shape
carat
color
clarity

Thoughts on a diamond - SI1 eyeclean?

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
@ flyingpig
Nice to see you again!!

This is the gemologists reply again

7084950 is marginally better, with a little more fire that balances with the brilliance so that you get a nice even mix of both. While both are E color, 7084950 has slightly less color.

7555543 is not impacted by fluorescence and is blue in color. There are no issues from surface graining for transparency.

7084950 is a very slight haziness, but only to a trained eye. Without knowing what to specifically look for, you will not see any change.

Eye clean is defined as face-up at 8-10 inches without any magnification.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
Hi Sledge
Thanks for helping me once again!!

The true hearts is a bit over budget sorry.

Glad to help. And no worries. I understand you need the budget to work. I posted knowing this would likely be the response but felt it was a good option if there was some flex, and since your brother seems to like JA.


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

I'm not a fan of the dark inclusions, especially in this quantity and how they are spread over the stone. Maybe that is why there was no photos and video on the other vendor's website. It's beyond my comfort level, but that doesn't mean it won't be eye clean. Just I know me, and that would drive me completely bonkers.

FWIW, the other vendor was about $300 cheaper. With the GIA cert # you could ask JA to price match since it would be an identical product. ;)2


Also I've looked at the 1.24 G VS2 before. What do you think of the IS?
7354289.jpg

The ASET on the other site looks more promising. Perhaps the IS is just oversatured but to me it appears you still have some minor leakage in the 12-1 o'clock position. Perhaps @flyingpig or @Karl_K could confirm or deny my thoughts?

Just to confirm, the IS you posted has the same identical GIA cert # as the one I posted upstream and am including the ASET on?

Edited to Add:
Also, the ASET shows some manipulation around the girdle with those additional green spots.

Inked7354289_LI.jpg

723053511.jpg



@ flyingpig
Nice to see you again!!

This is the gemologists reply again

7084950 is marginally better, with a little more fire that balances with the brilliance so that you get a nice even mix of both. While both are E color, 7084950 has slightly less color.

7555543 is not impacted by fluorescence and is blue in color. There are no issues from surface graining for transparency.

7084950 is a very slight haziness, but only to a trained eye. Without knowing what to specifically look for, you will not see any change.

Eye clean is defined as face-up at 8-10 inches without any magnification.

As stone 2 (7555543) had a concern about being eye clean on a tilt, have you contacted JA and asked if the stone remains eye clean from the side and on tilted angles.

If they say it's eye clean from the side and tilted angles, I think it's worth pursuing. Have them ship loose so you and your brother can inspect and send back if it's an issue.
 
Last edited:

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
Hi again Sledge.

Yep I agree, not a fan of the black inclusions even if eye clean. Imagine when she looks through the scope.

This is the certificate, looks the same as the one you posted. What's the manipulation mean? Is this worth pursuing?
cert (31).jpeg

Oh silly me, I didn't ask for the 1.27 E SI1 to be checked from the sides and tilted. I will go back. I'm overseas so won't be returning if I buy

I've reached out to HPD and WF and there is a beautiful CBI J Si2, but nothing H or above within budget in their pipeline.
I personally have a J and love it .. but not sure about it for her
 

Attachments

  • 6322963797.pdf
    1,023.9 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:

gm89uk

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
1,491
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?
7354289.jpg

Those inclusions are very likely to be eye clean,I say this without looking at the certificate.

The ASET shows some digging. Although it passes idealscope test (picture is tilted and over bright backlight) you have better options than the 1.24G
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
Thanks everyone for your continuous support. It's actually harder deciding for someone else vs yourself!

Sorry I don't know much about digging - do I need to ask for an ASET to confirm there's no digging if I go with the 1.27 E Si1? Reattached the idealscope
Does the diamond look tilted? 7555543.jpg
 

flyingpig

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
2,975
Thanks everyone for your continuous support. It's actually harder deciding for someone else vs yourself!

