Need Opinions on another OEC Stone

[TBjumper]

Hi Everyone,

Some of you may remember my post about an OEC stone that was up for grabs, sadly that stone was not meant to be. After dealing with the nerves of not knowing what I was getting I decided to contact Old World Diamonds and see if they had anything comparable. This is what Adam said he had. It is more expensive and the grade is less then the original stone I had looked at and I am not sure its worth it. I do believe although the carat weight of this stone is less, it faces up a tiny bit larger. Adam sent me a copy of the cert and I am having mixed feelings.

stats:
weight :1.54
7.49x7.35x4.35
depth: 58.6
table: 51
crown: 14.2
Pavilion 13.8
girdle: very thin to sl. thick
polish good
symm fair to good
color: L
grade SI3
EGL Cert

OK what concerns me is the SI3. Adam says that: "The SI3 is VERY NICE and off to the side. It is white and can easily be covered with a prong. It''s a very lively stone"

I asked about the girdle and for more details on the SI3 factor and this was the response. "The imperfection is a line that breaks the surface a drop underneath the stone and a tiny chip on the girdle. We don''t feel it has any risk being set, either bezel or prongs."

So my question is: Is the stone nice enough in its other stats to over look the SI3 if it can be covered with a prong? Is the diamond structurally unsound as the inclusion breaks the surface?

The original stone I looked at was 3700 and set, and they want 4100 for this stone.
Will post photos shortly.

Let me know guys.

 

[DecoLVR]

I''m sorry to hear that the other OEC didn''t work out for you. I was wondering what happened with that. I don''t remember the exact carat weight or dimensions but I do remember thinking that the diamond appeared to face up a bit small for its weight. That may have been due to the setting or the photos though.

Have you seen pictures of this diamond? SI3 would scare me. I don''t think SI3 is even recognized by GIA as a clarity grade. The girdle chip also concerns me.

I''d need to see pictures before I could give a final opinion but based on the clarity grade and the chip, if it were me I would probably keep looking.

 

[TBjumper]

Hi DecoLVR,
Here are the pictures of the stone. The rep said the inclusion is at the 6oclock position on the picture with the stone facing down.

Aghh didn''t size well enough, give me a minute. sizing pictures.

 

[TBjumper]

well evidently I cant get the darn thing to attach... bare with me.

 

[TBjumper]

face up

 

[TBjumper]

face down, and again the rep said the "white line" was at the 6 o''clock position on this picture. He also checked with the cutter and they told him there would be no problem setting in either prongs and or bezel.

Not so sure though.

 

[Circe]

I''ll be waiting for your pics eagerly, but to me, SI3 is just a nice way of saying I1 ... and I1 is where I draw the line.

I just did a diamond grading course, and I got dinged a few times for lowballing my grades: to be an I1, a stone couldn''t just contain a moderately eye-visible inclusion, or be moderately compromised in its safety; it had to be significantly bad. I would definitely look for a smaller or darker stone before going to an I1 ... will wait to see if the pics can show me the difference between I1 and SI3 before I say for sure!

 

[TBjumper]

Circe: Pics attached now... what do you think?

 

[Circe]

Hm ... well, it''s either a hell of a good I1, a sign that SI3 is, in point of fact, as far away from I1 as SI1 is from VS2, or a really good photograph. If I had to guess, I''d say it''s a really good photograph and the flaw would be at 2 o''clock face-up; I''d guess it was a lot more visible in motion than still. I''d say pass, and keep looking ... with your budget, eventually a beauty will come along.

That said, it is a pretty cut, and might be worth looking at in person, just to see: are you near OWD, or in a position to have the stone seen by an appraiser/videotaped/otherwise verified?

 

[TBjumper]

Hey Circe: I requested additional pictures, one in palm of hand, one of a darker background. I need more real life perspective. I am having a hard time *seeing* why this is an SI3/I1. although the big about it being a "surface reaching inclusion" makes me question the integrity of the stone? Or can that be referring to the chip?

I am not close enough to OWD see the stone, but they have a return period. I don''t even want to see it if there is a structural issue.

I appreciate your words of encouragement. I thought my budget was a bit low to be honest. I like the warm stones, so I know I can get some bang for my buck. But I really want something that faces up large KWIM?

I didn''t want to go below an SI1 either, but I figured this was worth getting some opinions on.

