Thoughts on a diamond - SI1 eyeclean?

[mcosme]

Hello all!

I'm hoping to get some advice on the below stone. It's an ~1.3 carat, SI1. To me the idealscope looks good, but I'm not too sure if it would be eyeclean with all those crystals on the table. What do you guys think?

Thanks in advance

 

[gm89uk]

They look like small crystals clustered together, without any being big enough to an issue. They also appear reasonably transparent. Looks like a great stone.

If this is from JA, they should be able to inspect it prior to shipping

 

[mcosme]

Thank you for your reply gm89uk

Yes it is from JA - I'd have to purchase it first and then they bring it in to review, but being from Australia I'd have to trust their word as returning would be a hassle.

I found another stone (pictures below). It's slightly smaller at 1.27 and also SI1. Which one would you guys pick?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Both stones look good as far as cut goes. I am just not sure I'd risk the crystal inclusions under the table. If this was a vendor who'd really examine the stone in various lighting for assurance that the crystals never are seen, I'd feel much better. I just remember a post long ago about a crystal reflecting light in certain situations, and I'd just be cautious. They may both be perfectly fine, but since it is an overeseas purchase, I'd be very certain before I proceeded on a SI1 with inclusions under the table.

 

[AV_]

I would rather trust the first one. The crystals are each too small to see & the position is great - inclusions do not reflect & are swamped in brightenes. The entire cluster is a minute, faintly translucent streak of translucent dots - this is allot worse: ...

[Then again, I do not mind seeing such things.]

 

[lovedogs]

I prefer the second one in the images.

 

[mcosme]

Hi All,

Sorry for the delay and thank you for your opinions - I appreciate it! JA is going to call in the 3 stones for me and have the gemologist review it. I will post back the review.

AV - did you say you like the the first one, the 1.32?

1. https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...e-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-7084950
Looks nice to me as long as eye clean.

2. https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...e-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-7555543
This seems like it might be the eye clean option but when the diamond spins there seems to be crystal reflections on the side?



3. https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...color-si2-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-7783161
I picked the 3rd one because it was priced really well despite the not so perfect angles. After I put it on hold they said the price was $700 more so not too sure anymore



@ Flyingpig, are you around?

 

[sledge]

I'd definitely request an IS on the 3rd stone. Steep 35 crown and steep 41 pavilion has me thinking you will see some issues.

Also with GIA rounding and averaging you may be tipping to a 41.2 pavilion on one or more of the 8 actual pavilion values.

Alas, the stone is an SI2 with a note of additional clouds not shown and surface graining. These are bad combos and I'd be very concerned about the stone having a hazy or cloudy appearance even if the IS came back clean.

Assuming eye clean, I like stone 2.

 

[mcosme]

I'd definitely request an IS on the 3rd stone. Steep 35 crown and steep 41 pavilion has me thinking you will see some issues.

Also with GIA rounding and averaging you may be tipping to a 41.2 pavilion on one or more of the 8 actual pavilion values.

Alas, the stone is an SI2 with a note of additional clouds not shown and surface graining. These are bad combos and I'd be very concerned about the stone having a hazy or cloudy appearance even if the IS came back clean.

Assuming eye clean, I like stone 2.

Hi Sledge, thanks for your reply.
There's an idealscope on the JA link for stone 3. I kind of threw this one in as a third but unlikely would go with it.

For Stone 2, do you think those crystals I'm seeing when tilted will be an issue? Here's the full certificate.

 

[lovedogs]

Hi Sledge, thanks for your reply.
There's an idealscope on the JA link for stone 3. I kind of threw this one in as a third but unlikely would go with it.

For Stone 2, do you think those crystals I'm seeing when tilted will be an issue? Here's the full certificate.

. I really don't like the third one.

I don't think the crystals on stone 2 will be an issue. The pics you ae looking at are hugely magnified, so you won't see those details IRL.

 

[sledge]

Looking at stone 3 closer, I see JA labeled it part of their TH collection. Looks pretty good for the angles, but around 5pm it appears you have some leakage.

Also, not sure the price you would have to pay for this stone, but quite honestly it'd piss me off for JA to add $700 to the price once I became interested. Also, while the stone does appear well cut, there are minor issues that IMO don't make it worth the premium of a true H&A stone.




In regards to stone 2 I viewed on my computer and see what you mean about the crystals getting reflected all the way around the stone. Also, I was zooming in and out on stone 1 as well and I can still see the crystals on stone 1 from a fairly zoomed out version. I'd definitely want someone to lay their eyes on both stones and to be very clear about an "eye clean" definition.

Being an overseas buyer and not wanting to hassle with a return, I may consider a more risk free option. Have you seen this one yet?

