Opinions on this stone.....

[96TL]

Hello again everyone. I found another stone. This one is from WF instead of BN. Their prices are better and the customer service is great!

I was told that face up the stone is "eye clean" from 3 inches away. The inclusion on the bottom closest to the center was slightly visible to the person who examined it (with the stone upside down), but it may not be visible to just anyone. I'm not too concerned about the bottom anyway. If I'm not happy with it, I can always send it back.

WF does not have this stone in house, it's actually at a warehouse. When (and if) I purchase it, they will re-examine it more carefully and let me know if there are any major problems when they receive it.

I also spoke to them about the "Comments" section on the GIA. The clouds and graining are so minor, that the GIA does not even plot them. They said they will not be visible at all, and they have zero affect on brilliance.

I did notice that this stone is quite large for a 2.64ct. I thought maybe it was a shallow cut, but it got all excellent ratings on the Cut Advisor program. The price is great, well within my budget actually. It almost makes me worry a bit. It's a great color (G) as well. What do you guys think? I'm just about ready to buy this one. Thanks!

Here is the GIA cert:

 

[96TL]

This is from the Cut Advisor program.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 5/11/2007 12:45:24 PM
Author:96TL

I was told that face up the stone is ''eye clean'' from 3 inches away.

Yeah...but what about 2 inches. Ha!

1) I think some of the choices in your previous thread was swell.
2) This one looks swell, too, plus, as you note...you''re in gear with a process to find one that''s right...i.e., WF has been on record here for telling people when a virtual diamond is a no-go.
3) Consider picking an option from them in hand you could go with as an alternative (see notes below my signature), or be ready to fish again, if needed, but this may be the last one you''d need to see.
4) If it was my money, I''d be no less concerned for doing well, so I don''t blame you at all for your efforts in getting this right.

Regards,

 

[peridot83]

It looks great, about it being shallow, it''s a personal prefrence thing. I''m no expert, but I believe it means it''ll be really really bright, and not show the arrows/contrast pattern very much. Pros: It will look huge, it will look really bright from a foot etc. away Cons: I dunno, I guess some people like seeing the arrows when they look at it close up.


Hopefully, someone with more experience can confirm what I said, and maybe even show pics with the difference?

 

[kcoursolle]

This stone will most likely have a very white and bright appearance and this is a preference thing. Some prefer more fire, etc.

Also, the crown angle is *slightly* shallow and this coupled with a thin-med girdle is probably fine, but it might pose durability problems. What type of setting are you thinking of putting it in? A six-prong setting would probably be fine, a bezel would be fantastic. I''d probably have WF make my setting if I bought this stone so that they take responsibility for setting it in case anything happens. At the very least, insure your ring!!!!

 

[96TL]

So this cut is on the shallow end? I knew something had to be wrong with it. Why does the Cut Advisor give it excellent ratings though? Shouldb''t it dock some points for it being shallow?

I currently have 2 settings in mind.

This one still:

 

[96TL]

And I am going to see this one in person tomorrow.

 

[peridot83]

The cut advisor is giving it an excellent on spread, because as you said it faces up big because it's shallow.

I'm going to attempt to explain the difference, but again I'm not an expert:

The cut advisor really likes these type of bright all around diamonds. And many people love em as well. Basically they look bright & shine and look great far away & there's no point inspecting em from close up because you can't really see the contrasting arrows.

However, recently more people have liked deeper diamonds, that get only a Very Good in spread. I think someone once described these diamonds as "shooting laser beams" and providing dark and light areas of contrast. I believe as you tilt the diamond, it will go dark, and then flash. etc. Also, when you look closely you'll be able to see the arrows.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/11/2007 1:28:12 PM
Author: kcoursolle
This stone will most likely have a very white and bright appearance and this is a preference thing. Some prefer more fire, etc.

Also, the crown angle is *slightly* shallow and this coupled with a thin-med girdle is probably fine, but it might pose durability problems. What type of setting are you thinking of putting it in? A six-prong setting would probably be fine, a bezel would be fantastic. I'd probably have WF make my setting if I bought this stone so that they take responsibility for setting it in case anything happens. At the very least, insure your ring!!!!

