Proposing soon - thoughts on this stone, pleassssseee!

[ethereal]

I am proposing to my girlfriend soon, and am very close to purchasing this stone.. She is looking for a 2.5 carat or about that, D-F in color, VS2-SI2 in clartity, and excellent cut. My budget is around $30,000.

This stone looks pretty good to me, from Brian Galvin:

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/2.590-f-si2-round-diamond-gia-33804009

It's 2.59, F, SI2, excellent cut, and HCA of 1.6. I am told that it is a very good SI2, with only a minor white inclusion on the table (crystal), which is difficult to see unless you look hard for it, and no black inclusions.

I am trying to decide between the 2.59 F, SI2, and a 2.25 F, SI1 from Whiteflash which is totally eye clean, AGS 000 and 1.6 HCA as well - please let me know which you think is the better stone!!! I know people ususally ask about the size of the diamond, so maybe carat size is more important than clarity? Thanking you!

 

[Dreamer_D]

As a rule, I don't like table inclusions in SI2 stones, I much prefer inclusions that can be hidden by a prong.

Would you consider a G color to improve clarity?

 

[Smith1940]

There was a recent thread where the guy was considering an SI1 stone for a 3-carat stone. The experts on here expressed concern about SI1 in a stone of that size. My stone is only 0.70 SI1, and it does have an inclusion on the table. It's eye clean, but if the stone and the inclusion were proportionately sized up to 3 carats, I think you would see it. I'm only an enthusiast, not an expert, but I just wanted you to be aware that others have said inclusions get more worrisome the larger the diamond.

 

[ethereal]

Hmm, she wants to be in the colorless range, so think the lowest she would want to go in color is an F..

We've looked at stones together, and honestly, we must be terrible diamond appraisers, because all the stones looked very similar to us, and we couldn't really tell the difference between SI1s and SI2s!

 

[Smith1940]

Well, personally I have had extremely good experiences with SI1 and SI2 stones, and I do have very good up-close vision. Personally, I would always go with a higher color and lower clarity. I have an SI2 from James Allen; the inclusions are white and I can't see them with x30 magnification, never mind x10! The black mark on the table of my SI1 engagement ring is easily visible at x20, but apart from that it can't be seen. And x20! That's strong magnification!

Admittedly, my stones are much smaller and I don't have experience in the size range you mention. But hey, if you don't like it, just return or exchange it! BGD is reputable.

As long as you can't actually see anything at all with the naked eye, I think going lower on clarity is a great way to get higher color/better cut/larger size etc. Some people are very picky about their clarity, but it's generally acknowledged to be the least important of the four Cs. You've indicated that your girlfriend isn't picky about clarity, so the stone you've seen looks perfect for your needs. Just make sure that she does inspect it closely from all angles in the brightest lighting so that you can exchange it if need be. You don't want her to be looking at it idly one day months down the line and suddenly notice something! But anyway, the right SI1 and SI2 stones rock, in my opinion! My James Allen SI2 is a D color and I would not have been able to afford a D if the clarity was higher. For me, these stones are amazing trade-offs as long as they're eye clean. Good luck!

 

[Smith1940]

I am not a diamond expert, only an enthusiast. But I looked at those two stones and it seems there's not much to choose between them, except size. I think the BGD one looks really good - apparently eye clean, good color, and a REALLY good size! If all other things in the equation are equal, I'd go for the slightly bigger one, as she'll be wearing it for a long time and I have heard about "diamond shrinkage" - you know, where you get used to something and it doesn't seem so grand as at first. Anyway, if you don't like it you can change it!

 

[Dreamer_D]

There was a recent thread where the guy was considering an SI1 stone for a 3-carat stone. The experts on here expressed concern about SI1 in a stone of that size. My stone is only 0.70 SI1, and it does have an inclusion on the table. It's eye clean, but if the stone and the inclusion were proportionately sized up to 3 carats, I think you would see it. I'm only an enthusiast, not an expert, but I just wanted you to be aware that others have said inclusions get more worrisome the larger the diamond.

Diamond size matters a lot for clarity as grading changes as the stones get larger. So a 3ct Si2 has larger inclusions, or more inclusions, than a 0.70ct stone. Also, facets are bigger in larger stones, and in my personal experience, larger facets make it easier to see inclusions.

Ethereal Well if you don't care about inclusions then it could be worth bringing the stone in to see in person. Every diamond is unique in terms of inclusions, and some lighting makes it harder (impossible?) to see inclusiions -- jewelery store lighting for example, makes it nearly impossible to see inclusions or color, which is purposeful . Reading that description of the diamond, it sounds like the table inclusion will be visible in some lighting if you look for it. If you are ok with that possibility, then it is a good way to get a larger more colorless stone for your money. My preference with SI2s is to get inclusions that can be pronged as I said.

 

[affguy]

For $30k, I would be leary of a table inclusion. Both of your choices are of a nice blingy size, so the significance of that quarter carat is somewhat reduced...I'm guessing the difference in diamater of the two stones is probably 5% or less, which may or may not be more visible than a table inclusion.

 

[ethereal]

thanks everyone for the advice, still not sure which one to choose, and need to decide very very soon, looking to buy by tomorrow!