Sorry I don't know much about digging - do I need to ask for an ASET to confirm there's no digging if I go with the 1.27 E Si1? Reattached the idealscope
Does the diamond look tilted? 7555543.jpg
The stone is tilted. I do not see significant digging worth noting.
This is my favourite stone in this thread.
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
I agree the certs appear to be the same 1.24 G VS2 stone. Same proportions, dimensions and clarity plot. Just JA blanks out the numbers now :angryfire:, but that's a topic for a different day.

I think most the IS images they provide are tilted. See how some arrows look shorter than others? Also backlighting is bright. Sorry if I scared you previously. I believe some of that is related to tilting and backlighting, but the two spots I circled looked worse to me.

As far as the manipulation:
https://www.pricescope.com/articles/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds

Alas, am I understanding correctly you are helping your brother buy a stone for his (future) fiance? Have either of you did some detective work to figure out her color sensitivity? Is it still plausible to do so -- think mom, aunt, sister, best friend, etc for potential info sources if working in stealth.

Additionally has any thought been given to the type of setting the stone will be placed? Remember, tint is most visible from the side so depending on the setting you may be able to cheat the color a little.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
A side by side comparison of the E, G & H stones that are your latest contenders. Does one speak good or bad to you? Click to enlarge.

CaptureEGH.png

While I see nothing wrong with the H, in comparison to the other two stones it seems much more noticeably tinted to me. And for me, an SI2 is more risky simply because very few SI2's are truly eye clean. The only reason I was all gaga over the CBI is they guarantee all their stones are eye clean and seem to be harder on their internal grading standards for color & clarity than sometimes what the labs are on them. The angles, hearts image, IS image and price make it a worthwhile consideration. I'd just want JA to examine that stone from every angle and under my own criteria to ensure it's truly eye clean.

Love the proportions on the G. Only minor variations in the hearts image; however, it may not pass the stricter standards of WF or CBI -- still much better than the vast majority of stones on the market. The IS image checks out as well. I'm not scared of fluor as many stones don't exhibit an issue, but the stronger the level the more increased odds it can be problematic. I bought my wife a BGD H VS2 w/ MBF and no issues. However, one of the earlier JA stones had MBF and was hazy. Obviously, it's something that needs examined to ensure it's a not a problem.

For me personally, of these 3 choices, I'm still sweet on the 1.27 E. Did you hear back from JA concerning side and tilted viewing angles, and if the stone remains eye clean in those conditions? Assuming that checks out, that stone seems like the winner to me. And wasn't that stone closer to $7k making it also a better bargain? It'd be really cool if JA would slip the stone in a hearts viewer and send you a picture of that -- not that it's a TH collection, but just so you can gain more insight to the symmetry.

But if you are willing to go H and bump to the low $8k range, I will remind you about the VC super ideals I posted early on.


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
 

Attachments

  • CaptureEGH.png
    CaptureEGH.png
    449.9 KB · Views: 80

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
And you asked how a well cut stone performs against a super ideal. There is another thread going on earrings right now, but the OP has a similar dilemma -- AGS000 vs WF ACA. Watch the video and look at the stills. You can see some small variations.

FYI, the AGS000 is on the left and the ACA is on the right in the video and picture.

I've clipped the following quotes for the sake of brevity, but here's the full thread if you're interested:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/earrings-again-wf-aca-vs-ags000.251712/#post-4620631


Well WF found a matching F VS2 Check out the video, let me know your thoughts. I can see the difference, just trying to decide how much it’s gonna bug me and the major pain of trying to sell a diamond.



91174E30-E399-4530-803B-2C11E8005648.jpeg

The AGS 000 is from 1998, CA 34/PA 41.2, that was the original specs, now days, 41.2 is considered out of range.

Whats the table size, depth and LGF % on the AGS000 stone? The arrows are noticeably different.

I see the ACA has a 56 table, 61.6 depth, 34.6 crown, 40.7 pavilion & 77 LGF.

Table is 56%. AGS did not provide LGF or Star facet specs on their certain back in 1998.

