Need Opinion: 3.01 J Color Diamond

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/26/2008 3:29:15 PM
Author: robh505

Date: 8/26/2008 2:43:43 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
Will do. I will post the specs later today. I am looking at the diamond tomorrow. I spoke to the jeweler who explained flourescence, and told me it it not 'oily' at all. He's a good guy (reputable local jeweler), but I want to confirm everything independently. Thanks so much for your help.

Just to play devils advocate here. While everything is always in the eye of the beholder, you can clearly tell that people on PS are very focused on the cut quality of the diamond as being the most important of the 4-Cs. Afterall, cut is what makes a diamond sparkly. On the spectrum of GIA rated quality for cut, I assume it's 1) Excellent 2) Very Good 3) good and 4) fair.

After reading through this site, it seems rare that anyone who frequents Pricescope buys a round diamond below excellent, and almost no one buys one below very good. Your reputable dealer just sold you one that's graded 'fair.' One that has specs so out of 'excellent' that you can't even input them into the HCA grader for cut quality. There's no way around it, that's a very low score for a diamond. While some people have commented that some diamonds that don't look good on paper do actually have tons of sparkle, normally we're talking about things that are slightly out of the normal bounds for what would be an excellent or very good 'very good' rated diamond. I have a hard time believing that a GIA rated 'fair' diamond would be one of those. When I think of the type of stuff a mall jeweler would sell, 'fair' graded diamonds is the type of thing that comes to mind.

All that being said, I'm just a novice at this stuff. I'm sure there are others that can show how my analysis is flawed.

I have to agree with the high lighted.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/26/2008 5:02:28 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
I haven't asked him about any trade up policy. He tells me (and I think I believe him), that he is getting the new stone from a cutter, exchanging my stone, and not making $1 off the deal. He told me that he is still having the cutter send him the stone so I can look at it tomorrow, but I told him at $7,000 I can't do it. . . . we shall see.

*cough*

Sorry if I've missed it somewhere - is the deadline impenetrable? Are you going o/seas etc? deadlines should/could be moved with something this important/expensive, right?..

 

[honey22]

Date: 8/26/2008 5:02:28 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
I haven''t asked him about any trade up policy. He tells me (and I think I believe him), that he is getting the new stone from a cutter, exchanging my stone, and not making $1 off the deal. He told me that he is still having the cutter send him the stone so I can look at it tomorrow, but I told him at $7,000 I can''t do it. . . . we shall see.

Rubbish! No vendor makes nothing of a deal, he is in business for the money, not the warm fuzzy feeling of helping a total stranger find a diamond. Don''t get sucked in!

 

[NeedAssistance1]

Still debating whether to go and see the new diamond and pay the extra money . . . thanks for all the help.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2008 10:27:17 AM
Author: NeedAssistance1
Still debating whether to go and see the new diamond and pay the extra money . . . thanks for all the help.

Go and take a look - then you will have a better idea of what to do when you compare both diamonds.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 8/27/2008 10:27:17 AM
Author: NeedAssistance1
Still debating whether to go and see the new diamond and pay the extra money . . . thanks for all the help.

No problem. I think either stone would be a great choice for the money paid. A 3ct stone - either one - is always a great choice.

Good luck and bon voyage

 

[NeedAssistance1]

He told me that he has located an I, SI1, very good cut, with no fluorescence for me to consider. He is calling me back with the price and specs. I will e-mail them when I have them because I need some un-biased opinion. Thanks so much.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2008 11:17:02 AM
Author: NeedAssistance1
He told me that he has located an I, SI1, very good cut, with no fluorescence for me to consider. He is calling me back with the price and specs. I will e-mail them when I have them because I need some un-biased opinion. Thanks so much.

Sounds good.

 

[mercoledi]

Sounds like your jeweler is on your side trying to make this happen! Let us know what he finds.

 

[NeedAssistance1]

Here are the specs. Its the same price (7K more) as the other one.

Report Type: GIA Diamond Grading Report

Date of Issue: December 06, 2006

Round Brilliant

Measurements: 9.13 - 9.20 x 5.69 mm

Carat Weight: 3.01

Color Grade: I

Clarity Grade: SI1

Cut Grade: Very Good

Proportions:

Depth: 62.1 %

Table: 57 %

Crown Angle: 35.5°

Crown Height: 15 %

Pavilion Angle: 40.2°

Pavilion Depth: 42.5 %

Star length: 50 %

Lower Half: 80 %

Girdle: Slightly Thick to Thick, Faceted

Culet: None

Finish:

Polish: Very Good

Symmetry: Excellent

Fluorescence: None

 

[Lorelei]

It could be a good looking stone, the pavilion angle is shallow but it seems to be a good combo with the crown angle - see what you think and compare it away from the store lights to see how you like it.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 8/27/2008 11:42:39 AM
Author: NeedAssistance1

Here are the specs. Its the same price (7K more) as the other one.