 

[clgwli]

I''m no expert, but I am not sure I would feel comfortable with that stone. That is a very big inclusion IMO and I too would worry about the integrity of the stone. Personally I would keep looking, but I am very picky about my main stones.

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

Looks to be a pretty stone.

I would certainly want to see it in person first before deciding against it - not all SI3s and I1s are created equal!

In these cases, we advise that you let your eyes be the judge and not to get too hung up with the numbers. There are many, many gorgeous diamonds out there with "birthmarks."

Good luck with your search!

 

[TBjumper]

Date: 12/22/2009 2:20:30 PM
Author: clgwli
I''m no expert, but I am not sure I would feel comfortable with that stone. That is a very big inclusion IMO and I too would worry about the integrity of the stone. Personally I would keep looking, but I am very picky about my main stones.

Hi Jean. I am on the same page as you! But with the luxury of having PS as a community I am comfy asking opinions, I didn''t think it would hurt to ask what everyone here thought, so that I don''t run the risk of passing on a stone I shouldn''t! Thanks for your opinion

 

[TBjumper]

Hi Grace!!!

Thanks so much for your .02! I think that a little "imperfection" is the nature of the beast with an older stone, and I am comfortable with that. I just don''t want a stone that is setting me up to be a problem. Is the "surface reaching" nature of the birthmark (

) an issue in reference to the stone''s integrity?

How do the numbers look to you? I know what is normal for a RB, but not so much with an OEC or a OMC. Of course its the darn OEC that I fall in love with for an upgrade

 

[Upgradable]

I''ve circled the inclusion from the face up and face down position. This one looks very scary. Although you''d have to catch it in the right position to be visible, I think a good whack would split this stone clean in two!

 

[Circe]

Date: 12/22/2009 2:13:45 PM
Author: TBjumper
Hey Circe: I requested additional pictures, one in palm of hand, one of a darker background. I need more real life perspective. I am having a hard time *seeing* why this is an SI3/I1. although the big about it being a ''surface reaching inclusion'' makes me question the integrity of the stone? Or can that be referring to the chip?


I am not close enough to OWD see the stone, but they have a return period. I don''t even want to see it if there is a structural issue.

I appreciate your words of encouragement. I thought my budget was a bit low to be honest. I like the warm stones, so I know I can get some bang for my buck. But I really want something that faces up large KWIM?


I didn''t want to go below an SI1 either, but I figured this was worth getting some opinions on.

I''m a size queen, too, so I totally know what you mean ... but just for perspective, your budget is the same as my budget for my pendant stone, and I managed to get an E, SI1 at 1.30 carats, straight retail. I am guessing that my stone was somewhat discounted for strong blue fluorescence, but I think old cuts tend to get a bit of a discount, too, so given your desire for warmth ... yeah, keep looking. Buying shy of the 1.5 mark should make a bit of a difference, and while most old cuts are deep, some are shallow to good effect (I know we''ve had a couple on the board - I believe Elrohwan described her stone as shallow in at least one post ... if I''m wrong, let me off the hook for saying it''s one of the lovelier stones I''ve seen!). I think it''ll be worth the extra time looking to be sure you get a stone that you won''t have to worry about ....

P.S. - Not to push, but if you can say, what went wrong with the last possibility? I don''t want to pry if it was an issue with the seller, am just wondering if it was too warm for you, or ...? Just for future reference in stone suggestions.

 

[TBjumper]

Ok ok this stone is a "pass", I agree with everyone about it. Thanks for convincing me.

Circe: The last stone never made it to me.

The seller had some issues with the ring that wouldn''t bother me (as a buyer) disclosing, but out of respect for the seller I won''t, as it could be touchy for them and I *think* they do belong to the PS community.

No hard feelings toward the seller, there were some really crummy circumstances they couldn''t change. It really is a shame though, because I keep referring back to pictures of the first ring/stone I asked for help with, and the pattern on THAT stone makes my heart pitter patter.

 

[TBjumper]

Thanks Upgradeable!

I think there is an additional "something" at the 1-O''Clock spot on the picture you edited for me, down towards the center of the stone in the middle of the facet where the flower pattern should be. Am I seeing things? I think because the stone is warmer its hiding some spots that would very easily be seen with a whiter stone...