opinion

[AEM27]

Would love some thoughts on this one, looking for a super ideal cut.

55% table
61.7 depth
34.5 angle
40.6 angle

 

[sledge]

Proportions make it a contender. I'd prefer to see the pavilion in the 40.7 or 40.8 range as that would be more complimentary with the 34.5 crown. However, there are plenty of cases where the 34.5/40.6 combo works.

Really, I'd want an ASET or idealscope image to confirm light performance. H&A images would be nice to confirm symmetry but highly unlikely you will get all them. If shopping through a local B&M that doesn't have this stuff, then order an ASET scope from AGS or David Atlas and confirm prior to purchase.

I might also add a video or photos might help, if available.

What worries me the most is the clarity plot. I know it's an SI2 but looks rather nasty and about 1/3 of the stone appears to be heavily included. Grade setting inclusion is clouds, which worry me as I anticipate the stone will look cloudy/hazy as a result.

Additionally on the left side in the notes, I can't see the whole note but I think it says "additional clouds not shown". If so, that would make the situation even worse. This stone definitely needs checked to ensure it's eye clean and not hazy.

 

[sledge]

I might add that note I can't fully read could say "additional surfacing or internal graining is not shown".

Looks like there is a note about pinpoints not shown too, but generally those are minor.

Unfortunately all this stuff combined really does have me doubting this stone.

 

[rockysalamander]

SI2 with clouds will very very likely be problematic.

But, being a super-ideal diamond is more than just proportions. It is about the precision and narrow parameters applied to the crystal such that they are in narrow bands, they have high meet-point precision. As importantly, they PROVE their claims with ASET, images, and AGS certification.

You can find well-proportioned diamonds that will beautiful and make the wearer happy in the open market. You may not need a super-ideal or they may not work for your budget. But, open-market diamonds cannot be called super-ideal.

This is a super-ideal with similar specs, although higher clarity.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4016766.htm
https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...2.656-g-vvs2-round-diamond-ags-c-104103128014

For an SI2, I'd 100% trust HPD. They have helped several find amazing stones. I'd ask for a video, but this looks pretty amazing.
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD7020

 

[AEM27]

Proportions make it a contender. I'd prefer to see the pavilion in the 40.7 or 40.8 range as that would be more complimentary with the 34.5 crown. However, there are plenty of cases where the 34.5/40.6 combo works.

Really, I'd want an ASET or idealscope image to confirm light performance. H&A images would be nice to confirm symmetry but highly unlikely you will get all them. If shopping through a local B&M that doesn't have this stuff, then order an ASET scope from AGS or David Atlas and confirm prior to purchase.

I might also add a video or photos might help, if available.

What worries me the most is the clarity plot. I know it's an SI2 but looks rather nasty and about 1/3 of the stone appears to be heavily included. Grade setting inclusion is clouds, which worry me as I anticipate the stone will look cloudy/hazy as a result.

Additionally on the left side in the notes, I can't see the whole note but I think it says "additional clouds not shown". If so, that would make the situation even worse. This stone definitely needs checked to ensure it's eye clean and not hazy.

 

[AEM27]

Yes it does say additional clouds. I posted the scope pictures above.

 

[blueMA]

It's not an H&A and slightly lacks optical symmetry and precision, but it looks like it'd be a great looking stone in person.

 

[lovedogs]

The images look great.

 

[sledge]

Thanks for posting the images. This stone lacks the precision optical symmetry of a true H&A stone.

As @rockysalamander noted a true super ideal would have AGS000 certification and H&A symmetry along with all imaging to PROVE their excellence.

The performance images provided aren't super ideal perfect, but they aren't bad either. If super ideals were a 10, maybe these are an 8-9. For the right money it could be a bargain.

Again, the real issue isn't the performance or proportions but more really it's the clarity. As both myself and Rocky noted, this stone is nasty for an SI2. Even if it was perfect in all other regards, this is not a stone I'd get all excited about as I think the clouds will make it look hazy/cloudy/milky and consequently it will have transparency issues and not be able to reflect properly like a super ideal (or maybe more appropriately ideal cut) stone should exhibit.

PROCEED WITH CAUTION!!!

 

[Karl_K]

It needs to be vetted by a person viewing the stone in person for issues from the inclusions.

 

[blueMA]

this stone is nasty for an SI2

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. I agree with @Karl_K that this stone needs to be vetted to rule out transparency issue that could affect its performance, because although the cert clarity plot looks nasty, the diamond photo looks decent for a typical SI2s available these days. At a good price, it could be a bargain.

 

[sledge]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. I agree with @Karl_K that this stone needs to be vetted to rule out transparency issue that could affect its performance, because although the cert clarity plot looks nasty, the diamond photo looks decent for a typical SI2s available these days. At a good price, it could be a bargain.

