Some advice is required please!

[reigndeerz]

Hi all,

I am currently comparing 2 stones, both scoring < 2 on the HCA. What are some things that I should look out for in each of the diamonds?

Also, given a budget of $2700, are there any other stones that could be recommended given that I am looking for a F/G, ~0.75ct, VS2-SI2? (In order of importance)

Thank you all in advance!

Diamond 1 - F/SI2

. Carat: 0.754
. Depth %: 61.6
. Table %: 56.4
. Crown Angle: 34.8
. Crown %: 15.1
. Star : 51
. Pavilion Angle: 40.7
. Pavilion %: 42.9
. Lower Girdle %: 77
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted


Diamond 2 - F/SI2
. Carat: 0.750
. Depth %: 61.3
. Table %: 57.7
. Crown Angle: 34.6
. Crown %: 14.7
. Star : 52
. Pavilion Angle: 40.7
. Pavilion %: 42.9
. Lower Girdle %: 76
. Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick Faceted

 

[Lorelei]

These both look great, have you checked whether each diamond is eyeclean to your standards? Thats the next step.

 

[FB.]

SI2 isn't often 100% eye clean - you must check this before commiting to any SI.
Have you considered dropping one colour and increasing one clarity - to G SI1?

Both stones look to be well-cut form the numbers, with very little to split them.

But those kind of numbers don't sound like GIA-cert stones. If they're AGS stones with AGS 0 or 1 score that's fine, but if they're from another less-reputable lab, the colour and clarity may be over-stated (they might be G-H SI3-I1) and naughty tricks done by the cutter may not be taken into account (GIA or AGS can penalise cutters for naughty tricks).

 

[DianaBanana]

You might consider this one from Brian Gavin as well:

AGS-1040381680042 Brian Gavin H&A 0.746 G SI1 57.2 61.6 $2,533.00

AGS#: 1040381680042
Report Type: The Platinum Light Performance Diamond Quality® Document
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 5.79 - 5.81 x 3.57 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 1.5 (G)
Clarity Grade: AGS 5 (SI1)
Carat Weight 0.746
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments:
" 1040381680042" has been inscribed on the girdle of this diamond.
Additional clouds are not shown.

Light Performance: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 57.2%
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown Height: 14.9%
Girdle: Faceted, 1.9% to 4.0%
Pavilion Angle: 40.7
Pavilion Depth: 42.8%
Star Length: 53%
Lower Girdle Length: 76%
Total Depth: 61.6%
Culet: Pointed

 

[reigndeerz]

I have already checked for eye cleanliness, and the SA from WF said that it was eyeclean both from top and side. Also, the clouds are said not to impact its performance. Apart from the clouds, it does look as if both the WF diamonds have minimal flaws/inclusions, which was why I was actually looking at a SI2.

Thanks for the BGD diamond too! It''s something that I''m struggling with, whether to go for a F/SI2, or a G/SI1. Especially when the prices for both combis are somewhat similar. I honestly don''t think I''d notice a difference between the 2 combis, both with or without a loupe. But I figured color would be more easily noticeable as compared to clarity. Would I be right to say that?

 

[swingirl]

I like Diamond 1 because of the location of the inclusion.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/27/2009 7:44:25 PM
Author: reigndeerz
I have already checked for eye cleanliness, and the SA from WF said that it was eyeclean both from top and side. Also, the clouds are said not to impact its performance. Apart from the clouds, it does look as if both the WF diamonds have minimal flaws/inclusions, which was why I was actually looking at a SI2.

Thanks for the BGD diamond too! It's something that I'm struggling with, whether to go for a F/SI2, or a G/SI1. Especially when the prices for both combis are somewhat similar. I honestly don't think I'd notice a difference between the 2 combis, both with or without a loupe. But I figured color would be more easily noticeable as compared to clarity. Would I be right to say that?

