Starting the journey

[lv2008]

Im starting my journey for a diamond. Ive put in about 20 hours of research and been to several places looking at diamonds. I went to the diamond district in LA and found a diamond i liked after looking at 12 diamonds. Here are the specs -

EGL LA Cert
2.00
7.96 x 7.91 x 4.99
Depth - 62.9
Table - 58%
Crown - 15%
Pavilion - 43.1%
Girdle - Slightly thick

No Culet

Polish - very good
symmetry Good
SI2 - eye clean
Color Grade - H

FL - faint

HCA score 2.7 - it said the diamond is good if the price is right. I can pick the diamond up for about $10,500.00

Whats my next step to determine the cut or ensure its brilliance? EGL doesnt give a cut rating. The diamond looks great but i want to make sure it has an ideal cut.

Thoughts??

thanks

 

[NeverEndingUpgrade]

I'm not the expert here, but I think most people on PS avoid EGL certified diamonds in favor of AGS or GIA certs. With no photos, it is impossible to rate the cut based on the info given. At least I don't know how to do it. Anyone?

 

[JulieN]

You can buy an Ideal Scope.

 

[Regular Guy]

Julie gives good advice.

Also, where Neverendingupgrade says:

Date: 6/15/2008 9:46:47 PM
Author: NeverEndingUpgrade
I'm not the expert here, but I think most people on PS avoid EGL certified diamonds in favor of AGS or GIA certs. With no photos, it is impossible to rate the cut based on the info given. At least I don't know how to do it. Anyone?

I don't know how far from a cut grade you are. You have used HCA (though EGL's use of % vs angles adds a complication vis-a-vis precision in the data). If you really like the vendor, and diamond, this may be worth pursuing...but the diamond, per comparable other non AGS and GIA options here, is only fairly priced, costing in the middle of those ranging between $8K and $13,5 K. So, for example, this is an option on the low side you might consider, too...of 186 listings (some dups) that are H SI2 and between 2 - 2.06 carats.

Although experimenting with an EGL...and particularly EGL LA (some version of US I presume?) is probably not a bad idea, it is not a conservative choice. Also, specifically...since you typically don't have to pay much of a significant premium to get 0 - 2 on the HCA, I think you should at least give yourself the benefit of the doubt to find one that does conform to that measure, and compare for yourself.

Shopping locally, again, has it's advantages. So does shopping virtually. Consider both.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

62.9 is a little too deep. An ideal cut 2 carat stone should be about 8.1mm in diameter.

Look for

table 54-57

depth 60-62

crown angle 34-35

pavilion angle 40.6-41.0

Polish and symmetry should be very good or better


I''d stick with GIA and AGS certs. This stone is probably lower color and clarity than represented considering the price. As you can see, this AGS ideal cut J SI2 is still $14,000, so I am very doubtful that stone is a H SI2.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3154/

 

[Cocosgirl]

Totally not an expert, but are you set on buying at a B&M or would you be open to buying online? Is the 2 carat mark critical to your purchase? It seems like it might be a good price but if you can let us know what you are trying to achieve (does she want sparkle and fire? or size? or white hot color? or a little of each?) that would be a huge help

.

Most of the top end GIA or AGS cuts in your color and clarity range are going to run (at least at Whiteflash, Good Old Gold etc) much more. For example, here''s a WF I/SI1, A Cut Above, AGS certed at $20,195. This is a color grade LOWER than the one you are posting about and a clarity grade HIGHER, AND it''s nearly 10K more -- it''s all about the cut.

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-906695.htm


Just a thought of course . . . is your budget around 10K?

 

[lv2008]

Im open to buying online and getting the best diamond i can for the budget.

If anyone can give me there opinion on how to find a diamond with great brilliance and fire within these parameters

Budget- 10 -12k
Size - around 2 carats 1.8 will work
Color - anything near colorless - G, H, I, J
SI2 eye clean
Ideal cut

thanks for the help and advice

 

[lv2008]

What kind of photo? idealscope

 

[John P]

Date: 6/15/2008 8:46:41 PM
Author:lv2008
Im starting my journey for a diamond. Ive put in about 20 hours of research and been to several places looking at diamonds. I went to the diamond district in LA and found a diamond i liked after looking at 12 diamonds. Here are the specs -

EGL LA Cert
2.00
7.96 x 7.91 x 4.99
Depth - 62.9
Table - 58%
Crown - 15%
Pavilion - 43.1%
Girdle - Slightly thick

No Culet

Polish - very good
symmetry Good
SI2 - eye clean
Color Grade - H

FL - faint

HCA score 2.7 - it said the diamond is good if the price is right. I can pick the diamond up for about $10,500.00

Whats my next step to determine the cut or ensure its brilliance? EGL doesnt give a cut rating. The diamond looks great but i want to make sure it has an ideal cut.

