Light Return

[jp201845]

It has also been looked at and certified by Gem Scan

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It has also been looked at and certified by Gem Scan

Did you pay GemScan to look at it or did the seller pay?
As Bryan wrote its an old cert. I explaned it may appear dark because it is shallow.
It appears you are not experienced and you should find an independent appraiser in the resources tab up top.

 

[OoohShiny]

the capticha on GIA's site will not let me past. Anyone else have that problem?

Not just you! A few of us have had the same issue this past week

 

[jp201845]

Certified by Gem Scan from the seller and I'm a first time buyer with limited experience

 

[shoechick]

Certified by Gem Scan from the seller and I'm a first time buyer with limited experience

Hi @jp201845 it can be overwhelming trying to buy a diamond for the first time. There is so much info to digest. Fortunately, you found a great resource here at PriceScope.

Are you still able to return the diamond? You might want to consider doing that and doing a bit more research here. And definitely post specs and questions here before making a decision. I promise this group will not steer you wrong!

I am by no means an expert but the table on the second stone looks bigger than preferred. Before I started learning more about diamonds, I used to think a big table is better. I had no clue that a smaller table along with a proper crown angle and depth ratio makes a difference in performance.

 

[Miki Moto]

Please have a little patience with all of us.
Many people ask the same questions, sometimes responses can be ...terse. But everyone posting wants to assist.

I have a pet peeve with discussions of light return.
As noted, max light return is not what we want in a diamond.
The correct balance of brightness, contrast and scintillation is what the "best" light return is.
Given that much of this is personal preference, there's really no "best" that works for everyone.

@Rockdiamond This is the best answer ever in the discussion of super ideals and light return!

OP... you have to really take @Rockdiamond's comment here and peel it back. There is a trade off in what you choose, it is preference. Many people love to maximize light return, but there are tradeoffs.
You have to decide what your priorities are... fire (the rainbow), high contrast (the black & white), scintillation (the sparkle across to top).

@yssie This is my Eureka moment. I prefer brilliance and scintillation which to me, makes a diamond come to life. Fire and contrast are not priorities for me. I think that has been my issue with those earrings...the angles, they draw my eye deep into the facets to see the fire when I really just want to see the scintillation dancing on the top table which is what I see in my e-ring.

Did that make sense in laymen's terms? If that does not make sense, then I am back to square one on finding the perfect balance. And does that make me doomed for super ideals (as in... I'd love to be refined enough to love Dom Perignon, but my taste buds say Martini & Rossi)?

OP... apologies for the side thread to @yssie. @yssie and I have been discussing our different preferences on stones and I saw @yssie is on this thread. You can truly see... it's all about preference. There is not perfect set of numbers, because everything is relative to that specific diamond.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Good advice all.
This particular stone, as long as there are no issues from the twinning (I believe GIA over do this because they do too much microscope grading) which is almost always not an issue in SI1.
So based on it proportions it will lack brilliance and scintillation on close inspection - so if the wearer and frequent lookers are short sighted - the stone may be great. If you can focus from 8 inches or less you will not like the look. If 14 inches 35cm is as close up as you can see you should love the stone.

 

[jp201845]

Hi @jp201845 it can be overwhelming trying to buy a diamond for the first time. There is so much info to digest. Fortunately, you found a great resource here at PriceScope.

Are you still able to return the diamond? You might want to consider doing that and doing a bit more research here. And definitely post specs and questions here before making a decision. I promise this group will not steer you wrong!

I am by no means an expert but the table on the second stone looks bigger than preferred. Before I started learning more about diamonds, I used to think a big table is better. I had no clue that a smaller table along with a proper crown angle and depth ratio makes a difference in performance.

I'm still able to return the diamond if I choose to get another one with better proportions.

 

[jp201845]

Good advice all.
This particular stone, as long as there are no issues from the twinning (I believe GIA over do this because they do too much microscope grading) which is almost always not an issue in SI1.
So based on it proportions it will lack brilliance and scintillation on close inspection - so if the wearer and frequent lookers are short sighted - the stone may be great. If you can focus from 8 inches or less you will not like the look. If 14 inches 35cm is as close up as you can see you should love the stone.