An SI2 diamond must have something going on inside, otherwise it would be FL, VVS, VS or even SI1. Maybe it's a good SI2 that rivals SI1. But SI-clarity implies inclusions that are very easy to find with a 10x loupe. The clouds that set the grade must be either large or dense (or both).
I've seen some SI2's with clouds as the grade-setters where the cloud(s) spreads halfway across the stone. Any light passing through that half of the stone would be turned into a duller haziness with reduced sharpness of the sparkle (reminded me of the moon when it gets a hazy halo, or perhaps a car headlamp in fog; bright but slightly scattered). Since diamonds let in light on one side and let much of it out of the other, then having half the stone cloudy would also affect the other half.

I think that if you're seeking the most sparkly, ultra-ideal cut, dropping clarity to a "cloudy" SI2 could also drop that ultra-ideal back to the light performance of your average ideal.

I'm sure to get blasted by people who have cloudy SI2's who claim that their stone is special - and that may be true. But if you've ever louped some diamonds, you'll see that even some VS clarity clouds that aren't the grade-setters (!) can look quite nasty. The light interference of large or numerous clouds is obvious to me.

Think of a cloud as like looking out of a window with a net curtain. Think of a crystal as like looking through the same window with a big bird poo on the glass; both interfere with your view and light transmission, but in different ways.


My advice; be very wary of SI2 clarity.
F-G colour deserves at least SI1 clarity and even then, I'd prefer eye clean crystals over lots of clouds.

 

[outatouch0]

Date: 11/27/2009 7:44:25 PM
Author: reigndeerz
I have already checked for eye cleanliness, and the SA from WF said that it was eyeclean both from top and side. Also, the clouds are said not to impact its performance. Apart from the clouds, it does look as if both the WF diamonds have minimal flaws/inclusions, which was why I was actually looking at a SI2.


Thanks for the BGD diamond too! It''s something that I''m struggling with, whether to go for a F/SI2, or a G/SI1. Especially when the prices for both combis are somewhat similar. I honestly don''t think I''d notice a difference between the 2 combis, both with or without a loupe. But I figured color would be more easily noticeable as compared to clarity. Would I be right to say that?

Hey there friend,
My FI diamond is an H and it faces up "WHITE" AS CAN BE. There are pictures in the post in my signature below. Note the picture from the pavilion side. That is actually yellower than IRL. The yellow you see in that picture is more an artifact of the beige walls inside the house. The fact up shots are very representative of the color. The pics do NO justice to the light performance and stunning beauty of the stone though. I am still amazed every time I see it!!

 

[reigndeerz]

Date: 11/28/2009 3:39:57 PM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/27/2009 7:44:25 PM

Author: reigndeerz

I have already checked for eye cleanliness, and the SA from WF said that it was eyeclean both from top and side. Also, the clouds are said not to impact its performance. Apart from the clouds, it does look as if both the WF diamonds have minimal flaws/inclusions, which was why I was actually looking at a SI2.


Thanks for the BGD diamond too! It''s something that I''m struggling with, whether to go for a F/SI2, or a G/SI1. Especially when the prices for both combis are somewhat similar. I honestly don''t think I''d notice a difference between the 2 combis, both with or without a loupe. But I figured color would be more easily noticeable as compared to clarity. Would I be right to say that?

An SI2 diamond must have something going on inside, otherwise it would be FL, VVS, VS or even SI1. Maybe it''s a good SI2 that rivals SI1. But SI-clarity implies inclusions that are very easy to find with a 10x loupe. The clouds that set the grade must be either large or dense (or both).

I''ve seen some SI2''s with clouds as the grade-setters where the cloud(s) spreads halfway across the stone. Any light passing through that half of the stone would be turned into a duller haziness with reduced sharpness of the sparkle (reminded me of the moon when it gets a hazy halo, or perhaps a car headlamp in fog; bright but slightly scattered). Since diamonds let in light on one side and let much of it out of the other, then having half the stone cloudy would also affect the other half.


I think that if you''re seeking the most sparkly, ultra-ideal cut, dropping clarity to a ''cloudy'' SI2 could also drop that ultra-ideal back to the light performance of your average ideal.