Report Type: GIA Diamond Grading Report

Date of Issue: December 06, 2006

Round Brilliant

Measurements: 9.13 - 9.20 x 5.69 mm

Carat Weight: 3.01

Color Grade: I

Clarity Grade: SI1

Cut Grade: Very Good

Proportions:

Depth: 62.1 %

Table: 57 %

Crown Angle: 35.5°

Crown Height: 15 %

Pavilion Angle: 40.2°

Pavilion Depth: 42.5 %

Star length: 50 %

Lower Half: 80 %

Girdle: Slightly Thick to Thick, Faceted

Culet: None

Finish:

Polish: Very Good

Symmetry: Excellent

Fluorescence: None

Great HCA score. Score excellent on many aspects. Seems like the tradeoff was no fluoresence and a color grade lower in addition to 12 points of weight. I would have thought this would be a bit less than $7K since it weighs less and is a color grade lower.

In terms of performance, I think its a great choice and should perform well in person so you might have a winner here. I think its great your guy can deliver it to set by friday!

 

[NeedAssistance1]

How about compared with the H stone? I realize how they look in person will be the ultimate deciding factor. . . Thanks.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2008 11:51:12 AM
Author: NeedAssistance1
How about compared with the H stone? I realize how they look in person will be the ultimate deciding factor. . . Thanks.

Both are well cut, see which one looks best to you.

 

[NeedAssistance1]

I ask because I have a strong suspicion I won''t be able to see the difference between the two. . . . .

 

[mercoledi]

So you started with a 3.01 J fair cut
+7K get you a 3.13 H SI 1 VG OR a 3.01 I SI 1 VG?

As far as the stone- everything Lorelei said, it isn''t super tight, but it''s much better than the J. I''m surprised that the last two stones are the same price, there''s a substantial difference in size and a drop in color.

 

[NeedAssistance1]

Yes.

 

[mercoledi]

Well, if it were me, and if this were my forever stone and if I had the extra 7K to put into this and if my eyes reinforced what strangers on the internet were telling me, I'd probably go for the bigger one with SBF. But that would be me.

I would also check with your jeweler that you could cram the 3.13 into your current setting, there's about a .3mm difference in the circumference compared to the J.

(and also if I had to have this wrapped up by Friday)

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2008 11:55:10 AM
Author: NeedAssistance1
I ask because I have a strong suspicion I won''t be able to see the difference between the two. . . . .

Leaving the original J out of it, between the H and the I will be more of a personal preference. Out of the two I personally prefer the H''s proportions going by the info we have, but the I is still a well cut stone - so it comes down to which you prefer and offers you the best value for money.

 

[NeedAssistance1]

Thanks a lot. I''m going to look at them today.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 8/27/2008 12:05:12 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
Thanks a lot. I''m going to look at them today.

I like them both. So long as the fluor doesnt have an adverse effect, I would go with it. But you cant go wrong with either. But since the higher color and bigger stone is same size, it may be a better deal despite the strong fluor.

As an aside, is your gf asian or into numerology? Some cultures dont like the number 13 and avoid carat weights with 13 in them. I dont care and own several and have had fantastic luck.

 

[NeedAssistance1]

Well, its a difficult decision.

I couldn''t see any haziness or oiliness whatsoever in the H stone, and the jeweler claimed he didn''t either. However, he said that he could tell with the naked eye that the H stone had flourescence (he parsed his words carefully but said that at certain angles he could see a "hint of blue". To my eye, the H stone faced up whiter and more brilliant than the I and J stone. He claimed that was because of the fluorescence . . . .

He had a G, 2 carat, very good cut, and the H with fluor looked whiter than it to me.

I think the I is out because I honestly could tell little difference between that and the J.

Its all very confusing. . . . .

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/27/2008 2:26:26 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
Well, its a difficult decision.

I couldn''t see any haziness or oiliness whatsoever in the H stone, and the jeweler claimed he didn''t either. However, he said that he could tell with the naked eye that the H stone had flourescence (he parsed his words carefully but said that at certain angles he could see a ''hint of blue''. To my eye, the H stone faced up whiter and more brilliant than the I and J stone. He claimed that was because of the fluorescence . . . .

He had a G, 2 carat, very good cut, and the H with fluor looked whiter than it to me.

I think the I is out because I honestly could tell little difference between that and the J.

Its all very confusing. . . . .

The H diamond may face up whiter because of the fluoro, but the cut is what will give it brilliance. I know it is a difficult decision to spend more money on the H, but you are in a good situation as you can compare the one you have to the new diamond.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 8/27/2008 2:26:26 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
Well, its a difficult decision.