Thanks Gary for your great advice... 14 inches would be an ideal viewing distance for me and my fiance we will love the stone.

 

[jp201845]

Between the first and second diamond, the second diamond has better light performance? Anyone's opinions are appreciated thanks

 

[OoohShiny]

The HCA tool is designed to filter stones with crown and pavilion that return light better than others.

Your second choice is therefore an improvement on your first choice.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Further to what @OoohShiny said above, we cannot advise you on actual light performance as we do not know the level of faceting precision. ASET, IS and H&A would provide more insight. Also, clarity characteristics could potentially factor into actual light performance.

 

[jp201845]

Any feedback is appreciated

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Any feedback is appreciated

Feedback. I see a ring, 2 fingers and a price tag

 

[jp201845]

Feedback. I see a ring, 2 fingers and a price tag

Sorry if the picture isn't clear Gary just want advice if the diamond looks hazy or cloudy. Will try to post another pic that's closer and more clear.

 

[OoohShiny]

Sorry if the picture isn't clear Gary just want advice if the diamond looks hazy or cloudy. Will try to post another pic that's closer and more clear.

Without a macro lens and 360 video, it is impossible to assess any stone anywhere near accurately from pictures alone.

As above, IS, ASET, H&A scope images greatly assist. The grading report number also helps.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sorry if the picture isn't clear Gary just want advice if the diamond looks hazy or cloudy. Will try to post another pic that's closer and more clear.

even macro images and 360 videos will not help. You need an expert appraiser

 

[jp201845]

I have another option now 1.5 ct SI1 G triple x GIA. Report # 6281251192

Table 61%
Depth 59.9%
Crown Angle 33
Pavillion Angle 40.8

Would this be a better choice than my last one based on numbers? Thanks in advance for any help .

 

[jp201845]

Tried to upload the GIA report but giving me problems sorry for any inconvenience

 

[OoohShiny]

To repeat the point made earlier, you cannot truely analyse a stone without IdealScope and ASETscope images.

We cannot help very much without them.


Without them, you are buying a car that has 4 wheels and 2 doors that is 12 feet long and 6 feet wide, but you have no idea what it looks like or what engine it has. It could be an Alfa Romeo 4C or it could be a Hyundai.

Wouldn't you prefer to know what you are buying before laying out thousands of dollars?

Like a car, a diamond suffers heavy depreciation the moment it is 'driven off the forecourt', even if it is only days old since purchase, so don't make an expensive mistake - know exactly what you're buying.

 

[jp201845]

To repeat the point made earlier, you cannot truely analyse a stone without IdealScope and ASETscope images.

We cannot help very much without them.


Without them, you are buying a car that has 4 wheels and 2 doors that is 12 feet long and 6 feet wide, but you have no idea what it looks like or what engine it has. It could be an Alfa Romeo 4C or it could be a Hyundai.

Wouldn't you prefer to know what you are buying before laying out thousands of dollars??

Thanks for the response, but I don't have the luxury of looking at IS mages before buying the stone ...this is based on numbers and proportions only. I understand this isn't the best way to buy a diamond but that's the situation I'm in. So based on numbers only which would be the better diamond and why?

 

[OoohShiny]

Thanks for the response, but I don't have the luxury of looking at IS mages before buying the stone ...this is based on numbers and proportions only. I understand this isn't the best way to buy a diamond but that's the situation I'm in. So based on numbers only which would be the better diamond and why?

Are you 'stuck' with your local jeweller?

If so, can you only pick from 'in stock' stones?

Or are they ordering in from the Rapaport system for you?


If the latter, the Search tool at the top of the forum lists (I think) every stone available worldwide (but I may be wrong!) so you should use it to see what stones are available that fit your parameters - run your possible choices through the HCA tool and post the angles etc. up, and we can help sift them.


Can you quantify 'better' quickly? Do you prefer 'splintery' white light return? Or fat flashes of colourd 'fire'? Different cuts perform differently.

 

[jp201845]

Are you 'stuck' with your local jeweller?

