Please Help Me Evaluate a Diamond

[AaronNeemus]

I am about to spend way too much money on an engagement stone.
Before I do so, I am hoping to get some expert advice to make sure I am not buying
something of substantially inferior quality that I just don't have the experience
to recognize how good/poor quality it really is.

The stone is a Round Brilliant 2.69 carat F VS1
GIA certificate number 7183815321 if someone wants to look it up on GIA.edu.
Table 56%, Depth 61.7%, Crown Angle 34.0 degrees, Pavilion Angle 40.8 degrees
So it scores 1.0 in the Holloway Cut Advisor.
Crown Height 15.0%, Pavilion Depth 43.0%, Star Length 50%, Lower Half 75%

I realize that on paper, the stats look great.
The problem is that the Idealscope image does not look like any of the examples
I have seen online as either "good" or "bad". Since it is not obvious to me if this
is a desirable amount of light return, I was hoping someone here could evaluate the
picture and tell me whether the stone really is great or if it is not all it's cracked up to be.

 

[AaronNeemus]

More Pictures

 

[AaronNeemus]

Questions:
I do see one obvious area of light leakage just above the 9:00 spoke.
Is that one area enough to say the entire diamond is bad?

The background light is yellow, while all of the samples online have white backgrounds.
Is this a trick by the salesperson to obscure other areas of light leakage which are not
showing up as bright as they would have been on a white background?

Centrally the spokes are dark. Peripherally they blend in as red. All of the "good"
samples show dark spokes all the way out. But the text often says red still implies good
light return. So is this an excellent stone or not?

 

[pfunk]

I think it is a good looking diamond. Some minor defects it seems, but overall it looks good to me. I think it will look great.

 

[AaronNeemus]

Bump - since the original post was late last night and it moved down the list before the morning people saw it.

 

[John P]

I am about to spend way too much money on an engagement stone.

I love the tongue-in-cheek. But if that's not intended to be sorta funny then please only do what's practical. When former students ask me about taking out loans and financing a diamond and such I always caution against that.

The stone is a Round Brilliant 2.69 carat F VS1
GIA certificate number 7183815321 if someone wants to look it up on GIA.edu.
Table 56%, Depth 61.7%, Crown Angle 34.0 degrees, Pavilion Angle 40.8 degrees
So it scores 1.0 in the Holloway Cut Advisor.
Crown Height 15.0%, Pavilion Depth 43.0%, Star Length 50%, Lower Half 75%
I realize that on paper, the stats look great.

They do.

The problem is that the Idealscope image does not look like any of the examples
I have seen online as either "good" or "bad". Since it is not obvious to me if this
is a desirable amount of light return, I was hoping someone here could evaluate the
picture and tell me whether the stone really is great or if it is not all it's cracked up to be.

It's all good. Most examples you see are from online sellers who do this with great frequency. They use fixed setups with pro cameras, macro lenses and lighting that is white-balanced. The photo you posted was made in a small ideal-scope kit, similar to this one but with the receptacle on the right darkened (for non-backlit ASET photos).


I get the impression that both IS and arrows images were taken with a phone or small portable camera.

Questions: I do see one obvious area of light leakage just above the 9:00 spoke. Is that one area enough to say the entire diamond is bad?

There's an area of slight cut-inconsistency there. It's also visible under-table at 11:00 in the magnified photo and 7:00 in the arrows photo. In no way does it make the diamond bad. Some perspective on that at the end of this post.

The background light is yellow, while all of the samples online have white backgrounds. Is this a trick by the salesperson to obscure other areas of light leakage which are not showing up as bright as they would have been on a white background?

No. I took the photo above on a white pad to show that the lighting in these kits have a yellow tint. Your jeweler has gone the extra mile to supply the image to you. He's a victim of the equipment he's using compared to online seller setups.

Centrally the spokes are dark. Peripherally they blend in as red. All of the "good" samples show dark spokes all the way out. But the text often says red still implies good light return. So is this an excellent stone or not?