Agree clarity plots can sometimes look worse than the actual inclusions. I'm not sure it makes me feel any better this is "typical" for an SI2 of today's standards. Especially when you combine the fact most SI2's arent eye clean, are more laxed than yesteryear SI2 stones, approx 1/3 this stone has clouds and there is a note about more clouds not shown.

Honestly I'd be more surprised if the stone doesn't have transparency issues than if it does.

I hope I'm wrong. I can eat the crow if so, but I'm not okay giving the OP false hope its not a major concern and have them put their hard earned money on the line for it.

Please OP, carefully vet and verify this stone for transparency issues. I've mentioned it multiple times now as well as Rocky, Karl and blueMA. While we may not all agree on the severity, we all see it as a potential issue.

 

[doberman]

Clarity plots always look awful lol. I'd only be concerned about the clouds, particularly if they were the grade-setting inclusion. You might have to see for yourself. The images look very good. I think that PS may make a bit too much fuss over cut, but I confess I'd only be comfortable buying a stone that scored an AGS000.

 

[bmfang]

Plot looks nasty but the images show a stone that does not appear to have transparency issues. A video of how the stone performs through various angles would help us more in coming to that conclusion (or otherwise).

I’d want to know the actual report number.

 

[sledge]

Time is limited today but I was checking back on this thread. Reviewing the images again I see where OP tried to "whiteout" the company name on the lower right side.

I think these are IDJ, so honestly I'd ask Yeukitel about the clarity. I haven't worked with him personally but he seems to go above and beyond to help his customers. As such I don't think he would give you bad information on the transparency.

 

[AEM27]

Here is the AGS scoring someone earlier had asked about, it says all 0's so I was confused why it would only be a 8 or 9 out of 10 in the comments above?

 

[AEM27]

I went to see the stone today (it was selected for me, not just something I had seen on the internet but I wanted to get an opinion from your guys as well since you know more than I do) and I looked really hard for cloudiness per everyone's advice. I also asked the vender to show me a comparable higher clarity diamond for a side by side so they put it by another diamond of the same exact size and color, but vs2, I spent 10 minutes comparing the two blindly with just the naked eye, not being able to see any difference in cloudiness or clarity between the two, I actually told him not to tell me which was which one was which and I blindly choose this one as what I thought was the more expensive better clarity stone, so I'm moving forward with it, fingers crossed!

 

[lovedogs]

I think it looks really good for an SI2. my only concern was cloudiness, but if IDJ (Yeukitiel in particular) says it's not cloudy and your eyes love it, I'd go for it. The images looked really good.

 

[bmfang]

It may be AGS000, but you can see an unevenness in the results for the pavilion mains (40.4-41 degrees). The crown angles are cut to tighter tolerances.

 

[sledge]

@AEM27, I am glad that you confirmed there was no cloudy/hazy issues going on. That was my biggest worry. Sorry for making a big deal out of it. As promised I am gladly eating crow.

Also I'm the one that said an 8-9 with the assumption a true super ideal is a 10. You can see there was symmetry issues in all the previous images you posted, but check out the hearts. The first is the original I pulled off the SARIN report you just posted at original resolution. The second is that same picture zoomed to 500x. Notice all the inconsistencies?

Then look at your SARIN report. Actual pavilion values range from 40.4 to 41.0. Literally all over the place.

 

[AEM27]

Will the inconsistency's you mention really take away a lot from the sparkle and beauty of the stone? It's so confusing, you'd think "000" you'd be set, there is too much to look out for! The clouds were a great point, better to look at those things now and "get over it' one way or another then notice them afterwards.

 

[lovedogs]

I think the reason ppl are talking about small inconsistencies in the images is bc your first post specified that you wanted a super ideal. If you had said that you were looking for a good performing stone (close to super ideal ranges), but wanted to stick with a lower price point for the sake of size, we'd all be telling you to go for it. We just want to make sure you know this isn't quite super ideal.

 

[blueMA]

You chose with your eyes, and compared against another more $ stone. That's all that matters.
Just a bit less than perfect H&A strict standard does NOT mean that it won't perform just as well.

To read more of H&A to understand what's wrong with your hearts, go here. https://www.heartsandarrows.com/grading-hearts-arrows-ideal-cut-diamond-pattern.aspx

You probably paid about 20-30% premium off a branded H&A stone at a bargain - a great job, so enjoy your lovely sparkly stone.

 

[AEM27]

I think the reason ppl are talking about small inconsistencies in the images is bc your first post specified that you wanted a super ideal. If you had said that you were looking for a good performing stone (close to super ideal ranges), but wanted to stick with a lower price point for the sake of size, we'd all be telling you to go for it. We just want to make sure you know this isn't quite super ideal.

