Need Help with Idealscope & ASET image.

[ImmaSquashYou]

So i'm ready to purchase this diamond. I just got the aset and idealscope pictures from IDJ. I think it looks promising. What do you guys think? You can see that there is an inclusion on at 9 o'clock. IDJ said that there is no problem that the inclusion can be hidden by a prong. From what i remember, the diamond everywhere else is pretty much clean, even with a 10x loupe. Is it time to pull the trigger? any input is appreciated!

 

[TitanCi]

I'm no expert, but I like there's alot of red (more brightness, right?), but it appears the symmetry is off (maybe it's just the pic)? If one of the resident experts say it's good, then I'd go for it!

GL!!!

 

[ImmaSquashYou]

Thanks! anyone else?? i'm thinking of pulling the triigger today.

 

[yssie]

As Titan says optical symmetry isn't great but if you just want a pretty stone at a good price and you aren't looking for a super duper louper this one fits that bill.


Several questions:

1. How big is it?
2. What report? Post report number and exact ct weight as it appears on the report, or post year report was issued, inclusion diagram, and plot diagram.
3. What type of setting are you thinking of?
4. Do you plan to have the stone shipped out to inspect in-person before having it set?


Reasons:

That inclusion is near the girdle, yes, but it is not well-positioned. A "perfect" prongable inclusion would sit directly under the flat bezel facet. This stone, however, has two large girdle inclusions under matching upper girdle facets. The UGFs are angled, and by "matching" I mean that those two inclusions are both under UGFs that are tilted in the same direction.

The pav is not very steep - we can tell from the head-on pic. Which means crown must have some height. If this is a smaller stone (sub 1ct say) then the *facets* are pretty small, so putting a prong (or pair of prongs, or quartet of prongs) on top of an angled facet (or pair/quartet of facets angled the same way) is not such a big deal because the prong is likely to also cover other facets that will stabilize the stone and hold it in place. If the stone is larger, the facets are larger, and the prong sits only on top of these angled facets. If you have 4 prongs - the only prong orientation that will cover both of those girdle inclusions - the pressure is going to force the stone to turn so that the prongs sit on the flat bezel facets adjacent instead.

I'm especially concerned because from what I've seen of IDJ's recent prong work, their prongs are impossibly small and delicate and pointed - very pretty, visually, but not nearly as strong and hardy as larger, rounded prongs. Add delicate (read: weaker) prongs to non-optimal placement around the stone and you have a recipe for trouble. That's ignoring the difficulty of pushing pointed prongtips onto the surface of the stone if the prong bisects two facets - DBL had to do this for my ring, and they did a fantastic job, but it was definitely not an easy job and they have an incredibly talented bench. Pic of what I mean below.


Depending on how old the report is, you'll want to plan on an independent appraisal of the loose stone to confirm that it's in exactly the condition described on the report - no wear and tear from setting/wearing in the years since the report was issued.

I would STRONGLY recommend having this stone shipped out to inspect before having it set, especially if you plan on an elaborate setting. You don't want to be forced to limit your options finding a new stone if you wind up not liking this one.

 

[ImmaSquashYou]

Idj is local to me. I'm actually planning to go there tomorrow and take a look at the diamond again in person. I saw it once already and liked it a lot. The symmetry on the Gia report says it has excellent symmetry. But thanks for the prong concept. I had originally wanted 6 prong. But might have to go with 4. Im planning to go there tomorrow onpuck a setting I asked Yuletide at idj. And he said that you can definitely hide the inclusion. And as far as there being two. I believe only one is visible even though the asset pic shows otherwise. Is there anything else I should be concerned about besides the prong being able to hide the inclusion? Am I getting my money's worth for the diamond? Sorry I didn't post the specs. But it was in another thread. I posted it below. Is this a stone I should go for? I feel like this is the best stone in my price range. Again. I haven't looked at many stones in person. Thanks in advance!

GIA Certified # 2131281775
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2131281775&weight=1.15
Color: G
Clarity Grade: SI2
Cut: Very Good
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Flouresence: None
Culet: None
HCA#: 1.3
Price: $6086

 

[yssie]

Idj is local to me. I'm actually planning to go there tomorrow and take a look at the diamond again in person. I saw it once already and liked it a lot. The symmetry on the Gia report says it has excellent symmetry. But thanks for the prong concept. I had originally wanted 6 prong. But might have to go with 4. Im planning to go there tomorrow onpuck a setting I asked Yuletide at idj. And he said that you can definitely hide the inclusion. And as far as there being two. I believe only one is visible even though the asset pic shows otherwise. Is there anything else I should be concerned about besides the prong being able to hide the inclusion? Am I getting my money's worth for the diamond? Sorry I didn't post the specs. But it was in another thread. I posted it below. Is this a stone I should go for? I feel like this is the best stone in my price range. Again. I haven't looked at many stones in person. Thanks in advance!

GIA Certified # 2131281775
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2131281775&weight=1.15
Color: G
Clarity Grade: SI2
Cut: Very Good
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Flouresence: None
Culet: None
HCA#: 1.3
Price: $6086

Optical symmetry - symmetry of "virtual facets" created by reflections of facets in other facets. GIA report notes physical facet-meet symmetry.

My concern is not the prong hiding the inclusion. My concern is whether they can put a prong in that position on the diamond and make it hold the diamond there. 6 prongs is a much better option, if indeed the other inclusion is not visible, because then you don't have four prongs on 4 UGFs all facing the same way all pushing the stone in the same direction.

The stone is what it is, and if you're happy with it then you're happy with it - price is fine. Like I said it's not one that PSers would recommend, but we PSers are cut nuts. The thick girdle is hiding weight so the stone is facing up smaller (smaller diameter) than it would if the girdle was thinner, so theoretically a smaller stone could face up the same size w/ higher cut grade, realistically you're still looking at 1.05-1.1ct and it'd be several hundred more to jump to a higher cut grade w/ same diameter even with the lower ct weight, so...

 

[ImmaSquashYou]

I get what ur saying now. Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain it. Maybe I'll go back tonight and search some more and see if there are other options. Originally I had wanted the stone to be excellent cut only and at h color. I had purchased one at blue Nike. But the si2 was not eye clean. It has a pretty big inclusion. So needless to say. This is a lil bit better than average diamond but not the best I can get for the money since there most likely be something better like an excellent cut eye clean si2. Another pscoper on here opened up another mindset since the inclusions on the Gia report doesn't mean that all of them will show up to the naked eye and might look very good. I guess I'll have to use jamesallen or another company that will take pictures of the diamond. But how to do narrow what will be eye clean from the report itself? I've been looking at ones where there are no markings on the report on the table.