Okay...help me pick a diamond. *Included Sarin Reports*

[tinarie01]

1)
Report: GIA
Shape: Round Brilliant
Carat: 1.30
Color: I
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 60.3
Table: 57
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.09-7.13X4.29

Link to site GIA Certificate (may need to enlarge):
http://www.bluenile.com/certs/450/GIA12910151_zoom.jpeg

Sarin:
Crown 35.1 16.1%
Pavil. 40.8 43.1%

 

[tinarie01]

2)
Report: GIA
Shape: Round Brilliant
Carat: 1.29
Color: I
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 62.0
Table: 54
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.00-7.04X4.35

Link to site GIA Certificate (may need to enlarge):
http://www.bluenile.com/certs/4/GIA13150582.jpeg

Sarin Report:
Crown 34.5 14.9% 0
Pavil. 40.9 43.2% 0

 

[tinarie01]

Bump...I hope someone can help. I included the Sarin Reports like I was asked to!

 

[hoorray]

The sarin reports don't show up for me, so can't help you there. However, with SI2's I would get detailed info on the inclusions, including magnified pictures and they would influence the decision along with cut and price. Without inclusion info and crown and pavilion angles, these look like very similar stones, so I would let those two things along with price differentiate them.

 

[oldminer]

Inclusion appearance and type are crucial, as stated above. Number 1 will be a little larger looking as it is not as deep. All things being equal, I'd look at #1 as have the better potential appearance. This may not be reality, however..You need to use your own eyes for this sort of clarity range.....

 

[valeria101]

I only see the two GIA certs, no Sarin... Actually, if you just quote the crown and pavilion angles it would still be allot more to comment, even with the rest of the Sarin data left aside.

The two inclusions plots could be brothers: a couple of large included crystals and this is it! Assuming all these inclusions are colorless, the first plot (with three smaller inclusions and the largest tucked under a pavilion facet) seems more promission than the second (one large 'blob' right under the table). However, since the plots cannot show the 3D position of the inclusions, this is way too much guessing. There must be a way to get pictures (and Sarin data) on these stones

 

[tinarie01]

Okay...I added the Crown and Pavilion Info.

As far as the inclusions, the Jeweler said that for the 1.29 the stone is eye-clean to the "normal eye." And that it took him about 30 seconds for him to find it once he knew where it was.

The 1.30 stone he said was eye clean from the crown. Not sure if that means that the inclusions are visible from anywhere else.

Both stone's inclusions are clear/white. Hope that helps guys. Let me know if I need to add anything else.

 

[hoorray]

They both look pretty well cut. The first one has a better spread, the second has better light return, according to the HCA. #1: 1.7 TIC VG X VG X #2: 1.6 TIC X X VG VG. The first one will look slightly larger due to the larger diameter. It sounds to me as if you can see the inclusions from the side on the first one.

I would specifically ask the vendor about that and get them to be much more specific about the inclusions. Do they break the surface anywhere? How visible are they from different angles -- top, sides, etc.? Can they send you pictures?

They look as if they could be very nice stones. If they are from Bluenile, they have a good return policy, so you could even consider sending them both to a local appraiser to see them and choose.

 

[tinarie01]

Thank You for your advice. I really do appreciate it.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/12/2004 2:02:10 PM tinarie01 wrote:




The 1.30 stone he said was eye clean from the crown. Not sure if that means that the inclusions are visible from anywhere else.

----------------

It does. These are SI2 - I would not expect the stones to be clean no matter how you look at them. It's nice if the inclusions are transparent and not very obvious face up (menaing looking at the top of the diamond, the crown) from different angles - as one may look at the mounted stone. However, the inclusions may be easy to spot from the pavilion side (bottom-up) - a perspective hidden by the setting. Actually, this is why diamond clarity cannot be graded precisely for a set stone. For some buyers it makes sense to consider what the stone should look like mounted (and I suppose you do to, since all the stones you lined up are SI2) for some not... "Eye clean" means "eye clean as set". There were a few threads with this issue and it is better said before you buy the stone, hence this long post

The new cut details for the stones look very nice, definitely good to know!

With the info present, inclusions remain the decisive factor

 

[valeria101]

They say >.

This makes for a great explanation to write a novel about

and looking at the "porttraits" below, I would dear translate it into: neither inclusion is a disaster and the single big one in the 1.29 dissapears at arm's length but can be spoted upon close inspection. The 1.3's plot sems more encouraging to me but since this is not my choice... I cannot give the verdict.