Small table (54%) concerns

user_jason · Apr 9, 2013

I'm zeroing in on a round that I'm overall happy with, but have a few minor concerns. I've researched (on Pricescope!) and had most of my concerns addressed, but I figured I'd throw out my conclusions to see what kind of reactions I get. Thanks in advance for any input!

Stats:
1.7 FVS2
Table: 54
Depth: 61.4
Crown: 33
Pav: 41
Cut: Ex
Polish: Ex
Symm: VG
Flour: faint
Inclusion near center (see pic below)
HCA 0.7 (all Ex, except Spread is VG)

Concerns:
1. Table percentage making the diamond look small. Based on what I've read, this isn't necessarily a concern - it all depends on the pav/crown angles. Since I'm a novice, I have no idea if the above dimensions will "look small" compared to other 1.7 carat diamonds. If anyone has any input, i'd love to hear it.
2. Faint fluorescence. I assume this is faint "yellow" flour. Shouldn't be an issue from what I've read. Some on this form say they can see their faint flour in some light, so I'm willing to chance it. Hopefully it doesn't complicate resale in a few years.
3. Inclusions near center. Shouldn't be an issue with a VS2, apparently. Very, very difficult to see with the naked eye from what I read. I've seen many VS2s in person and cannot see any, but I haven't seen this specific one.

Here's a pic of the inclusion from the JA site. I'll be requesting ASET/idealscope today.

Reactions/feedback/opinions definitely welcome. Thanks!!

JulieN · Apr 9, 2013

why do you assume it is yellow fluor? ask. In any case, they don't mention what color it is because you won't see any fluorescence effect with faint in normal lighting.

small tables are great! and they don't make diamonds look smaller.

inclusion looks like a clear crystal to me, but someone who can see it in person would be able to tell you better.

user_jason · Apr 9, 2013

Thanks Julie. Definitely makes me feel a bit more confident about the table size.

Here's the gia map of inclusions:

LibbyLA · Apr 9, 2013

user_jason,

It's the length/width dimensions of the diamond that affect the size appearance, not the table size.

liz

maccers · Apr 9, 2013

The Fluor is more likely to be blue than yellow. But regardless, faint Fluor is not a concern as per Julie's comments.

Get a pair of eyes on the stone, ask the vendor if they can spot the crystal from 12 inches or so away. Most likely they won't be able to. Sounds like a very promising stone. What's the spread of the stone? Some ppl love smaller tables and it doesn't make the stone look smaller, you want overall spread.

user_jason · Apr 9, 2013

Thanks Maccers, HCA says the spread is "very good"

Light Return - Excellent
Fire - Excellent
Scintillation - Excellent
Spread - Very Good
Total Visual Performance 0.7 - Excellent

I'm not familiar with other ways to assess spread without seeing it in person. If there are other ways, I'd love to hear it. Also, I'm not sure how big of a range HCA's "spread" is. It's possible its on the higher or lower end of "very good", but I wouldn't know how to determine that.

Thanks!

LibbyLA · Apr 9, 2013

All you have to do is to look at the dimension measurements of stones of similar weight. A deep diamond (say, over 62 or 63%) at a given weight is going to have smaller length x width than a shallow one (say, 58% or less). You're looking for one that's in the middle. A shallow diamond will probably score well for spread but probably not well for other characteristics.

liz

bunnycat · Apr 9, 2013

user_jason|1365529610|3423381 said:
Thanks Maccers, HCA says the spread is "very good"

Light Return - Excellent
Fire - Excellent
Scintillation - Excellent
Spread - Very Good
Total Visual Performance 0.7 - Excellent

I'm not familiar with other ways to assess spread without seeing it in person. If there are other ways, I'd love to hear it. Also, I'm not sure how big of a range HCA's "spread" is. It's possible its on the higher or lower end of "very good", but I wouldn't know how to determine that.

Thanks!

You can post the dimensions here. Most people here will be able to tell what the normal spread of a well cut stone in that carat should be close to even if you don't know yourself.

Faint fluor is probably not going to be visible at all except under a black light and is unlikely to add much to the effect of the stone. Fluor is not a bad thing in a stone. It very rarely (*very rarely*) has a negative effect except possibly with certain inclusions in combination with Strong fluor. I have a stone with medium fluor and it helps my stone face up whiter when UV is present (so fluorescent lighting, CFL's, sunlight, etc...) and I strongly consider it a bonus.

the "very good" is a common result on the HCA calculator for spread. I think it tends to reward shallower stones, and so most well cut stones are only going to get a VG on that. Your stone is neither too shallow nor too deep, so the "VG" is not surprising.

John P · Apr 9, 2013

With those measurements the average girdle diameter should be around 7.80 mm, which is nicely in-range for 1.70ct.

diamondseeker2006 · Apr 9, 2013

Almost all ideal cut stones have "very good" for spread. You did leave out the diameter measurements, and that is how you compare sizes of diamonds, as someone already mentioned. The table on that diamond could be 43 or 63 and it would have zero effect on the face up size of the stone.

You definitely need an idealscope image on any stone you choose. So ask for that as your next step and post here. You will need to ask about the center crystal inclusion.

user_jason · Apr 9, 2013

John, looks like you're spot on: the measurements are 7.78-7.81 x 4.79. The width seems a little larger than other 1.7s in this range.

diamondseeker, thanks for the idealscope tip - I requested one and hopefully it comes out OK. When you say "ask" about the center inclusion, what should I be asking for? I assumed that whatever answer I got it would likely be somewhat biased since the objective is to make the sale. Is there a specific characteristic I can ask for?

LibbyLA/bastetcat, it looks like - based on all this great input - my concern over "looking small" is addressed by 1) it's physically the same width as similar sized diamonds with more common table %s and 2) the "very good" spread should make it "seem" normal sized as well.

Thanks all! Idealscope to come.

user_jason · Apr 13, 2013

Here's the idealscope!

Seems good to this neophyte idealscope analyst. Any comments/concerns always appreciated!

diamondloveaffair · Apr 13, 2013

looks great.

yssie · Apr 14, 2013

Thritto - this would be my pick of your three current choices

GIA defaults fluor to blue (or specifies if it's not). But if it's important to you have your JA rep check.

Fluor: http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/W97_fluoresce.pdf

SFFaithful · Apr 14, 2013

The Ideal scope looks great. You have to remember that the images on the JA website are at ~40x or so. If you're worried about the inclusions on the table ask JA to see if it is eye clean. Also ask what their definition of eye clean is (distance wise)

user_jason · Apr 15, 2013

Thanks SFFaithful, I asked and they said 8-10 inches is their definition, but that I have "absolutely nothing to worry about". Guess that should be very encouraging.

It looks like I'll be moving forward with this one!

chrono · Apr 15, 2013

Looks like a great pick!

user_jason · Apr 23, 2013

The ring is in! Here are the pics for anyone who is curious - please excuse poor image quality.

Again, it's a 1.74 FVS2, HCA .7, Ex cut, Ex polish, Vg sym, faint flour (rest of attributes and imagescope are above). My initial reactions are very positive. My soon to be fiance will design her own ring - once she does that I'll post in "Show Me The Bling!".

Thanks again for everything. This community is amazing.