Opinions Needed: 1.25 SI1 F RB

[classiccushion]

Hi Diamond Experts,

I'm looking for opinions on the following diamond as a whole; based on its GIA report. What are its pros/cons? Thoughts about its clarity and inclusions? Size proportions? Anything you can share about this particular stone is helpful! Unfortunately, I don't have a link to view it online, etc.

Thank you, your comments are much appreciated!

 

[CedarRapids]

It's not a particularly good cut, not predicted to have great light return based on HCA (3.6), and it's got some worrisome inclusions.

What is your budget, its cost, and your plan for this diamond? Context is everything.

 

[yssie]

Numbers could be fine, depending on optical symmetry (GIA does not consider this in grading, and does not indicate on report), numbers on report are averaged around eight sections of diamond, then rounded, so could be fine depending on exactly what ranges went into the averaged rounded numbers on the report

Cut grade reduced b/c of thick girdle - could be unsightly, and is hiding weight (weight contributing to overly thick girdle when it another stone of similar proportions with thinner girdle it would instead yield larger spread)

Have your vendor confirm eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are - grade-making inclusion is crystal(s).

 

[classiccushion]

It's not a particularly good cut, not predicted to have great light return based on HCA (3.6), and it's got some worrisome inclusions.

What is your budget, its cost, and your plan for this diamond? Context is everything.

It is used for an E ring, appraises at $11,200 ... what inclusions are "worrisome" to you? Is there a setting, etc. you would use to bring out the positive aspects (ie. color) in the stone?

 

[classiccushion]

Numbers could be fine, depending on optical symmetry (GIA does not consider this in grading, and does not indicate on report), numbers on report are averaged around eight sections of diamond, then rounded, so could be fine depending on exactly what ranges went into the averaged rounded numbers on the report

Cut grade reduced b/c of thick girdle - could be unsightly, and is hiding weight (weight contributing to overly thick girdle when it another stone of similar proportions with thinner girdle it would instead yield larger spread)

Have your vendor confirm eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are - grade-making inclusion is crystal(s).

Thank you for your reply; a lot of "could be's" ...

How would the the optical symmetry and if the stone is unsightly be determined?

Do the inclusions initially create a cause for concern in regards to if the stone is eye clean? Anything in particular to be wary of when it comes to crystal inclusions?

 

[tyty333]

Numbers could be fine, depending on optical symmetry (GIA does not consider this in grading, and does not indicate on report), numbers on report are averaged around eight sections of diamond, then rounded, so could be fine depending on exactly what ranges went into the averaged rounded numbers on the report

Cut grade reduced b/c of thick girdle - could be unsightly, and is hiding weight (weight contributing to overly thick girdle when it another stone of similar proportions with thinner girdle it would instead yield larger spread)

Have your vendor confirm eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are - grade-making inclusion is crystal(s).

Thank you for your reply; a lot of "could be's" ...

How would the the optical symmetry and if the stone is unsightly be determined?
Optical symmetry is probably fine...we look for very good or better here. Unsightly can only be
determined by viewing the stone. Light return can be determined from an idealscope image.

Do the inclusions initially create a cause for concern in regards to if the stone is eye clean? Anything in particular to be wary of when it comes to crystal inclusions?

Eye-cleanliness can not be determined from the report. You have to see the stone or have a trusted vendor view and verify for
you.

Request an idealscope image to check on the light return as well as asking the vendor whether it is eye-clean to your
standards (3 inches, 6 inches, etc.).

 

[CedarRapids]

It's not a particularly good cut, not predicted to have great light return based on HCA (3.6), and it's got some worrisome inclusions.

What is your budget, its cost, and your plan for this diamond? Context is everything.

It is used for an E ring, appraises at $11,200 ... what inclusions are "worrisome" to you? Is there a setting, etc. you would use to bring out the positive aspects (ie. color) in the stone?

Perhaps not the best choice of word. I just felt that the location of the inclusions under the table means that you have to carefully look at that area to see if it's eye-clean. I wasn't referring to the frailty of the stone or anything.

 

[classiccushion]

Numbers could be fine, depending on optical symmetry (GIA does not consider this in grading, and does not indicate on report), numbers on report are averaged around eight sections of diamond, then rounded, so could be fine depending on exactly what ranges went into the averaged rounded numbers on the report

Cut grade reduced b/c of thick girdle - could be unsightly, and is hiding weight (weight contributing to overly thick girdle when it another stone of similar proportions with thinner girdle it would instead yield larger spread)

Have your vendor confirm eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are - grade-making inclusion is crystal(s).