CBI/HPD 1.23 E SI2 @ $9,160 wire
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10857

If you aren't aware, CBI/HPD produces true H&A super ideal stones that are nothing short of amazing. They have awesome upgrade policies -- simply spend $1 more and get full credit of the original stone on a trade in for a bigger stone, or two smaller stones or whatever you desire. They have a no restrictions type upgrade policy.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/whyus/whyus-upgrades

Also, they are the only vendor to offer an 80% buyback policy for the life of the stone -- no trade required, they will just pay you cash.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/whyus/whyus-lifetime

Most importantly they cut for beauty and precision. And they guarantee ALL their stones to be eye clean. Given this is an SI2 stone I think that speaks volumes. Oh yeah and free international shipping to you.

https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/whyus/whyus-faqdetail/60
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/education/education-clarity
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/whyus/whyus-shipping

 

[TODiamonds]

Alas, the stone is an SI2 with a note of additional clouds not shown and surface graining. These are bad combos and I'd be very concerned about the stone having a hazy or cloudy appearance even if the IS came back clean.

I think "Additional clouds not shown" is often confused with "Clarity is based on clouds that are not shown". The former is usually ok (just means they are so small they aren't worth plotting), whereas the latter almost certainly indicates a milky or hazy diamond.

 

[ringo865]

SI2 with clouds as first listed inclusion plus additional clouds not shown combined with a GIA rounded 35/41 would cause me pause.

Take the other images (#1 and #2) and zoom them down to appx 7mm and see if you can see the crystals. They appear clear and you probably won’t see them. Also the idealscopes look better on them (#1 and #2) than on #3.

 

[sledge]

Another good option from WF who has a similar upgrade policy. Their buyback policy is limited to 70% for 1 year. And again, a super ideal true H&A vendor that cuts for maximum beauty.

https://www.whiteflash.com/confidence/lifetime-trade-up-guarantee/
https://www.whiteflash.com/confidence/one-year-buy-back-guarantee/



WF PS 1.21 F VS2 @ $10,256 wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4107649.htm

56 table, 62.4 depth, 34.5 crown, 40.8 pavilion & 75 LGF

Awesome proportions backed by light performance and symmetry images. It appears to have missed ACA because depth is 62.4 (ACA requires max 62) and because it has GIA cert instead of AGS.


WF ACA 1.325 F SI1 @ $10,989 wire
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4105095.htm

56.5 table, 61.9 depth, 34.9 crown, 40.9 pavilion & 76 LGF

Gaining an ACA and small size bump, but giving up a little clarity and forcing the price up $700 or so. More interesting is this stone has that 35/41 combo but all the images look very good. You see some small slivers of green (slightly less intense light return) showing up in the ASET, but it's very minimal and likely a result of the 35/41 combo. Nothing to get concerned about.


You may have noticed I used ACA and PS above. That is 2 of the 3 lines that WF carries. Let me further explain:

1. A Cut Above (ACA) = Their primary and cream of the crop diamonds. AGS000 certification and meets their stringent ACA criteria.

https://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

2. Expert Select (ES) = Near miss ACA's that have AGS000 certification and all the same perks and benefits of the ACA line.

https://www.whiteflash.com/expert-selection-diamonds/

3. Premium Select (PS) = Similar to the ES line, except with GIA certificates as some buyers prefer GIA over AGS. Also, some PS stones actually meet ACA requirements but get the PS moniker simply for the GIA cert.

https://www.whiteflash.com/premium-select-diamonds/

 

[sledge]

I think "Additional clouds not shown" is often confused with "Clarity is based on clouds that are not shown". The former is usually ok (just means they are so small they aren't worth plotting), whereas the latter almost certainly indicates a milky or hazy diamond.

You have to consider the entire context.

"Additional clouds not shown" is not necessarily bad. Add it to a stone with SI2 clarity or where clouds are the grade setting inclusion and you have a different story. In this case, stone 3 is an SI2 with clouds as the grade setting inclusion with the additional clouds not shown (and surface graining) in the notes.

In this case, after considering the entire context -- a buyer should be concerned and perform due diligence to ensure they aren't buying a cloudy/hazy stone.

The note "clarity is based on clouds not shown" is even more detrimental, and is very risky. A buyer should take additional precautions if this note is present. If it were me, I'd pass altogether unless I had a unique situation -- but then again my view is there are plenty of diamonds so passing on the risky ones isn't much of a loss.

 

[TODiamonds]

You have to consider the entire context.

"Additional clouds not shown" is not necessarily bad. Add it to a stone with SI2 clarity or where clouds are the grade setting inclusion and you have a different story. In this case, stone 3 is an SI2 with clouds as the grade setting inclusion with the additional clouds not shown (and surface graining) in the notes.

In this case, after considering the entire context -- a buyer should be concerned and perform due diligence to ensure they aren't buying a cloudy/hazy stone.

