Pear shaped diamond

[KingKuda]

Hi all,


Long time reader, but this is the first time I’ve had to ask a question myself.


Currently shopping for an engagement ring for my future fiance (fingers crossed!). I know what her taste is and that her biggest requirement is a pear shaped diamond that is as white as it can possibly be.


Based on that, I have been on the lookout for a 1.5ct pear shaped diamond, with a D colour and SI2 or higher in terms of clarity.


My jewller found me a D, SI1 pear shape, however the L/W ratio was at 1.63 which was slightly off to me. I think I want to get her something closer to the 1.5-1.55 mark which looks more traditional in my eyes.


I’ve found a diamond on line that looks interesting and is in budget. The vendor came back to me and informed me that it was not eye clean, which is to be expected from an SI1, however from the high quality pictures I can see it appears that most of the imperfections are on the outside of the ring which I wouldn’t imagine is a huge deal.


Does anyone have an opinion or advice on my search, and more specifically, the diamond below?

https://www.bluenile.com/au/diamond-details/LD09944750

 

[Matthews1127]

Inclusions can effect the performance of a diamond. If the inclusions are visible, or obstruct the light return, you’ll notice.

 

[ringo865]

It's great you are open to shopping online. Are you down under? What's your budget (before vat or import duties)?

Not being eye clean is not "to be expected" in an SI1 stone. Many SI1 (even some SI2) stones are completely eye clean. As far as whitest possible: D-F are in the "colorless" range, so opening up your options to F would still allow a colorless stone.
People here can help you find and vet stones within your desired specs and budget. You're in good hands

 

[KingKuda]

It's great you are open to shopping online. Are you down under? What's your budget (before vat or import duties)?

Yes I am down under, in Sydney to be precise. I initially wasn't too interested in going on-line, but I've reached a bit of a standstill with my jeweller who can't find the exact type of diamond I am after. The length to width ratio is so important to me and the 2 viable options that have been tabled are both higher than 1.6 which isn't the style I want.

Alas I went online and I've ended up here. My price range in AUD is about $12,000 for the diamond, which allows for the 10% tax. In US$ I'm looking at about $10k or lower which makes it tough.

Non-negotiables are colour (D or E), size (1.5ct) and L/W ratio (1.5 - 1.54) however it's becoming increasingly tough to find anything that matches this.

 

[marymm]

FWIW I love the shape of that BN pear you posted ... but I would think the dark crystal inclusions would be fairly visible. However, if shape/proportions and icy whitecolor is most important, potentially you/GF could live with the inclusions. Could you order the BN diamond and have your GF take a look at it too? Or is the whole ring going to be a surprise kind of thing? If a surprise, then I'd suggest discarding the BN pear and to keep looking for an eye-clean option.

What do you think of this James Allen stone? I think it could be eye-clean and it is a nice shape; you could ask JA if it is eyeclean... https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/pear-shaped/1.51-carat-e-color-si1-clarity-sku-4409766. Oops, wrong ratio @ 1.45, sorry, though I still think it is a lively bright pear!

 

[KingKuda]

If a surprise, then I'd suggest discarding the BN pear and to keep looking for an eye-clean option.

Thanks for your advice, I thought that was the case but was hoping someone said otherwise

I think my best bet is dropping my search from a D to an E and then looking to get something SI1 instead.

Will an E with slight fluorescence look any less white than a D with nil fluorescence?

 

[marymm]

^ no visible difference between D w/o fluor and E with faint fluor.

Are you on a time deadline?

 

[KingKuda]

OK well that is good to know, might be worth dropping to an E in that case.

Not really, I need it by the end of June which will give my jeweller a month for the setting.

I've got a few months up my sleeve but the sooner the better I guess. I got no idea how often new diamonds with my specific requirements come onto the market, but I assume not very often.

 

[marymm]

^ did you see this BN pear? It seems to tick all your boxes and be eyeclean (at least I can't see anything on the video, other than one floater type inclusion that disappears more than it appears)... it looks to be a lovely pear... https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

 

[KingKuda]

https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

That looks superb and ticks all of the boxes however the Fluorescence on a D coloured diamond and from what I have read, this will impact the colour of the diamond.

 

[marymm]

That looks superb and ticks all of the boxes however the Fluorescence on a D coloured diamond and from what I have read, this will impact the colour of the diamond.

While strong fluor can impact a stone, it is rare; more often, it is very strong fluor that will affect a stone either by making the stone hazy/milky and/or by its interaction with the stone's inclusions (usually clouds and heavy twinning wisps) to reduce brilliance.

In this case, the BN video shows the strong fluor has no impact on the stone's performance or brilliance.

In case you haven't read this PS article: https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence

 

[KingKuda]

I have read that article, but thank you for pointing me in that direction.

The GIA certificate states that the fluorescence is strong blue, which on a D coloured diamond, will potentially have a noticeable impact.

