Opinions on a 1.78 Round Brilliant Please

[Symba96G]

This is my first time posting, but I''m a long-time fan of this site. I''ve learned SO much from everyone''s knowledge and expertise. I am new to the diamond world and need all the help I can get. The budget for the diamond is around $16,000 and we would like about a 1.78 carat stone (or bigger if possible). We have been looking at diamonds online and we think we found one on Blue Nile. Before we buy this diamond, I would love to have opinions regarding this diamond and any advice you may have. Is this a good price? A good diamond? We don''t want to make an expensive mistake. You are all so knowledgeable and any help would be greatly appreciated! The specs are as follows:

GIA
Carat Weight: 1.78, Round Brilliant
Cut: Ideal (says Blue Nile)
Color: E
Clarity: SI1 (I called Blue Nile and the jeweler said the stone was "eye clean.")
Depth: 61.9%
Table: 56%
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Medium,faceted
Flouresence: Medium Blue
Measurements: 7.76x7.79x4.81 mm

Sarin Report (Copied exactly from the report):
AGS ct 0
Diam: 7.78mm (7.76-7.80)
Depth: 4.82mm, 62%
Crown: Angle 34.3, 15.0%
Pavil: Angle 41.0, 43.1%
Table: 4.37mm, 56%
Culet: 1.1%, small
Girdle: 1.5 medium-2.2 sl thick, 1.7%<img

The GIA Cert is below so you can see the inclusions:
http://www.bluenile.com/viewcert.asp?pid=LD00294094&zoom=1

Thank you so much! I greatly appreciate it! Gaby

 

[baltneu]

Most people who have shopped BN vs. the other vendors have found BN to be "expensive".

Ran your numbers thru the Cut Advsior and came up with 1.7...........VG/VG/VG/EX.

It is under 2.0, but somehow I think you can do better overall.

Why an "E"? Some people feel that you can do very well if you drop the color a little but get a great cut.

Thats as far as I go, the experts will have to take it from here.

 

[YoungPapa]

Symba96G,

Bluenile isn''t as expensive as they used to be, especially on larger diamonds. With that said, however, compare that price against similar quality diamonds from other internet companies as well as local B&M''s to confirm the value of the stone. I noticed the diamond has ''medium blue'' fluorescence. Usually that drives down the price without having any negative impact on the look of the stone. If that''s the case this diamond could be a really great deal.

If you order the stone let us know how it looks!

 

[Symba96G]

I am also looking at this other diamond. Please help decide between these two.

Diamond Information ($16940, a bit more than the other one, but may be worth it)AGSL

Carat weight: 1.78
Cut: Ideal
Color: E
Clarity: SI1
Depth %: 61.5%
Table %: 54%
Symmetry: Ideal
Polish: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 7.85x7.80x4.81 mm

Crown: Angle 35.2
Pavil: Angle 40.6

I''m waiting to see if the inclusions are eye clean or not.
View inclusions and AGSL report at:
http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00122321
Thank you! Thank you!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

If the first stone were sent to AGS after June for a grading report according to the new cut-grading system, it would probably be an AGS-1.

The second stone is potentially a future AGS-0.

Live long,

 

[valeria101]

Both are nice.... but the second one has really everything going for it

I am not familiar with the gradiding politics remotely as much as Paul who is cutting these sparklies, but the cherry proportions (higher crown and smaller table should add up to a more fiery look than most modern cut brilliants, as far as I can tell) and the more discrete inclusions (off the table and transparent as oposed to crystals on unknown color right under the table on the first stone) of the second stone make it that much more tempting.

The weight under 2 cts keeps the price tempting, and that's nice to have as well.

Knowing BN, you can probably take a look at #2 during their return period, no ?

 

[valeria101]

These are the respective clarity plots... ''guess the small feathers under the crown facets should be allot more discrete than crystals under the table.
This is not certainty (and nothing really is until you see the stones), just a hunch.

 

[Giangi]

I''ll second Paul and Ana, out of the stones, the second one is definitely a keeper, I like the crown/pavilion combo and has a very nice spread.

If I were in your shoes, I''d just made sure the stone is completely or relatively eye-clean from the top.

 

[Mark Turnowski]

Hi

There is definitely a choice here. The 2nd diamond is a better purchase and the primary reason is that there is no fluorescence in the diamond. An E color with medium fluorescence is discounted in the marketplace. The colorless range(D-F) inplies that the diamond has no modifiers in it''s color. At worse you could have faint blue in the diamond. As far as the numbers they also indicate a slightly better cut in the 2nd diamond. to me it would be a no brainer. Good luck with your choice

 

[Symba96G]

Thank you for all of your wonderful opinions! You are all great! I truly appreciate it!

I received new information on the second stone and it is as follows from an email i received today: "the diamond is not completely eye clean…though most people, even looking carefully, would not be able to spot the inclusions. That all said, I would prefer the initial choice. It’s a bit cleaner of a look, will have the same brilliance, and is less money."

Is this good advice? The second stone is a bit more expensive, but is it''s fire worth the stone not being completely eye clean? Should I buy it and look at it? Thanks for all of your awesome help. I look forward to your advice.

 

[Mara]

I like the 2nd stone better..why? Not because of fluor or not (actually I would love a stone with med blue fluor, even a lower color...to see what it looks like!)....but rather because the depth is somewhat deep and the diameter is not as cherry as the 2nd stone. Also the pav angle at 41 is not superideal ... but it would probably still be a very beautiful stone.

However, you aren''t choosing between one beauty and one dog, both from numbers would appear to be very nice...however the 2nd one just has better proportions from my perspective. A smaller table, larger crown will probably have slightly more fire to the stone than the first...the depth is under 62 which I personally prefer. Lower pav angle is better IMO than the 41 as well.

In terms of eye-clean vs not, that is definitely an issue you need to figure out...a few questions for BN on the inclusions are..where are they located, aka are they visible from the pavilion or the top down or? Are they white or black? What types and is there any potential damage if one is a feather along a girdle etc. Placement and color has alot to do with inclusions. I prefer white inclusions, but my new stone has a dark one smack dab to the right of the table and it''s only visible under a loupe and when I STARE at my diamond face down with my eyeball very close to it. Not ''normal'' conditions by any means. So...one may or may not consider my SI2 eye clean but the only way I spotted the inclusion to begin with was by louping the stone in diffused lighting. The rest of my inclusions are white. Ask about eye-cleanliness from the pavilion side as well. aka if the inclusion can maybe be seen face down, sparkle will hide alot of that, esp if it''s well cut, but a pavilion side visible inclusion won''t be *as* hidden because you don''t get *as* much sparkle from the sides of the diamond.

Anyway..in terms of numbers, I choose the 2nd. The first is probably going to be lovely as well...but I like the 2nd. Find out more about the eye-clean comments, get more details and then determine for yourself what you feel best about. It will be your purchase after all!

Nice choices and good luck!