Again great diamond, but the ACA are beyond great. WF did not offer and I did not ask, I figured I could try here first, it’s not a super ideal H&A but it is a really nice diamond.
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
Thanks again sledge.

The E 1.27 is $8080. I think it's still a sweet spot if fully eye clean from top and sides. Their definition of eye clean is 8-10 inches. I asked them to check at 6". Yes your right It's for my brothers girlfriend and he has put me in charge. It's a full surprise so we have no idea about her ring size, color tolerance and my brother doesn't want to talk to her sister. :roll2:
the setting would be a Tiffany style 6 prong to keep it classic. And then if I drop to H then an I isn't much difference:lol: but there's no escaping the tint from the side. I am liking the 1.33 G, it looks cleaner from all angles and is over 1.3 as long as fluorescence isn't an issue.

The VC is good but I don't think I can afford settings with him... And I think my brother wanted a bit bigger than 1.2

JA haven't replied yet about the eye clean question. I just asked for the hearts image as well. They prob think I'm quite demanding:lol:
 
Last edited:

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
You're welcome @istase2000. :cool2:

Try not to get too hung up on carat weight. Remember, the weight is a function of the length, width and depth proportions all working in harmony. Slight changes in the proportions can easily change the spread and depth. Consequently, you will see larger table & shallower crown stones size up larger than a stone of equal weight with a smaller table and steeper crown.

Instead of focusing on carat weight, look at the dimensions. The VC stones all measure approximately 6.80 x 6.80mm. The 1.33 G measures 7.06 x 7.07mm, and the 1.27 E measures 6.93 x 6.96mm.

So roughly:
  • 1.33 G = 7.05mm avg - 6.80mm avg = 0.25mm larger than VC stones
  • 1.27 E = 6.95mm avg - 6.80mm avg = 0.15mm larger than VC stones
  • 1.33 G = 7.05mm avg - 6.95mm avg = 0.10mm larger than JA 1.27 E
Most people can't even detect a size difference before you hit the 0.20mm mark, which is roughly 1/128 inches. And even then you'd only notice in a side by side comparison. Viewing separately, the difference would be so insignificant it wouldn't be memorable. Definitely not the "OMG, it's so much bigger" feeling that people sometimes think.

That said, sometimes it can be meaningful from a mind clean status to say you have a 1.30 carat stone or that it measures out at 7mm instead of "near 1.3ct" or "near 7mm".

I would agree that H seems very tinted compared to the G. I truly think you have maximized value for your brother and either the E or G would be great choices. I could see advantages of either stone, assuming the fluor isn't casting any hazy/milky effects on the stone. Plus that 34.5/40.8 is pretty dreamy as the perfect Tolk angle is 34.5/40.75.

Can't wait to see how this ends. Definitely make sure both stones are on hold while you finalize the decision. ;)2
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
I agree about the carat weight, that's what I try and tell him haha

I guess the 1.27 has the advantage of being so white even from the side.

Sorry to be so paranoid, but are the inclusions in the 1.33 okay?
There's feathers, indented natural and clouds not shown.
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
@sledge this is the response from JA. I think that implies it is not 100% eye clean. Also these crystals reflect on tilt both sides of the diamond and there's a lot of them. I think I'm not 100% comfortable with it.
20190926_072712.jpg

7555543 is eye from different angels as well with the lightly colored type of inclusions. This is not to say that you will not find any inclusions if you are going out of your way, but you would need to be trying to find them.

Also what do you think of the inclusions in the 1.33? I can't seem to get a still picture with all the arrows lined up.
 
Last edited:

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,023
@sledge this is the response from JA. I think that implies it is not 100% eye clean. Also these crystals reflect on tilt both sides of the diamond and there's a lot of them. I think I'm not 100% comfortable with it.
20190926_072712.jpg

7555543 is eye from different angels as well with the lightly colored type of inclusions. This is not to say that you will not find any inclusions if you are going out of your way, but you would need to be trying to find them.