It would be great if we could look at both the BG stone and the WF stone, and just return one or the other, but we live in Europe, and exchanging/returns from here makes things a bit more cumbersome...

Still trying to decide between the 2.59 F SI2 or 2.25 F SI1 - both for approximately $31000, both with excellent HCA scores, and both which look pretty nice!!!

Is there a big difference in size between 2.59 and 2.25? Is the difference visible to the naked eye?

The 2.59 is 8.76 x 8.51 x 5.46 mm

The 2.25 is 8.44 x 8.51 x 5.18 mm

I also like that the 2.25 is AGS 000, which in my opinion, is a bit harder to get than a GIA triple excellent? The 2.25 is also free of any visible inclusions on table, except for a small white crystal on the bottom left hand corner, which can be easily covered by a prong. But going above the 2.5 threshold would be quite nice!! Is the quarter of a carat difference in size worth it?

Please help!

 

[yssie]

thanks everyone for the advice, still not sure which one to choose, and need to decide very very soon, looking to buy by tomorrow!

It would be great if we could look at both the BG stone and the WF stone, and just return one or the other, but we live in Europe, and exchanging/returns from here makes things a bit more cumbersome...

Still trying to decide between the 2.59 F SI2 or 2.25 F SI1 - both for approximately $31000, both with excellent HCA scores, and both which look pretty nice!!!

Is there a big difference in size between 2.59 and 2.25? Is the difference visible to the naked eye?

The 2.59 is 8.76 x 8.51 x 5.46 mm

The 2.25 is 8.44 x 8.51 x 5.18 mm

I also like that the 2.25 is AGS 000, which in my opinion, is a bit harder to get than a GIA triple excellent? The 2.25 is also free of any visible inclusions on table, except for a small white crystal on the bottom left hand corner, which can be easily covered by a prong. But going above the 2.5 threshold would be quite nice!! Is the quarter of a carat difference in size worth it?

Please help!

Are both Rounds? That first has a *gigantic* diameter variation for a modern RB - what's going on there? Can you post the reports (or just give us exact ct weights and report numbers) or some pics?

 

[ethereal]

Hi Yssie, yes, they are both round brilliants. Does the diameter of the 2.59 look a bit odd? I only have the link to the diamond and the GIA report. Hmm, what are your thoughts?

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/2.590-f-si2-round-diamond-gia-33804009

 

[yssie]

Ah - you just had one of the numbers wrong, it's 8.81x8.76 - which is fine I can't see your attachment, is it the report? If so can you just post the report number and exact ct wt, we can get it online.

It's a virtual stone though, and those are - a different can of worms. You'd have to chat with BGD about their process - they don't own the stone, it's in a shared database and any vendor can have it pulled. You'd have to have BGD put in a request, the stone may or may not be immediately available and ready to ship to them, and you'd be responsible for some part of the shipping fee - I don't know the details of how BGD handles it. Since it's an SI2 you have the added concerns of how clean it'll be - I wouldn't recommend it, honestly, unless for some reason you're in *love* with that stone, I think the odds of it being acceptable are slim (I'm also thinking that the nicer SI2s in these sizes might not even make it to the virtual inventory - I'd guess they're snatched up en route because they're guaranteed to have buyers!)

 

[ethereal]

Ah, thanks for correcting me! With that diameter, will there be a noticable difference with the 2.25 stone?

It's GIA certificate 5126533680, carat size 2.590...

Hmm, do you think I should stay away from virtual stones?

 

[yssie]

Ah, thanks for correcting me! With that diameter, will there be a noticable difference with the 2.25 stone?

It's GIA certificate 5126533680, carat size 2.590...

Hmm, do you think I should stay away from virtual stones?

https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5126533680&weight=2.59#

There'd definitely be a difference in diameter if you had them side by side, but if you saw one set, walked out of the room, came back in and saw the other - you probably wouldn't remember one as being bigger, it definitely wouldn't be a "memorable" difference like a 1.5/2ct comparison, say...

The virtual inventory is a total hodgepodge. I got my own stone from there (also an SI2 of similar size) but I had a vendor keeping an eye out for me and I was looking for some very specific characteristics that no in-house stones at the time had. It was the second stone I had shipped out, and I spent a few hundred in shipping - if I'd had to go through three, four stones it'd have become a pricey proposition! That's the thing - if you get lucky you can get a great stone at a great price, but there's definitely a very real chance of not getting lucky - especially with a stone like this, where you really can't just shop by the numbers... At least solicit a vendor's help in finding the right stone

 

[sna77]

can you post the pictures and cert from the whiteflash stone?

the AGS 0 stone definitely sounds like a safer bet. but without seeing Ideal Scopes and such, we'll have no way of knowing...

 

[sna77]

scroll down to my post on the middle of this page:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/40k-budget-find-me-a-diamond-t168853-90.html']https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/40k-budget-find-me-a-diamond-t168853-90.html[/URL]

thats a 2.4 ct D GIA triple Ex. its an SI1 with a giant black inclusion directly under the table. It was a virtual stone and i had no way of knowing what that looks like until i flew it in, and had Witeflash photograph it...

An SI2 of that size is likely to look similar...