I''m sure to get blasted by people who have cloudy SI2''s who claim that their stone is special - and that may be true. But if you''ve ever louped some diamonds, you''ll see that even some VS clarity clouds that aren''t the grade-setters (!) can look quite nasty. The light interference of large or numerous clouds is obvious to me.


Think of a cloud as like looking out of a window with a net curtain. Think of a crystal as like looking through the same window with a big bird poo on the glass; both interfere with your view and light transmission, but in different ways.



My advice; be very wary of SI2 clarity.

F-G colour deserves at least SI1 clarity and even then, I''d prefer eye clean crystals over lots of clouds.

Thanks for the advice FB. Would you be able to point out to me the clouds on these 2 SI2 diamonds? I have stared at the 40x image for so long, but am just unable to located the clouds. I think I must be super insensitive to it! Heh.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/28/2009 8:54:33 PM
Author: reigndeerz

Thanks for the advice FB. Would you be able to point out to me the clouds on these 2 SI2 diamonds? I have stared at the 40x image for so long, but am just unable to located the clouds. I think I must be super insensitive to it! Heh.

The clarity grade is based on clouds which are not shown for both diamonds, if these diamonds were with an unknown vendor then I would be wary, however WF will have screened these diamonds very carefully and if there was the slightest issue with the clouds, they would be rejected and certainly not be representing the A Cut Above brand. As long as they are eyeclean you should be fine, if you are still concerned and you buy one, get an independant appraisal to set your mind at ease.

 

[reigndeerz]

You just confused me a little more Lorelei! I was informed by Liza from WF that these SI2s are both eyeclean, and that they do not impact the performance of the diamonds. On the other hand, FB had stated that there will nonetheless be an impact in the brilliance of the diamonds as a result of the clouds, and I can fully understand the logic behind his advice.

So what now? Should I go for a SI2 due to clouds, with the assurances from WF, or not? Geez. This is harder than I thought! Heh.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2009 8:22:05 AM
Author: reigndeerz
You just confused me a little more Lorelei! I was informed by Liza from WF that these SI2s are both eyeclean, and that they do not impact the performance of the diamonds. On the other hand, FB had stated that there will nonetheless be an impact in the brilliance of the diamonds as a result of the clouds, and I can fully understand the logic behind his advice.

So what now? Should I go for a SI2 due to clouds, with the assurances from WF, or not? Geez. This is harder than I thought! Heh.

Sorry I didn't mean to do that, just letting you know where the cloud references are as you said you couldn't find them! Clarity is based on clouds which are not shown on the grading reports, it is highly unlikely you will see them in the magnified images.

Ok, heres the thing. If WF told you there would not be a problem with these diamonds, as they are experienced and have physical access to the stones then I would go with that - especially as these stones are representing their ACA brand. Is it possible there might be a slight impact from the clouds? Yes, however it might not be discernible to the naked eye, only to sophisticated measuring equipment but the same could be said for any inclusion/s particularly in lower clarities. If you aren't convinced either look for a higher clarity grade or get an independant appraisal on your selection, WF encourage this and you have plenty of time to do so with their return policy.

 

[reigndeerz]

Date: 11/29/2009 8:32:27 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/29/2009 8:22:05 AM

Author: reigndeerz

You just confused me a little more Lorelei! I was informed by Liza from WF that these SI2s are both eyeclean, and that they do not impact the performance of the diamonds. On the other hand, FB had stated that there will nonetheless be an impact in the brilliance of the diamonds as a result of the clouds, and I can fully understand the logic behind his advice.


So what now? Should I go for a SI2 due to clouds, with the assurances from WF, or not? Geez. This is harder than I thought! Heh.

Sorry I didn''t mean to do that, just letting you know where the cloud references are as you said you couldn''t find them!