Thank you for your reply; a lot of "could be's" ...

How would the the optical symmetry and if the stone is unsightly be determined?
Optical symmetry is probably fine...we look for very good or better here. Unsightly can only be
determined by viewing the stone. Light return can be determined from an idealscope image.

Do the inclusions initially create a cause for concern in regards to if the stone is eye clean? Anything in particular to be wary of when it comes to crystal inclusions?

Eye-cleanliness can not be determined from the report. You have to see the stone or have a trusted vendor view and verify for
you.

Request an idealscope image to check on the light return as well as asking the vendor whether it is eye-clean to your
standards (3 inches, 6 inches, etc.).

Thanks for your thoughts, not sure why it says "trade" next to my user-name. I am not a trade professional by any means!

This diamond comes from a chain store and is beyond return/exchange. So, in this case "fine" will have to work for us. The band the stone sits in (small pave stones set in a channel) has been turning champagne very quickly and the pave stones are constantly coming loose. We met with a jeweler in our area who indicated the wedding band and E ring are poorly made with a poor quality of gold. We are in the process of working with him to determine if we'll have the style recreated in platinum.

Remaking the bands with a trusted jeweler might right one of our chain store wrongs. However, we've only met with the jeweler once and he has not spoken on the quality of the stone yet, just on the process of remaking the wedding band and E ring. I was hoping to gain some insight here; is it worth remaking the bands, is there something that can be done or suggested to highlight this stone?

We were thinking adding something like the basket in this ring http://www.ritani.com/diamond_engagement_rings/item/1101/in_collection/5 around the prongs may disguise inclusions. That is basically the current E ring, but it does not have a basket and instead has standard prongs.

I do appreciate the suggested questions about the stone; that will help when we meet with the jeweler regarding the stone quality. Thanks again for all the help!

 

[yssie]

Numbers could be fine, depending on optical symmetry (GIA does not consider this in grading, and does not indicate on report), numbers on report are averaged around eight sections of diamond, then rounded, so could be fine depending on exactly what ranges went into the averaged rounded numbers on the report

Cut grade reduced b/c of thick girdle - could be unsightly, and is hiding weight (weight contributing to overly thick girdle when it another stone of similar proportions with thinner girdle it would instead yield larger spread)

Have your vendor confirm eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are - grade-making inclusion is crystal(s).

Thank you for your reply; a lot of "could be's" ...

How would the the optical symmetry and if the stone is unsightly be determined?

Do the inclusions initially create a cause for concern in regards to if the stone is eye clean? Anything in particular to be wary of when it comes to crystal inclusions?

I missed a critical point earlier: overall depth is fine. So the stone is hiding some weight in the overly thick girdle, just not terribly, horrifically much, and overall spread is reduced thanks to high crown and thick girdle, but it's not a crisis - each girdle thickness is a range - so there's thick-almost-medium and thick-almost-verythick...

Some points in reply:


-If the overly thick girdle is unsightly to you depends, as tyty says, entirely on what you think when you see the stone.

-Disagree with tyty re optical symmetry - the labs grade physical "facet meet point" symmetry, good, vgood, ex, etc., they do not give any indication of optical symmetry (commonly judged by the layman by the precision of the hearts and arrows patterns in photos). Without more info we have no idea of whether the stone has decent, high, poor optical symmetry, and this can make a big difference to both appearance and light return. You have seen the stone in-person, what do YOU think?

-Decide what "eyeclean" means to you and carefully check the stone in a variety of lighting types to see if it meets your specifications. The inclusion map is quite literally a roadmap taken through a 10x loupe - tells you nothing at all about real-world visibility of the inclusions noted. More on clarity grading here

 

[classiccushion]

Numbers could be fine, depending on optical symmetry (GIA does not consider this in grading, and does not indicate on report), numbers on report are averaged around eight sections of diamond, then rounded, so could be fine depending on exactly what ranges went into the averaged rounded numbers on the report

Cut grade reduced b/c of thick girdle - could be unsightly, and is hiding weight (weight contributing to overly thick girdle when it another stone of similar proportions with thinner girdle it would instead yield larger spread)

Have your vendor confirm eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are - grade-making inclusion is crystal(s).

Thank you for your reply; a lot of "could be's" ...

How would the the optical symmetry and if the stone is unsightly be determined?