The note "clarity is based on clouds not shown" is even more detrimental, and is very risky. A buyer should take additional precautions if this note is present. If it were me, I'd pass altogether unless I had a unique situation -- but then again my view is there are plenty of diamonds so passing on the risky ones isn't much of a loss.

Yes agree with you 100%. I wouldn't want an SI2 with clouds as the grade setting inclusion either and I would def pass on this one. Just wanted to make that distinction for others sake because often they see "clouds not shown" and dismiss a stone thinking it will be hazy or milky.

 

[mcosme]

Thanks guys!

I'll eliminate the 3rd stone as definitely don't want to take the risk! It was $6650 before they bumped it up.

I was hoping to stick to get a diamond for around $8k

The CBI does look tempting though... but a bit over the budget

So is the spec only an estimate and when it's finished cutting it could be something different?

To be honest, I am happy with G or even H if the stone is fabulous, if only there was a lower color SI2 CBI haha

 

[KristinTech]

I saw the CBI online today and I got all excited.... I’m a color gal, and I don’t care about clarity that I can’t see... Here is my thread about my 1.23 E SI2
CBI. Seriously consider it!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hpd-ny-classic-featuring-a-1-23-e-si2-cbi.248389/

 

[sledge]

That helps to know your budget and color tolerance. I will do some digging tomorrow and see what other options are out there.

 

[mcosme]

KristinTech - thanks for your message! I'll keep a look out on HPD in case any other SI2's come up within my budget.

Thanks Sledge. I'd appreciate that

JA came back with the gemologist review. Stone 1 would've been my pick, but it looks like the medium fluorescence has some kind of negative impact... so I should definitely rule that out?

1) 7084950 1.32 carat - True E color, eye clean, and faces up whitest of the set. Overall brilliance and light performance is excellent, bright light return with the most balanced scintillation of the set. Fire is best of the three and fluorescence has minimal eye visible impact. Only an extremely slight haze, that is not detected by most eyes.

2) 7555543 1.27 carat - True E color, eye clean, and faces up very white. Overall brilliance and light performance is excellent, bright light return and great scintillation, but less ideal than the 1st option. Fire is very good for this diamond.

3) 7783161 1.3 carat - True F color and faces up white, but warmest or the set. Overall brilliance and light performance is very good, bright light return. Scintillation is still very good, but least balanced of the set. Fire is above average, but least fire of the set. I can detect the cloud under the crown very slightly, but eye clean to an untrained eye.

 

[sledge]

Sorry @istase2000, I lost track of this thread. Next time, feel free to call me out by putting the @ symbol in front of my name, so it alerts me.

If I were buying I'd scratch stone 1. While I'm not afraid of fluor and think it's actually a way to save a few bucks, the downside is some stones have that hazy/milky appearance. No way I'm dealing with that and would absolutely pass.

I'd also scratch stone 3. Sounds like it's only eye clean to a casual observer. You and your wife will look at that stone many times over the years and in great detail I'm sure. I personally wouldn't risk it. I'm cool with eye clean, but not under those set of circumstances. Also, when looking at the idealscope image earlier, the stone had leakage at the 5pm position, which is why it doesn't perform as well.

This leaves stone 2 of the original bunch. I would be curious to know what made this stone less ideal than stone 1. It almost sounds like stone was more balanced, and stone 2 had more fire. However, the review also says stone 1 had the best fire, which makes me curious the distance of the gap.

Personally I'd try to find a way to make the 1.23 CBI stone happen. I can't believe it's still available. At the least, you may want to have @Wink put it on temp hold while you try to finalize your decision. That's a pretty rare unicorn.

 

[sledge]

I was looking at WF, HPD, BGD and VC for 1.20+ carat stones, H+ color and SI1+ clarity for around the $8k mark. That's a tough find in super ideal land.

I did find 3 at VC that is just a few hundred bucks over the $8k mark. I'm not sure how tight your budget is, but I am listing for you to review either way.

1. https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/r4eky5-1.201-h-si1-hearts-arrows-round
2. https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/lq8463-1.201-h-si1-hearts-arrows-round
3. https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/nhrvma-1.204-h-si1-hearts-arrows-round

 

[mcosme]

Hi Sledge,

Thanks again for your help and for the new suggestions. I'm actually searching for my brother and I did suggest the CBI but he'd rather stay within budget. If it were me, I'd definitely pay the little extra and take it.

Would you say the 1.27 E SI1 would be still be a great choice? I know it's not going to be as good as a super ideal - but at 8k, it seems well cut, eye clean and at a E colour too which is a bonus. Also, I didn't ask them to check whether faint fluorescence has an haziness, do I need to ask?

I'm going away soon so otherwise we'd need to continue the search in mid November. I heard diamond stock gets kind of low at that time?