The "spokes" are the pavilion main facets. They are the engines driving light return. Reflectors like ideal-scope and ASET have a dark color at their highest point to simulate the effect of the viewer's head on the diamond. If the pavilion mains are acting as mirrors they reflect-back that darkness properly. If they were acting as windows rather than mirrors, causing the diamond to lose light through the pavilion, you'd see white in those areas.

Similarly, the ideal-scope cone is red. It's desirable to have the rest of the diamond show as much red as possible with the exception of small symmetrical points of contrast leakage at facet junctions.

This diamond has a robust ideal-scope image. It's not as crisp or consistent as it would be in a pro setup, thus there are limits to interpretation, but from what we can see it's really quite good. The magnified and hearts images are consistent with it, allowing a certain range of performance to be reliably predicted.

In terms of minutia, there appear to be small inconsistencies which would preclude it from being at the highest level of 3D cut-precision. But this is like saying there's a bit more tannin in a terrific $90 bottle of wine than the $110 bottle that's very similar but slightly more refined. In terms of the diamond-world you're already at a stellar level of cut. With that said, it's all up to your eyes. If this jeweler is in a showroom see it, experience it, take it on a tour of different lighting - hopefully compared to a few other candidates.

BTW, kudos to your jeweler for making the effort to understand and provide the images.

 

[emmebee]

It looks really good! I agree - there is that one spot that has slight leakage, so as long as you aren't paying the premium for a super ideal, this stone is really nice!

 

[AaronNeemus]

First of all, let me say thank you very much for responding. It is very kind of you industry-types to take the time to help us consumers when you yourself are not getting anything (like a sale) out of the deal.

I am about to spend way too much money on an engagement stone.

I love the tongue-in-cheek. But if that's not intended to be sorta funny then please only do what's practical. When former students ask me about taking out loans and financing a diamond and such I always caution against that.

No, I can afford it without a loan. Through the grace of G-d, I find myself to be in a financially secure position. The diamond will run me about 2 month's salary. The comment was a little tongue-in-cheek because if you look at the price tag, it still looks like an obscene number. Although I am blessed and can afford it, when I was younger and struggling, I always said to myself that even if I made it, I would still remember the value of money and would not engage in conspicuous consumption just because I can. That being said, this is an upgrade the engagement ring stone for a wonderful woman who has stood by me for 16 years and 4 children. So while I would not normally consider blowing this kind of money on a non-essential, I want to show her that she is worth the world to me.

. I get the impression that both IS and arrows images were taken with a phone or small portable camera.

Yes, the pictures were taken with the jeweler's iPhone through a handheld scope.

In terms of minutia, there appear to be small inconsistencies which would preclude it from being at the highest level of 3D cut-precision. But this is like saying there's a bit more tannin in a terrific $90 bottle of wine than the $110 bottle that's very similar but slightly more refined. In terms of the diamond-world you're already at a stellar level of cut.

If you don't mind my asking, can you guesstimate what I "should be" paying for a diamond like this, just so I can see if I am that far off the mark?

With that said, it's all up to your eyes. If this jeweler is in a showroom see it, experience it, take it on a tour of different lighting - hopefully compared to a few other candidates.

And that''s part of the problem. This is going to be an Internet purchase. I am in a smaller town where no one carries inventory with these kind of specifications, and certainly not multiple stones of this quality at the same time. The stone is being shipped to a neutral appraiser for me to look at it before I pay, but I am only going to see the one stone and have to decide yay or nay without being able to compare it to similar stones to see if a little tweak here or there is preferable. I have no opportunity to say "well that one is a little more included, but a better color (or bigger), and I don't really see the inclusions, so I'll go for the better color, or the larger size." So since I can't see how much inclusions or color really affect things to my naked eye, and i can only choose 1 stone to have shipped in for review, I had to go for one with all around excellent stats, even if I really would not appreciate the difference in a lesser stone, had I seen it first.