I couldn''t see any haziness or oiliness whatsoever in the H stone, and the jeweler claimed he didn''t either. However, he said that he could tell with the naked eye that the H stone had flourescence (he parsed his words carefully but said that at certain angles he could see a ''hint of blue''. To my eye, the H stone faced up whiter and more brilliant than the I and J stone. He claimed that was because of the fluorescence . . . .

He had a G, 2 carat, very good cut, and the H with fluor looked whiter than it to me.

I think the I is out because I honestly could tell little difference between that and the J.

Its all very confusing. . . . .

Thats your answer. If you think its $7K whiter than the J, then its a no-brainer.

 

[NeedAssistance1]

My only concern is the fluoro. I didn''t see that it was "oily" or "milky" but I don''t know anything. Is it possible I couldn''t see if the fluoro affected the stone? From what I read (1997 GIA study, etc), I think he is crazy to say that he can see the fluoro with the naked eye. . . but I still don''t want to buy something that is less clear becaues of the fluoro or that can be seen by someone with a sensitive eye. . .

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 8/27/2008 2:45:40 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
My only concern is the fluoro. I didn''t see that it was ''oily'' or ''milky'' but I don''t know anything. Is it possible I couldn''t see if the fluoro affected the stone? From what I read (1997 GIA study, etc), I think he is crazy to say that he can see the fluoro with the naked eye. . . but I still don''t want to buy something that is less clear becaues of the fluoro or that can be seen by someone with a sensitive eye. . .

I I never go higher than faint fluor not because of oiliness or milkiness, but I have this crazy idea I will be at a place with a blacklight and the ring will glow. I dont think I have seen a blacklight in the past 15 years.

I have seen strong blue fluor stones in person and they do not look blue to me at all nor do they look milky/oily (at least the stones I saw). I just know from the comments made by others that it is soemthing to look for but strong fluor is a benefit to stones with some hints of color in that it makes them brighter in all lighting except for blacklights.

It is the best of the 3 that you have presented and given the short amount of time, its all we have to work with. If you had another week I am positive we could find something with VG cut, H/I/J color, VS2/SI clarity and NO fluor within your budget. That stone does exist somewhere but you have limited time and working with that one specific guy so I, along with others, are giving you our opinion as to what is the best of the 3 and the consensus seems to like the one with fluor. No one here has said "absolutely not" with respect to fluor because those stones dont look blue in normal light - not sure how trained your jeweler''s eye is though but if you cant tell I doubt anyone else can.

 

[NeedAssistance1]

Also, sorry to be paranoid, but I looked at the diamond in the store and outside (but it was not in direct sunlight) Should I have looked at the fluoro diamond in direct sunlight to see if it drastically changed? Or, would the fluoro in the shaded sunlight be as apparent in the direct sunlight?

 

[mercoledi]

Direct sunlight would be best, but know that most well cut diamonds will look darker overall with more fire in direct sunlight. You''re looking for a milky or oilyness that appears in the stone, or a general haze. I haven''t seen any bad fluoro in person, but my understanding is that it''s fairly obvious. In any case, I think you''re getting an idea of how hard it can be to see a fluoro effect.

 

[cara]

My understanding on fluoro is that you need UV to excite it. No UV going in, no blue color coming out of diamond. Sunlight has a bit of UV, hence the skin cancer effect. Halogens and fluorescent bulbs both produce some amount of UV, but it is supposed to be filtered by the glass or a coating on the bulb. How well, I don''t know, but most dermatologists don''t warn about UV exposure inside so I''m assuming very well. Incandescent light bulbs put out some negligible amount of UV - much much less than sunlight. Maybe a more experienced person can step in and comment on how likely it is to see blue in a strong fluorescent stone under room lighting.

Was the jeweler saying that he could notice it under the room lights or that he would/could notice the fluoro in sunlight?

But either way... if you didn''t notice anything horrible about the stone and it sounds like milky/oiliness is not an issue then I think the fluoro is cool! Good luck!

 

[:)]

Date: 8/27/2008 3:44:31 PM
Author: NeedAssistance1
Also, sorry to be paranoid, but I looked at the diamond in the store and outside (but it was not in direct sunlight) Should I have looked at the fluoro diamond in direct sunlight to see if it drastically changed? Or, would the fluoro in the shaded sunlight be as apparent in the direct sunlight?

Per Garry Holloway with regards to evaluating for fluoro..

"BTW for newbie readers - no well cut diamond looks good in direct sunlight. You can search here and find at least 20 to 50 posts of new diamond owners asking why their beauty looks dark in direct sunlight.
So an oliy appearance in direct sun light is a non issue - maybe 5% of Very Strong Blues will be oily in shaded sunlight - have your back to the sun so your body shades the diamond for testing.
Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT
HCA and Ideal-scope developer
www.ideal-scope.com and www.HollowayDiamonds.com.au "


Rockdoc (RIP) had advised in the past to get a piece of lexan 1/4 inch thick and hold it over the diamond shielding it from the sunlight to evaluate.