Opinions on this stone please

[nabs]

Hello,

I am new to posting on the forum after lurking for some time, and really would like to thank its members and contributors for all the helpful information I''ve acquired over the last few weeks while shopping for a ring. This is one of the best sites on the net, bar-none. The price scope vendor recommendations alone make it excellent, not to mention the forums!

I am ready to purchase the following diamond unless the impression is that it is not a good idea:

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1181467.htm#

It is a 1.53 g si2. I did not think I would be buying an SI2 and was not planning on going lower than an SI1, but Whiteflash assured me that the diamond was totally eyeclean even less than 3 inches from the eye, at most (if not all) viewing angles. Based on the wonderful experience I have had dealing with WF as well as its sterling reputation on the Internet, I am of course inclined to believe them. I like this diamond because I think the cut is quite good based on the sarin report and the size is what my fiancee prefers. I can live with a diamond that is totally clear day-to-day even if not under a magnifier.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

 

[Cleo]

Hello & welcome!

That''s a beautiful diamond - great choice!

If WF say it''s eyeclean, then I would believe them.. they have an incredible reputation for honesty & great service here.

Eyeclean SI2 diamonds are fantastic value for money - nice find!!

Please do share photos of your jewellery when it''s finished.

x x x

 

[:)]

Did they send you an IS?

 

[swingirl]

Nice choice. I think you got a pretty stone at a healthy size for the the money. And a G!! Woo hoo!

 

[nabs]

Thanks for the replies and welcomes!

I was not given an IS but was given an ASET by WF. Should be viewable on the WF link I think.

 

[Ellen]

That should be a beautiful stone, good job!

 

[nabs]

hello all!

I am in the viewing period and thought I would update with some new information and see if there are any last opinions here:

I see that whiteflash put up an idealscope right before they shipped the ring to me, so I thought I would post that. I received the ring last night and think it looks really nice. I don''t think I see any visible inclusions but am going to get some more opinions on that this weekend. I''ve been doing some more research here on pricescope and am now a little concerned by the 62.4 depth on the GIA cert. I understand that less than 62 is what we should be looking for. The depth is contributing to a smaller diameter size of the stone, but is it affecting performance? Also the Sarin''s depth is quite different from the GIA depth (61.9 v. 62.4). Plugging all the sarin numbers into the HCA spits out a 1.4, the GIA numbers spit out 2. Is one more accurate than the other?

Also I am noticing that the optical symmetry isn''t the greatest. I think I can live with that, as long as it is not affecting light performance.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/5/2008 11:30:33 AM
Author: nabs
hello all!

I am in the viewing period and thought I would update with some new information and see if there are any last opinions here:

I see that whiteflash put up an idealscope right before they shipped the ring to me, so I thought I would post that. I received the ring last night and think it looks really nice. I don't think I see any visible inclusions but am going to get some more opinions on that this weekend. I've been doing some more research here on pricescope and am now a little concerned by the 62.4 depth on the GIA cert. I understand that less than 62 is what we should be looking for. The depth is contributing to a smaller diameter size of the stone, but is it affecting performance? Also the Sarin's depth is quite different from the GIA depth (61.9 v. 62.4). Plugging all the sarin numbers into the HCA spits out a 1.4, the GIA numbers spit out 2. Is one more accurate than the other?

Also I am noticing that the optical symmetry isn't the greatest. I think I can live with that, as long as it is not affecting light performance.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

The depth is fine, some PSers might prefer to stick to 62% or less, but 62.4% is not a problem and not too deep - depth won't interfere with performance it is the crown and pavilion angles which drive the light return and are of greater significance. It is a nicely cut stone, might face up a little smaller for its weight, but it is still a lovely diamond and a lot of diamond for the money - however if you have doubts then maybe keep looking.

 

[nabs]

pictures of the set ring

 

[Ellen]

I would imagine that''s a very pretty diamond. I can''t pull the stone up, my computer brings me back to this thread. What exactly is the diameter? The depth, as Lorelei said, is not really "bad".

 

[nabs]

Sorry Ellen, here is the information:

. Report: GIA
. Shape: Round Ideal Cut
. Carat: 1.53
. Depth %: 62.4
. Table %: 57
. Crown Angle: 34.5
. Crown %: 15
. Star : 55
. Pavilion Angle: 41
. Pavilion %: 43.5
. Lower Girdle %: 80
. Girdle: Medium to slightly thick faceted
. Measurements: 7.32-7.37X4.58
. Polish: Excellent
. Symmetry: Excellent
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

 

[Ellen]

No problem, thanks!

It really isn''t facing up at an unacceptable level. The smidge of diameter you might get if it were slightly more shallow would not even be detectable at this size of stone. If you love the stone and its performance, I''d say you are good to go!

 

[nabs]

Thanks Ellen! I think I'm realizing that with all the variables that go into diamonds, you have to be somewhat willing to compromise on something (unless you go ACA all the way) in order to get something else. Trying to find a less than 62% deep 1.5+ with an accurate diameter for its size and good pav/crown angles that is also an eyeclean SI2 with twinning wisps at an acceptable color grade is probably way more work than I'm willing to put in at this point lol

As long as the depth isn't mucking up the performance, I think I can live.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/5/2008 12:34:00 PM
Author: nabs
Thanks Ellen! I think I''m realizing that with all the variables that go into diamonds, you have to be somewhat willing to compromise on something (unless you go ACA all the way) in order to get something else. Trying to find a less than 62% deep 1.5+ with an accurate diameter for its size and good pav/crown angles that is also an eyeclean SI2 with twinning wisps at an acceptable color grade is probably way more work than I''m willing to put in at this point lol

As long as the depth isn''t mucking up the performance, I think I can live.

Yes.

And of all the compromises you could make, this (very small) one is least affective. That depth is not going to affect the performance. You did well.

And you''re welcome!

 

[swingirl]

Very pretty ring and classic setting. You got substantial bling for your buck!

 

[kcoursolle]

Gorgeous stone and ring!! I wouldn''t worry about the depth at all, the stone looks excellent!