I don't know what I was looking for but I just wanted a really really gorgeous sparkly stone 2.3 or more carats (because I lost my e-ring which was that size a few years ago) and I know this website educated me that Cut was absolutely critical. My biggest concern was getting something this size and it potentially looking cheap and gaudy, lifeless etc..

 

[lovedogs]

I don't know what I was looking for but I just wanted a really really gorgeous sparkly stone 2.3 or more carats (because I lost my e-ring which was that size a few years ago) and I know this website educated me that Cut was absolutely critical. My biggest concern was getting something this size and it potentially looking cheap and gaudy, lifeless etc..

I think this one won't have those issues.

 

[kmoro]

Will the inconsistency's you mention really take away a lot from the sparkle and beauty of the stone? It's so confusing, you'd think "000" you'd be set, there is too much to look out for! The clouds were a great point, better to look at those things now and "get over it' one way or another then notice them afterwards.

In theory, those inconsistencies can cause a problem. But in this case, you have light performance tests that prove they are not. Now that you know the inclusions are not an issue either, you’re golden!

 

[yssie]

Stop.

You spent ten minutes comparing the stone to another.
You have “uneducated” eyes - they haven’t yet learnt what they’re looking at or looking for.
What lighting conditions did you compare in?
What colour was the comparison stone?
Did you compare at various real-world tilt angles?
What’s the date on the report?

The clarity plot is a mess. It’s a larger SI2. The primary grade-making inclusions are clouds. The crystal is black and sizable enough that it impacts light return in the IS/ASET, and those are not fine-grained tools for analysis of impact of clarity on light return (you won’t see issues unless this impact is significant). These facts may or may not have practical impact on the stone. Unfortunately your eyes are not qualified to judge that at the moment - there may well be issues with the stone that a little more time and experience would reveal as undesirable.

I strongly recommend that you
1. Have the stone looked at by independent, trusted eyes. Some local appraisers may be found through PS’ tool. If you tell us where you are - state, city if CA/NY/NY we can make some recommendations.
2. Discuss an upgrade policy with your vendor, if you haven’t already. Again, your eyes will learn to “read” diamonds over time, and inclusions that are insignificant now may become something you’d like to change down the road.

All of this is assuming you’re the wearer. If you’re buying for someone else I recommend simply passing.

 

[AEM27]

Stop.

You spent ten minutes comparing the stone to another.
You have “uneducated” eyes - they haven’t yet learnt what they’re looking at or looking for.
What lighting conditions did you compare in?
What colour was the comparison stone?
Did you compare at various real-world tilt angles?
What’s the date on the report?

The clarity plot is a mess. It’s a larger SI2. The primary grade-making inclusions are clouds. The crystal is black and sizable enough that it impacts light return in the IS/ASET, and those are not fine-grained tools for analysis of impact of clarity on light return (you won’t see issues unless this impact is significant). These facts may or may not have practical impact on the stone. Unfortunately your eyes are not qualified to judge that at the moment - there may well be issues with the stone that a little more time and experience would reveal as undesirable.

I strongly recommend that you
1. Have the stone looked at by independent, trusted eyes. Some local appraisers may be found through PS’ tool. If you tell us where you are - state, city if CA/NY/NY we can make some recommendations.
2. Discuss an upgrade policy with your vendor, if you haven’t already. Again, your eyes will learn to “read” diamonds over time, and inclusions that are insignificant now may become something you’d like to change down the road.

All of this is assuming you’re the wearer. If you’re buying for someone else I recommend simply passing.

 

[AEM27]

Oh boy. I was good now your stressing me out. The date is August 2018, why does that matter? I am buying the diamond in NYC. An appraiser wouldn’t have been a bad idea I suppose. How much does that cost and can I get it done today type thing?

 

[blueMA]

Oh boy. I was good now your stressing me out. The date is August 2018, why does that matter? I am buying the diamond in NYC. An appraiser wouldn’t have been a bad idea I suppose. How much does that cost and can I get it done today type thing?

If you've only looked at the stone under a jeweler lighting, then be sure to see it under various lighting including the direct sun as well. Sometimes the internal graining and cloud can make a diamond look much worse under direct stronger light.

Given your AGS report and your diamond photos, pretty damn close to 100% of the general population you're surrounded with will not be able to detect the stone is anything less than perfect through the naked eye.

The stone is in fact a 2.52 ct stone, and you're still dropping quite a bit of money so it pays to be extra cautious. I'm sure you felt it was more than an adequate replacement compared to your lost e-ring to move forward, but it's definitely a good idea to get a professional appraisal to be on the safer side, especially if you don't trust your eye.