the only thing is I wouldn't mind going down to a VS2 and increasing the ct weight; JamesAllen seems to have no reports for anything with a similar cut, G-H, above a ct and a VS2-SI1...I feel like the whole process will be starting over again, if I don't pick one of the three I narrowed it down to.

Can you post the images please? Also some SI2 can be eyeclean, if you are working with a trusted vendor they will advise, so no need to eliminate these grades unless you are told specifically that an SI2 is not eyeclean.

 

[stone-cold11]

Those flies off the shelves like hot cakes as it is a sweet spot where size, specs and budgets meet for most people.

Wait for them to post the report or call JA to see which ones they recommend?

 

[SalanG]

Lorelei,

I am actually at work and using my phone to post. I can''t save the pictures and add them here. They all look good though. They have the arrow look and very minimal white (there is a little white dot near the sides in between each arrow).

I feel comfortable on all the IS images. I am really only concerned with my bang for the buck now. 7 and 10 are both within $200 of each other.

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 8/5/2009 3:53:51 PM
Author: SalanG
Lorelei,

I am actually at work and using my phone to post. I can''t save the pictures and add them here. They all look good though. They have the arrow look and very minimal white (there is a little white dot near the sides in between each arrow).

I feel comfortable on all the IS images. I am really only concerned with my bang for the buck now. 7 and 10 are both within $200 of each other.

If the IS for both is good, I personally would pick 7. It is larger in both carat weight (1.02 vs. .93) and face up size (~6.47mm vs ~6.2mm). It is the only one on the list that gets you over 1ct for a well cut diamond. Just my 2 cents.

 

[SalanG]

Jett,

should I worry about the comments on7?

 

[stone-cold11]

Those inclusions are not grade setting so should not be a problem. It is noted just for completeness sake but is not what is causing the stone to be graded as an SI1.

 

[Lorelei]

The comment " clouds, internal graining and surface graining not shown" are only mentioned for the sake of completeness and are not an issue.

 

[jet2ks]

SC and Lorelei have you covered. Good luck with whichever you choose.