Thoughts??

thanks

EGL offers different report types. Some include cut grading, but they allow a pretty wide range into the top grades.

Based on the measurements provided the pavilion angle is 40.8 and the crown angle is 35.5. The girdle judgment might be 'thick' if it was sent to GIA (not sure, but it's borderline). At 7.94 mm avg spread it is facing up more like a 1.85 ct round than a 2.00 ct stone. This explains the borderine-thick girdle and crown angle. The cutter 'saved' the 2 carat mark by adding a little extra weight to the girdle and crown. With good cut consistency and minor facets I imagine it's a very attractive diamond - but you will be paying for the "magic" 2 carat mark without getting the face-up spread expected for 2 carats.

Based on the numbers it could earn AGS 2 in light performance and GIA EX for major proportions, but both of those labs would penalize it a grade for weight ratio vs spread.

 

[Regular Guy]

This choice is suspicious for clouds, but may be fabulous. If chosen, get a sharp appraiser who could comment on degradation in performance for clouds. If they can''t respond to questions about this in advance of hiring them, don''t.

 

[kcoursolle]

For 12k, I rather have this one: http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/4014/. It also comes with a lifetime upgrade policy and excellent information about the stone.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/15/2008 11:26:52 PM
Author: Regular Guy

This choice is suspicious for clouds, but may be fabulous. If chosen, get a sharp appraiser who could comment on degradation in performance for clouds. If they can't respond to questions about this in advance of hiring them, don't.

If the comment was "Clarity grade is based on clouds not shown" it would be suspicious indeed, but the comment "clouds not shown" by itself is benign.

Many times a diamond grading report lists characteristics as "not shown" (twinning wisps, surface graining, pinpoints, clouds...). That wording means they are non-issues; the grader is noting they exist for sake of thoroughness.

Edited to add: The SI-with-clouds topic has had plenty of discussion in the past, so it's always good to be vigilant.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 6/16/2008 12:31:24 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 6/15/2008 11:26:52 PM
Author: Regular Guy

This choice is suspicious for clouds, but may be fabulous. If chosen, get a sharp appraiser who could comment on degradation in performance for clouds. If they can''t respond to questions about this in advance of hiring them, don''t.

If the comment was ''Clarity grade is based on clouds not shown'' it would be suspicious indeed, but the comment ''clouds not shown'' by itself is benign.

Many times a diamond grading report lists characteristics as ''not shown'' (twinning wisps, surface graining, pinpoints, clouds...). That wording means they are non-issues; the grader is noting they exist for sake of thoroughness.

Edited to add: The SI-with-clouds topic has had plenty of discussion in the past, so it''s always good to be vigilant.

John''s seen a ton of diamonds, and I''ve seen very few.

Still, by my read (and if the option I showed above, vs KCoursolle, vs others you may find motivates you, you may want to dig deeper into this or not) experts do not have consensus on this opinion. In actuality...Garry will be slippery on this topic, and he says different things, at different times, in even the same thread.

For example, among other things, he said (in connected links):

"When there are few marks on a cert clarity plot, or not much to see in a diamond microscope photo some of you think you caught a graders mistake and you can have a win.

You can not win. Without the experience and the stone in your hand and the right equipment lighting etc, you will probably end up with a diamond with reduced brilliance and fire as a result of a cloud that is in my opinion much worse than a small microscopic or hard to see inclusion."

If you follow the links connected above, you may or may not be sympathetic to the view that John makes a cut off on this topic of noting concern ONLY, as he says, where clouds are described as the grade maker...but...

1) I read that at least Garry will..independent of that specific language...look at the presentation of the marks on the certificate, regardless...and if he sees little markings to suggest any notable inclusions, and there is language on the cert to indicate a cloud is not shown...he would have it evaluated before assuming more about it.

2) I see this particular diamond...as not ONLY having the language of "clouds not shown," but I can see virtually nothing else going on in the diamond...causing me to wonder on what basis the SI2 is earned.

I would continue to be suspicious until evaluated further. And...despite text showing in the attached link how graders have been checking for these things for years...I would not assume that a particular appraiser knew what the heck I was talking about until I asked him some kind of appropriate questions in advance....to see if he was sensitive to such a thing.

Note...though KCoursolle''s options solves this particular problem, and provides a discount to boot...there is a size difference, and the color difference is notable, too. For some, an H is a cut off. For others...Js are swell.