Ok, heres the thing. If WF told you there would not be a problem with these diamonds, as they are experienced and have physical access to the stones then I would go with that - especially as these stones are representing their ACA brand. Is it possible there might be a slight impact from the clouds? Yes, however it might not be discernible to the naked eye, only to sophisticated measuring equipment but the same could be said for any inclusion/s particularly in lower clarities. If you aren''t convinced either look for a higher clarity grade or get an independant appraisal on your selection, WF encourage this and you have plenty of time to do so with their return policy.

I saw the statement that stated that the clouds were the decider for the clarity grade on the cert. However I was unable to spot the cloud even at the 40x zoomed picture of either diamond photo. Have you tried looking at it? Because it sure irks me to not be able to find these clouds that are apparently severe enough to warrant it a SI2 grading! Heh.

Would it be better to get a 2nd opinion from another SA from WF? I''ve constantly read about Bob and how experienced he is. Perhaps obtaining a 2nd opinion from him pertaining to the impact of the clouds on these 2 stones would be a good idea?

When I said confused, I meant it in a good way! I''m glad I found PS, and all it''s wonderful people here. It would totally suck to have bought a diamond only to be ripped off. Worst still, to be ripped off and still think that I got myself a good buy! Haha.

Thanks once again Lorelei!

 

[FB.]

I agree that WF are likely to have hand-picked good stones.

But here's an example of a bad SI2 that has clouds as the grade-setters (and more that are not shown!

).
In this example, I suspect that the large clouds (some not shown) would interfere with the vast majority of the light pathways through the stone.

The light-performance gain from having an ultra-ideal could be mostly spoiled by the interference of such clouds - even if they're not dark and dense, just the clouds that are shown will spread far enough to block nearly every light pathway through the stone.

Superideal cut and SI2 is mostly a false economy - in my opinion of course (which we're all entitled to) - unless you manage to find an SI2 that only just failed to meet SI1 grade.

The gains of higher performance from the immaulate cut are substantially counterbalanced by the number and size of inclusions in many SI2 stones.

 

[FB.]

Ooops....you''ll want to see the original plot:

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2009 8:40:08 AM
Author: reigndeerz

Date: 11/29/2009 8:32:27 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/29/2009 8:22:05 AM

Author: reigndeerz

You just confused me a little more Lorelei! I was informed by Liza from WF that these SI2s are both eyeclean, and that they do not impact the performance of the diamonds. On the other hand, FB had stated that there will nonetheless be an impact in the brilliance of the diamonds as a result of the clouds, and I can fully understand the logic behind his advice.


So what now? Should I go for a SI2 due to clouds, with the assurances from WF, or not? Geez. This is harder than I thought! Heh.

Sorry I didn't mean to do that, just letting you know where the cloud references are as you said you couldn't find them!


Ok, heres the thing. If WF told you there would not be a problem with these diamonds, as they are experienced and have physical access to the stones then I would go with that - especially as these stones are representing their ACA brand. Is it possible there might be a slight impact from the clouds? Yes, however it might not be discernible to the naked eye, only to sophisticated measuring equipment but the same could be said for any inclusion/s particularly in lower clarities. If you aren't convinced either look for a higher clarity grade or get an independant appraisal on your selection, WF encourage this and you have plenty of time to do so with their return policy.

I saw the statement that stated that the clouds were the decider for the clarity grade on the cert. However I was unable to spot the cloud even at the 40x zoomed picture of either diamond photo. Have you tried looking at it? Because it sure irks me to not be able to find these clouds that are apparently severe enough to warrant it a SI2 grading! Heh.

Would it be better to get a 2nd opinion from another SA from WF? I've constantly read about Bob and how experienced he is. Perhaps obtaining a 2nd opinion from him pertaining to the impact of the clouds on these 2 stones would be a good idea?

When I said confused, I meant it in a good way! I'm glad I found PS, and all it's wonderful people here. It would totally suck to have bought a diamond only to be ripped off. Worst still, to be ripped off and still think that I got myself a good buy! Haha.

Thanks once again Lorelei!

Yes I tried looking and couldn't see anything which is pretty much what I expected as ' not shown' but I never judge a stone by the photograph or clarity plot for ' eyecleanliness' purposes.