I hope you don't mind a little redirection kc.

This crown would not be considered shallow in trade terms and is not a durability risk, especially if the 'thin' part of the thin-med girdle is one micron shy of med (remember that girdles are on a sliding scale). It's on the low side of the 'Tolkowksy bullseye' stones we commonly see on PS, but in real world terms 'slightly shallow' is near 31.5.

GIA Definitions

Slightly shallow crown = at or near 31.5
Moderately shallow crown = at or near 26.5
Shallow crown = at or near 22.0
Very shallow crown = at or near 20.0
Extremely shallow crown span>

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 5/11/2007 2:44:11 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/11/2007 1:28:12 PM
Author: kcoursolle
This stone will most likely have a very white and bright appearance and this is a preference thing. Some prefer more fire, etc.

Also, the crown angle is *slightly* shallow and this coupled with a thin-med girdle is probably fine, but it might pose durability problems. What type of setting are you thinking of putting it in? A six-prong setting would probably be fine, a bezel would be fantastic. I'd probably have WF make my setting if I bought this stone so that they take responsibility for setting it in case anything happens. At the very least, insure your ring!!!!

I hope you don't mind a little redirection kc.

This crown would not be considered shallow in trade terms and is not a durability risk, especially if the 'thin' part of the thin-med girdle is one micron shy of med (remember that girdles are on a sliding scale). It's on the low side of the 'Tolkowksy bullseye' stones we commonly see on PS, but in real world terms 'slightly shallow' is near 31.5.

GIA Definitions

Slightly shallow crown = at or near 31.5
Moderately shallow crown = at or near 26.5
Shallow crown = at or near 22.0
Very shallow crown = at or near 20.0
Extremely shallow crown < 20.0

no problem, I'm probably being overly cautious...but you are right 33 crown angle is probably fine. It's easy to get really nit-picky about numbers here on ps!

 

[Fly Girl]

I love this stone. It appears to be a well-cut stone that is more of a 60/60 style. As the HCA reflects, it could be very, very pretty. Nice size and color.

Let us know!!!

 

[96TL]

So what kind of table/depth/crown/pavillion would be considered optimum?

Also, I''m a little confused by the stone looking "white". Does this mean it will not have any rainbow colored sparkles (fire)?

Thanks

Dom
(More confused than ever)

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 5/11/2007 11:20:53 PM
Author: 96TL
So what kind of table/depth/crown/pavillion would be considered optimum?

Also, I''m a little confused by the stone looking ''white''. Does this mean it will not have any rainbow colored sparkles (fire)?

Thanks

Dom
(More confused than ever)

Usually when we talk about looking white we are talking about body color, i.e. does the stone look icey white or is there a little warmth to the general tone of the stone. G is very white. When we talk about bright looking, we mean white color light return, and fire is colored light return.

As far as optimal crown/pavillion angles go, this is a lot about preference. People differ on what types of diamond looks they prefer. I like stones that have a nice balance of fire and white light, and are not very deep.

My personal preferences are:
depth: 60-62%
table: 54-57%
crown/pavillion angles: 34-35/40-41
girdle: thin-med, med, thin-slightly thick, med-slightly thick
I also like polish and symmetry to be VG/VG or better.

 

[Lorelei]

This diamond could be a corker and well worth considering! This will probably be a bright looking diamond, fire you will see more in candlelight, and some others - my bathroom lighting is superb for fire and also some sunlight angles. No worries.

 

[peridot83]

I would re-emphasize what Lorelei is saying!! At this point, with this diamond we''re being EXTREMELY nitpicky to get you the "safest" numbers for your diamond. If you want that, then take our advice. But please feel free to completely ignore us, and buy that diamond. It will def. outperform most diamonds out there .

 

[aljdewey]

Dom, can I make a suggestion?

Let the folks at WF look at the diamond for you. It''s fine for everyone here to offer well-meaning input, but one of the pitfalls here is that folks can get TOO hung up on the minutae, and sometimes that minutae can be insignificant in reality.

The stone''s numbers look to be lovely, and it likely offers a fabulous value. I''d absolutely consider it.