If so, can you only pick from 'in stock' stones?

Or are they ordering in from the Rapaport system for you?


If the latter, the Search tool at the top of the forum lists (I think) every stone available worldwide (but I may be wrong!) so you should use it to see what stones are available that fit your parameters - run your possible choices through the HCA tool and post the angles etc. up, and we can help sift them.


Can you quantify 'better' quickly? Do you prefer 'splintery' white light return? Or fat flashes of colourd 'fire'? Different cuts perform differently.

You are right im stuck with my jeweler and he is using the Rapaport system for price. I'm from Canada and paying a premium. If I could do this over again I would go to the US directly and get a better quality diamond and a better price. As for the optics for a 60/60 diamond I'm ok with a splintery look and bold flashes. How will the fire be on this particular diamond based on the numbers?

 

[jp201845]

I do prefer more brightness and white light over fire. Will I still get fire with the 33 ca 40.8 pa combo ? Would I also get alot of sparkle with this combo?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I do prefer more brightness and white light over fire. Will I still get fire with the 33 ca 40.8 pa combo ? Would I also get alot of sparkle with this combo?

I think many people told you before they can not look up GIA reports and asked you to put the image here. Hard to help if you wont help.
Persoanlly I do not like tables over 60 for +1ct diamonds. They loose scintillation and look a biit flat.
If it is to be worn in a pendant that is not as much an issue as in a ring. The fire is also reduced. 40.8 33 does not worry me at all.

 

[jp201845]

GIA report attached hope this works

Between the 2 reports which would be a better performer based on proportions and GIA info ?

 

[OoohShiny]

Lower crown heights reduce the opportunity for dispersion. This means that lower crowns have less coloured fire and more white light return. A 33 crown will tend towards white rather than fire.

 

[jp201845]

Lower crown heights reduce the opportunity for dispersion. This means that lower crowns have less coloured fire and more white light return. A 33 crown will tend towards white rather than fire.

Your thoughts on this particular diamond with crown/pavilion angles. Is the Crown too steep at 36 with a pavillion angle at 40.6?

 

[yssie]

2176464339 has a 2014 report - the stone is likely a trade-in. You will want trusted eyes to ensure that current condition of the stone matches what's described in the report. This one also has MBF.

6281251192 - for someone who prefers white light to colour in any given lighting environment, as you indicated earlier a few posts ago, this stone holds promise. The 33/40.8 combo is fine, and depending on what lower halves actually are (GIA rounds to 5% unfortunately) - could be a bright, flashy stone. Are you able to get any photos of it?

5283516885 is a very different flavour from 6281251192. Again, nothing on the report is concerning, though you'll need to check that it's eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are (grade-making crystal under the table). Fluor grade is Faint.

What is your opinion on fluorescence? If it's important to you you will definitely want to have trusted eyes vet your final choice - GIA occasionally seems to pull fluor grades out of hats.

 

[jp201845]

2176464339 has a 2014 report - the stone is likely a trade-in. You will want trusted eyes to ensure that current condition of the stone matches what's described in the report. This one also has MBF.

6281251192 - for someone who prefers white light to colour in any given lighting environment, as you indicated earlier a few posts ago, this stone holds promise. The 33/40.8 combo is fine, and depending on what lower halves actually are (GIA rounds to 5% unfortunately) - could be a bright, flashy stone. Are you able to get any photos of it?

5283516885 is a very different flavour from 6281251192. Again, nothing on the report is concerning, though you'll need to check that it's eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are (grade-making crystal under the table). Fluor grade is Faint.

What is your opinion on fluorescence? If it's important to you you will definitely want to have trusted eyes vet your final choice - GIA occasionally seems to pull fluor grades out of hats.

Thanks for responding, I don't have any pictures at the moment but I'm working on that. The diamond that kind of stands out the most to me is the GIA 6281251192 since it has no flaur and the 33/40.8 compliment each other. Would there be any concern with a 61 table on the larger side ? And also Looking at the GIA report with the inclusions on the table which look to be crystals compared to others would that be a big concern as far as not
" eye clean " ?