Definitely explain to WF that you would like some extra input and ask for Bob to evaluate each and discuss them with you, I think that would really help. Bob has been doing this for years and knows his stuff, he has an excellent reputation which is well deserved.

And you are most welcome!

 

[FB.]

My cause for concern is the very broad range of inclusions that can sit within SI2.
Here''s a bad SI2 and good SI2:

 

[reigndeerz]

Thank you both Lorelei and FB. I shall attempt to have a word with Bob regarding these SI2 stones over the next few days. If I''m still uncomfortable with concerns regarding these clouds, I am more than ready to go for a G/SI1 instead. Unfortunately they currently do not stock a 3/4 carat with that particular set of specifications!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/29/2009 9:19:40 AM
Author: reigndeerz
Thank you both Lorelei and FB. I shall attempt to have a word with Bob regarding these SI2 stones over the next few days. If I''m still uncomfortable with concerns regarding these clouds, I am more than ready to go for a G/SI1 instead. Unfortunately they currently do not stock a 3/4 carat with that particular set of specifications!

Let us know what happens, Bob is great and you can have confidence in his judgement.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/29/2009 8:22:05 AM
Author: reigndeerz
You just confused me a little more Lorelei! I was informed by Liza from WF that these SI2s are both eyeclean, and that they do not impact the performance of the diamonds. On the other hand, FB had stated that there will nonetheless be an impact in the brilliance of the diamonds as a result of the clouds, and I can fully understand the logic behind his advice.

So what now? Should I go for a SI2 due to clouds, with the assurances from WF, or not? Geez. This is harder than I thought! Heh.

WF are a reputable seller, who have probably avoided the worst examples of each clarity grade by careful selection. They also have the stone in front of them. I''m just cautioning about possible disappointments of "eye clean" SI2 with clouds as grade-setters.

I would not touch a stone with un-charted clouds as the grade setters because just how many and how large clouds have not been shown on the plot?

 

[reigndeerz]

Date: 11/29/2009 9:46:12 AM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/29/2009 8:22:05 AM

Author: reigndeerz

You just confused me a little more Lorelei! I was informed by Liza from WF that these SI2s are both eyeclean, and that they do not impact the performance of the diamonds. On the other hand, FB had stated that there will nonetheless be an impact in the brilliance of the diamonds as a result of the clouds, and I can fully understand the logic behind his advice.


So what now? Should I go for a SI2 due to clouds, with the assurances from WF, or not? Geez. This is harder than I thought! Heh.

WF are a reputable seller, who have probably avoided the worst examples of each clarity grade by careful selection. They also have the stone in front of them. I''m just cautioning about possible disappointments of ''eye clean'' SI2 with clouds as grade-setters.


I would not touch a stone with un-charted clouds as the grade setters because just how many and how large clouds have not been shown on the plot?

Heh. It''s hard to be disappointed when I have no expectations whatsoever!

I shall pay closer attention to the cloud grade-setters though. Your words of wisdom have definitely made me sit up and be a little more concerned with what I previously thought as good value for money...

 

[reigndeerz]

I managed to catch Liza from WF for a rather long chat, and concluded that since I''m going to be purchasing a stone without actually being able to view it in person, it''d probably be safer to stick to a SI1 and up. (Shucks to having to get a smaller stone!)

Personally, I went to a local retailer to check out the HOF diamonds, and with a 10x loupe I couldn''t even detect any inclusions in SI1 diamonds. I think I''m really really really insensitive to it! Haha.

 

[coda72]

Not trying to muddy the waters too much, but I really think it''s possible to get an eyeclean SI2. I have one, and it also doesn''t have any clouds. If you''re not in a hurry, the price savings from SI2 as opposed to SI1 can be considerable. Here''s the AGS report of my eyeclean SI2 from WF, also an ACA.