 

[TODiamonds]

JA came back with the gemologist review. Stone 1 would've been my pick, but it looks like the medium fluorescence has some kind of negative impact... so I should definitely rule that out?

1) 7084950 1.32 carat - True E color, eye clean, and faces up whitest of the set. Overall brilliance and light performance is excellent, bright light return with the most balanced scintillation of the set. Fire is best of the three and fluorescence has minimal eye visible impact. Only an extremely slight haze, that is not detected by most eyes.

2) 7555543 1.27 carat - True E color, eye clean, and faces up very white. Overall brilliance and light performance is excellent, bright light return and great scintillation, but less ideal than the 1st option. Fire is very good for this diamond.

3) 7783161 1.3 carat - True F color and faces up white, but warmest or the set. Overall brilliance and light performance is very good, bright light return. Scintillation is still very good, but least balanced of the set. Fire is above average, but least fire of the set. I can detect the cloud under the crown very slightly, but eye clean to an untrained eye.

I'm curious how these gemologist reviews work. I thought they operate based on a modified drop-ship model with the gemologist receiving the stone and doing a final inspection only once you've placed your order? How did the gemologist inspect all 3 of these stones if they are sitting with the supplier?

 

[mcosme]

With the gemologist review, some reps told me I had to order the stone first before they inspect it. However when I emailed them saying I'd really like to compare two stones they told me I could pick a 3rd and they would bring them all in to review. So apparently they have ordered all 3 stones in.

 

[TODiamonds]

With the gemologist review, some reps told me I had to order the stone first before they inspect it. However when I emailed them saying I'd really like to compare two stones they told me I could pick a 3rd and they would bring them all in to review. So apparently they have ordered all 3 stones in.

Cool - I didn't know they do that.

 

[flyingpig]

Hi @istase2000
long time no see.
I got nothing to add. Go with your instinct

 

[sledge]

Hi Sledge,

Thanks again for your help and for the new suggestions. I'm actually searching for my brother and I did suggest the CBI but he'd rather stay within budget. If it were me, I'd definitely pay the little extra and take it.

Would you say the 1.27 E SI1 would be still be a great choice? I know it's not going to be as good as a super ideal - but at 8k, it seems well cut, eye clean and at a E colour too which is a bonus. Also, I didn't ask them to check whether faint fluorescence has an haziness, do I need to ask?

I'm going away soon so otherwise we'd need to continue the search in mid November. I heard diamond stock gets kind of low at that time?

For the size, color and price I believe the 1.27 packs quite a punch. It was my initial pick before we had additional data. JA has confirmed its eye clean. You shouldn't have any issues with faint fluor but since they have the stone in house I would clarify there is no haziness; however, I believe he/she may have noted that previously if there had been any. Still a good follow up question. Also I would ask for some additional explanation about the fire and if it's possible if JA will do a video of all 3 stones so you can visually see what they are seeing.

Your requests may or may not fly, but it's free to ask. Worst they can do is say no, right?

Here is another TH option. It's an F SI1 and in the $8k range but may still be over budget. This one has an AGS cert and should have the computer generated ASET on the cert but the hearts and IS image looks good.

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...color-si1-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-6166759

I also found a GIA 3x option scouring RC that looked promising. I'm on my mobile but will post the link when I'm back on my computer. That stone was on Yadav (or similar) site but JA may also have access to ot if that's a thing. Had a small 55 table and 35/40.6 combo but no IS or ASET images. You may be starting over in the entire process and I'm not certain you are okay with that, but it could be another option.

 

[sledge]

Here are the others I was looking at on RC:

1.32 F SI I mentioned previously:
https://www.withclarity.com/diamond...Excellent?utm_source=rarecarat&utm_medium=cpc

1.30 H SI1 with promising 34.5/40.8 combo, but larger 58 table:
https://www.withclarity.com/diamond...Excellent?utm_source=rarecarat&utm_medium=cpc


1.24 G VS2 w/ ASET and H&A images. Not a true H&A stone, but pretty darn good. Between $7500 to $8k, depending which vendor you choose. Or pit against one another for the best price & terms.

https://www.doamore.com/diamonds/5-723053511/?utm_source=rare_carat&utm_term=Round&utm_content=1.24

https://www.yadavjewelry.com/diamond/round-diamond-1.24-carat-g-vs2-yd7255556

https://www.withclarity.com/diamond...Excellent?utm_source=rarecarat&utm_medium=cpc

 

[mcosme]

Hi Sledge
Thanks for helping me once again!!

The true hearts is a bit over budget sorry.

Looks like this is the same 1.32 F you were looking at. What do you think of the dark inclusions?
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...f-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-7564607

Also I've looked at the 1.24 G VS2 before. What do you think of the IS?