 

[prs]

@KingKuda, I've discovered that opinion on the best looking pear L/W is entirely personal. Your fiance's opinion may be quite different from yours and, of course, her's is the one that counts!!!! I think you need to make inquiries before plonking down your money on a stone she might not like.

 

[cflutist]

Preferred L:W ratio for pears is 1.50 to 1.75 : 1.

My 3.01 F-SI1 pear is 1.63 , right smack in the middle. Others prefer fatter pears.

 

[KingKuda]

@KingKuda, I've discovered that opinion on the best looking pear L/W is entirely personal

Agreed completely, fortunately she had previously sent me photos of rings she loved and that helped me work out the the best ratio in this case. When the jeweller showed me the 1.5ct pear with a 1.63 ratio it looked beautiful but wasn't what my GF had indicated she liked.

 

[KingKuda]

Has anyone used a company called Sydney Diamond Company before? Can't find them listed anywhere.

 

[OoohShiny]

Agreed completely, fortunately she had previously sent me photos of rings she loved and that helped me work out the the best ratio in this case. When the jeweller showed me the 1.5ct pear with a 1.63 ratio it looked beautiful but wasn't what my GF had indicated she liked.

Can you post the photos?


IIRC only 2-3% of Strong or Very Strong Blue fluorescence stones are hazy / 'oily' / negatively impacted, and they need to be assessed individually. Search the forum for 'fluor' and plenty of reading material should come up. B&M retailers have an aversion to it and will try to put you off.

 

[OoohShiny]

Has anyone used a company called Sydney Diamond Company before? Can't find them listed anywhere.

Buying online from Pricescope-recommended vendors will mean they have good quality photos and videos and can provide ASETscope images to enable you to assess leakage and light return, and they have openly stated returns policies so that you don't end up with something you don't like.

The forum members can also help you with choosing and assessment, and I would choose the wisdom of the forum over the vested interests of a B&M retailer any day of the week!

 

[KingKuda]

The forum members can also help you with choosing and assessment, and I would choose the wisdom of the forum over the vested interests of a B&M retailer any day of the week!

This place is honestly amazing.

I'm waiting on a few suppliers to get back to me and will post the options into this group once that's happened.

 

[tyty333]

Just FYI what to look for...
You wanted the rounded end to look as close to a round brilliant as you can get (faceting wise) because it will have better light return.
Good pears are hard to find. I dont think you should limit yourself to "D"...you'll have more luck if you widen your options to the colorless range (DEF).
Asets can be helpful to some extent but are usually pretty ugly. Its really more about how the stone lights up as it moves.
Pay more attention to the LxW than the carat weight. LxW can widely vary at the same carat weight.

 

[Tekate]

I have seen a diamond that had strong fluorescence and it looked milky, I mean seriously when I saw it, I thought whoa what is up with my cousin, he gave his g/f a diamond that looks like milk (and this was in 1974) it was a big stone, that looked opaque white.. (my cousin has money or at the time his dad and mom did, he inherited). The stone picked above shows no milkiness so I think it's a safe bet it's fine.. you know a milky stone when you see one. Best of luck in life and your quest! Peace.

 

[KingKuda]

Hi All,

I've found a diamond in my price range, that seems to tick every box that I'm after.

The only concern I have is the indented naturals. The vendor has confirmed it is completely eye clean, however my research on other threads suggested that an indented natural in the wrong position can be an issue.

 

[tyty333]

Is the indented natural on the point or on the pavilion (back side of the stone). I cant tell from the map.
Do you have any pictures of the stone you can post? Any videos?

Edit...either way there is something on the point which could be an issue. You need to ask if whatever that
is is a durability issue.

 

[KingKuda]

Picture attached and I thought that might of been the case RE a durability issue.

 

[KingKuda]

Is 63% to big for a table length? I've noticed that most people suggest a range of 58-62% so this sits outside that range slightly.

 

[KingKuda]

Does anyone have a view on this diamond?

https://pck.azureedge.net/stone-multimedia/stone-multimedia.htm?stoneId=2825230112#

 

[OoohShiny]

I'm no expert but I think it's not too bad - the faceting around the fatter end seems fairly well defined, and the 'mush' at the point is not unattractive.

I can't get the video to work but the GIF looks alright - I think my only concern is that it might be 'windowing' slightly under the table when it's rotated to the left?

 

[KingKuda]

Thanks for your response, I can't quiet locate where the windowing is that you can see but I'll keep an eye out for it when I inspect it.

I was quiet concerned about the durability of the diamond, that was my biggest fear.

Would be great to get a few more reviews if posdible.

 

[tyty333]

Does anyone have a view on this diamond?

https://pck.azureedge.net/stone-multimedia/stone-multimedia.htm?stoneId=2825230112#

The faceting on this one looks very nice. Well defined facets stretch up towards the rounded end and fairly far down
towards the pointed end...minimal mush. I see no windowing.

Edit...is this the same one with the point issue? Ask to speak to a gemologist about it.

 

[HappyNewLife]

I think it's gorgeous and would try it out