 

[reigndeerz]

Date: 11/30/2009 10:42:51 PM
Author: coda72
Not trying to muddy the waters too much, but I really think it''s possible to get an eyeclean SI2. I have one, and it also doesn''t have any clouds. If you''re not in a hurry, the price savings from SI2 as opposed to SI1 can be considerable. Here''s the AGS report of my eyeclean SI2 from WF, also an ACA.

That actually looks really nice

without clouds that is. Heh.

I shall keep a lookout for SI2s in the meantime. Considering I''m not really in a hurry, I guess it''s a good thing I started hunting early

 

[coda72]

True, my diamond doesn't have clouds, only some crystals, but I had a diamond that had clouds where I couldn't notice a difference in how the diamond sparkled. But if the clouds bother you, I'm sure there are some SI2 diamonds out there that don't have clouds.

 

[reigndeerz]

To be honest, I doubt I could notice the difference the clouds make.

However, given that I can''t view the stones in person, I''m not quite sure if I''m willing to take this risk, given that shipping it back and forth for a replacement would cost a bomb as I don''t live anywhere near the States.

I will continue to keep a lookout for SI2s that are without grade-setting clouds though! Thank you for giving me hope that good SI2s still exist!

 

[swingirl]

Whiteflash's ACAs are hand-picked. Not many have been disappointed with them, even the SI2s.

 

[FB.]

Yes, a reasonable number of eye clean SI2 stones exist (although the majority are not eye clean to the owner; I have some VS2 and SI1 where I can find the inclusions). Larger stones tend to have more visible inclusions.
Make sure that your definition of eye clean matches with the seller. They may consider a stone to be eye clean with a few seconds glance at 18 inches. You might inspect the stone for several minutes at 6 inches and be able to see the inclusions.
With the SI grades, it''s often a case of how far away to see the inclusions, rather than the "yes/no" answer to whether it''s eye clean.

 

[reigndeerz]

So this is what my SA had to say bout the 2 F/SI2 diamonds...

---------------------------------------------------
So Bob and I both looked at the diamonds you were interested in, the Si2s. We looked at them separately, and we both had the same opinion.

They ARE both eye clean, but the .754ct looked crisper than the other.

If I had to describe it, I''d say that the .754ct performed very nicely. It is a nice diamond, and at a great price. The cloud is there, but it is more difficult to see.

I think the IF (or an eye clean Si1) will look crisper if you hold them side by side. But, I don''t think you''d be unhappy with the Si2 either.

More than eye clean, I think this will be a mind clean thing.

I would not feel bad wearing the .754ct myself. But, I''m not buying it, and it''s not going on my finger.

I think the question is a matter of value and budget. This stone is a *great* buy, and a great value for a tight budget and someone who wants a 3/4ct diamond. If you don''t mind going smaller, or if you don''t mind upping your budget, then you can afford to find a different one. But, this is a great deal.

Yes, I think the .754ct is beautiful. Like I said, I wouldn''t mind wearing it myself.
But, if you buy that stone, I have a feeling the first thing you''ll do is look for the clouds. And if you''re looking for something, you''ll find it.
I''d rather find you a stone you''re blown away with, than a stone you have doubts about.

-----------------------------------------

Summary:
- Eye Clean, and the 0.754ct looks good
- It will look less crisp beside a higher clarity, but it is nonetheless an excellent diamond
- Great value for money

Opinions? I am torn as to whether or not to get a super ideal that can''t quite perform as well as it could due to the clarity. I figure that there''s a fair bit of sales talk involved in there, and that it might be a better idea to find a G/SI1 instead, or even a smaller G/VS2. Opinions anyone?

 

[coda72]

I looked at both diamonds you listed at the top of the post, and I would go with the 0.754 carat one. I could see a slight difference between the two, and the 0.754 did look a bit crisper as your SA said. SI2 clarity doesn''t bother me, in fact that''s all I will buy anymore. I won''t pay for something I can''t see. I love F colored diamonds too. But it''s really up to you. Only you know if the SI2 will bother you. I don''t think it will from what you''ve already said, but in the end only you can answer that question for yourself. If it makes you feel better, there are plenty of people that are happy with their SI2 diamonds on this board.