 

[lv2008]

I noticed some of these diamonds recommended have strong flourescence listed. Can someone comment on this and what to watch out for

thanks

 

[JulieN]

It's not a problem. You may have issues when you have very strong fluor or if it is combined with a stone that has large clouds... it may look "oily."

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/16/2008 2:47:02 PM
Author: lv2008
I noticed some of these diamonds recommended have strong flourescence listed. Can someone comment on this and what to watch out for

thanks

Negative effects from strong blue fluorescence are extremely rare, it is prudent to check with your vendor should you find such a diamond, but it is rare there is an issue.

 

[John P]

I hope you will all forgive a regression to the 'clouds' question...

Date: 6/16/2008 2:20:39 AM
Author: Regular Guy

2) I see this particular diamond...as not ONLY having the language of 'clouds not shown,' but I can see virtually nothing else going on in the diamond...causing me to wonder on what basis the SI2 is earned.

I’ve not seen this diamond but in GIA coursework we learn specific rules for clarity grading (which AGS follows). I have no stake in this, but for anyone interested I hope you don’t mind my sharing why I believe the crystals under the table are the basis for the grade.

Part of a diamond grader’s procedure is to determine a “buzzword” for the appearance of inclusions at 10X, as follows:

Minute: VVS
Minor: VS
Noticeable: SI
Obvious: I

Crystals are typical SI grade-setters and the one just off-center is drawn large. Size, position and relief (visibility; it may be a reflector or opaque) are determining factors. There is no way to tell how visible an inclusion is from the plot, but we can try to think like a diamond grader.

1. If clouds were "noticeable" and set the grade - and he chose not to plot them - he should have written “clarity grade based on clouds not shown” (the underlined is important).

2. We list inclusions in order of importance. The grade-setting inclusion is listed first followed by all other inclusions and blemishes. If we presume the grader did his job the crystals are indicated as the grade-setters.

3. If the clouds did not set the grade, but were visible at 10X, he should have drawn them.

Remember that the words “not shown” (by themselves) indicate a non-issue. If the plot said “twinning wisps not shown” would you be having the same consternation? Of course not. In this case the word “clouds” might make you jumpy based on some past discussion with Garry (all regarding GIA diamonds I believe). However if the AGS grader followed proper process the strong case is for grade-setting crystals.

I hope you don’t mind my elaboration Ira, but the “not shown” comment is frequently questioned here (with regard to pinpoints, twinning wisps, graining and clouds) so it's worth discussion. If you don’t buy my logic maybe we can get someone with access to the stone to pull it and give a description?

 

[lv2008]

Question

WHere should i sacrifiice to get a nice sparkling brilliant diamond - color or cut?? Should i go ideal cut and higher color say J or should i go with good cut and better color rating. Right now my thoughts are better cut

thanks

 

[JulieN]

give up carat. i know it's hard, but...that's what i would do. J is a good color if carat weight is very important, though...

BTW, I think a 2 ct H SI2 for 10,500 is extremely worrying.

 

[honey22]

I''m not an expert, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a well cut 2ct stone for that price range. You don''t want to drop too low a colour in a large stone as I think it will be more likely to show colour.

I certainly would not sacrifice cut for size. An ideal cut stone that is smaller in size will look much better than a larger piece of frozen spit so to say. Nothing sparkles like an ideal cut stone!

 

[lv2008]

What about this diamond? http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/4269/ It seems to score well for 12,000.00

Would this be nice or should i go ideal cut 1.75?? I need everyones opinion

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 6/17/2008 12:51:56 PM
Author: lv2008
What about this diamond? http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/4269/ It seems to score well for 12,000.00

Would this be nice or should i go ideal cut 1.75?? I need everyones opinion

Table is too large and depth is too shallow. Try stones with a depth of 60-62 and table from 54-57.

 

[elmo]

John, Ira - total threadjack here but your comment about comments made me think of you guys when I saw this one on a GIA report today, a first time for me:

Comments: A pre-existing inscription is present on the girdle.

No indication what the inscription was - talk about a completely useless comment!

 

[John P]

Date: 6/17/2008 8:29:02 PM
Author: elmo

John, Ira - total threadjack here but your comment about comments made me think of you guys when I saw this one on a GIA report today, a first time for me:

Comments: A pre-existing inscription is present on the girdle.

No indication what the inscription was - talk about a completely useless comment!

I've seen that comment used when a logo (non-text) is present. You're right, it creates more questions than it answers. Reminds me of Seth Godin's "This Is Broken." If you haven't seen this before it's worth a look.