Do the inclusions initially create a cause for concern in regards to if the stone is eye clean? Anything in particular to be wary of when it comes to crystal inclusions?

I missed a critical point earlier: overall depth is fine. So the stone is hiding some weight in the overly thick girdle, just not terribly, horrifically much, and overall spread is reduced thanks to high crown and thick girdle, but it's not a crisis - each girdle thickness is a range - so there's thick-almost-medium and thick-almost-verythick...

Some points in reply:


-If the overly thick girdle is unsightly to you depends, as tyty says, entirely on what you think when you see the stone.

-Disagree with tyty re optical symmetry - the labs grade physical "facet meet point" symmetry, good, vgood, ex, etc., they do not give any indication of optical symmetry (commonly judged by the layman by the precision of the hearts and arrows patterns in photos). Without more info we have no idea of whether the stone has decent, high, poor optical symmetry, and this can make a big difference to both appearance and light return. You have seen the stone in-person, what do YOU think?

-Decide what "eyeclean" means to you and carefully check the stone in a variety of lighting types to see if it meets your specifications. The inclusion map is quite literally a roadmap taken through a 10x loupe - tells you nothing at all about real-world visibility of the inclusions noted. More on clarity grading here

What girdle "range" does the stone fall under? Personally, I am not bothered by the girdle's thinkness. I suppose it would be something only a skilled gemologist or diamond expert would know?

I do have a photo or two of the stone I could post, both in the setting and out of the setting but they are not super high quality. Would this help identify the optical symmetry? Otherwise, I will have to rely on our jeweler to provide the "eye clean" assessment as well as the stone's appearance and light return and report back.

Finally, back to the bands. I was hoping to gain some insight here; is it worth remaking the bands, is there anything you would suggest to highlight this stone? Could adding something like a basket around the prongs disguise inclusions visible from the side view or takeaway the chances of someone noticing the thicker girdle?

 

[Amys Bling]

If there are any visible inclusions from the facedown view I would have the jeweler orient the stone so that a prong can cover up visible inclusions.

Since the return/exchange period is long gone- no need to focus on that. As for a setting, I don't know what will be bet foe covering inclusions from a side view- hard to make decisions with a picture of the stone...

 

[yssie]

What girdle "range" does the stone fall under? 4.0%, toward the 'thinner side' of "thick". Personally, I am not bothered by the girdle's thinkness.Then that's all we care about. I suppose it would be something only a skilled gemologist or diamond expert would know?

I do have a photo or two of the stone I could post, both in the setting and out of the setting but they are not super high quality. Would this help identify the optical symmetry? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what we can tell from the photos and what angle they were taken from. Otherwise, I will have to rely on our jeweler to provide the "eye clean" assessment as well as the stone's appearance and light return and report back. If you trust your jeweller this is the best way, and hopefully you are buying from a jeweller you trust.

Finally, back to the bands. I was hoping to gain some insight here; is it worth remaking the bands, is there anything you would suggest to highlight this stone? Could adding something like a basket around the prongs disguise inclusions visible from the side view or takeaway the chances of someone noticing the thicker girdle?

crossbars that bisect the view of the pavilion can definitely help distract from visible inclusions in my experience

 

[classiccushion]

What girdle "range" does the stone fall under? 4.0%, toward the 'thinner side' of "thick". Personally, I am not bothered by the girdle's thinkness.Then that's all we care about. I suppose it would be something only a skilled gemologist or diamond expert would know?

I do have a photo or two of the stone I could post, both in the setting and out of the setting but they are not super high quality. Would this help identify the optical symmetry? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what we can tell from the photos and what angle they were taken from. Otherwise, I will have to rely on our jeweler to provide the "eye clean" assessment as well as the stone's appearance and light return and report back. If you trust your jeweller this is the best way, and hopefully you are buying from a jeweller you trust.

Finally, back to the bands. I was hoping to gain some insight here; is it worth remaking the bands, is there anything you would suggest to highlight this stone? Could adding something like a basket around the prongs disguise inclusions visible from the side view or takeaway the chances of someone noticing the thicker girdle?

crossbars that bisect the view of the pavilion can definitely help distract from visible inclusions in my experience

Hi Yssie, thanks for your input. We are going to meet with a jeweler recommended by a (trusted) friend and go from there. I don't think posting the photos would help much. I'll revisit the thread when I have the answers to these questions in a week or two. Thanks again!