Also what do you think of the inclusions in the 1.33? I can't seem to get a still picture with all the arrows lined up.
I really think this will be eye clean. Look at it all zoomed out to normal viewing and you don't see anything (at least I don't). I think maybe if you tilted the diamond *just so* and looked at like 2inh distance then maybe you'd find them. But I highly doubt they'd bother anyone
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
@sledge @flyingpig

Hi Sledge and flyingpig and other kind PSers! I'm embarrassed to say I haven't bought the ring yet. I had a long vacation planned and JA said they couldn't delay the shipment of the ring and I didn't want it to be delivered whilst I was away and miss out on the return period.

A few twist and turns, the kind souls at WF offered to call in the 1.33 and I thought this would be it. I started thinking how amazing to come back and show you guys the final product. It turned out that the cut was amazing, eye clean but unfortunately the strong fluorescence caused haziness ( again !) So sadly I had to pass. :(

Now I'm back on the hunt and want to pull the trigger soon!

We did find another diamond below that is nice (a bit smaller) but need some help analyzing it. Does it look like there is some painting? It does have fluorescence so maybe third time lucky? Also the 1.27 is still available so still a contender. Please let me know your thoughts! Thank you.

 

Attachments

  • D Si1.jpg
    D Si1.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 26
  • cert.jpeg
    cert.jpeg
    91 KB · Views: 31

flyingpig

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
2,975
Another potentially good diamond. There is some painting, but nothing excessive.
Again, go with your instinct. You know so well how to find a good deal and assess a diamond in person.
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
Hi Friends, thanks for all your help. Need some reassurance - Pulling the plug today :)

Got the review for the 1.21 but looks like there's haze again... for the 3rd time :razz:

1.21 D SI1- The overall brilliance and light performance is excellent. Fluorescence has minimal impact on the stone's appearance, but does have a very slight haze that likely not noticeable to an untrained eye.

1.27 E SI1 - the same one as previously

I think it might be safer to go with the original 1.27 because of the risk with the haziness, but it's unfortunate as I actually prefer fluorescence. I clarified about the haziness and was told the gemologist was "barely able to see the haze" which is confusing. It seems like they give that comment frequently including for this PSer. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/do-you-see-a-very-slight-haze-on-my-sbf-e-ring.243022/

@sledge
@flyingpig
@gm89uk
 

Attachments

  • 1.21.jpg
    1.21.jpg
    114.2 KB · Views: 44
  • 1.27 IS 2.jpg
    1.27 IS 2.jpg
    113.2 KB · Views: 39
Last edited:

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
I don't know if the gemologist just covers their rear with the same statement, but I'm picky and feel I would be the guy that saw the haze even if others didn't. I couldn't live with that if it were my stone, so I'd pass if it were my decision.

Other minor things about the 1.21.

- There is some painting going on.

- The IS image in post #50 looks different than the one in you latest post, #53. There is a small spot in the IS in post #53 that looks like a little leakage. The other areas look like bright back lighting, but that one spot stands out to me.

- To me, the 1.27 IS image looks better, but it may be because of the black background as opposed to white which is less forgiving

- Also, I like the contrast pattern of the 1.27 better than the 1.21 in the JA videos.

Inked1.21_LI.jpg
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
@sledge

Thanks again for your help Sledge!

I feel the same way, I don't think I could live with the "potential" haze. One thing that's interesting is the 3/3 fluorescent stones I've had evaluated have been slightly hazy (One confirmed by WF). I think haziness is not as uncommon as we all think!

It's funny that after all these months, I'm back to the same stone. Going to pull the trigger and report back when we receive it :) Attached the other IS they provided earlier with white backlight I think? I also like the contrast pattern more for the 1.27 and the more traditional girdle.

This is the setting I'm going with - hopefully the prongs will be delicate
 

Attachments

  • 7555543.jpg
    7555543.jpg
    104.7 KB · Views: 46

gm89uk

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
1,491
In agreement with @sledge, the 1.27 speaks to me more. For $8k it's reasonably good value at E colour.

On the plus side you are picking a very good performer, and now you are just finessing over small details, you can't go wrong, I'm sure it will be a great find.
 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
@gm89uk

Thanks for your reassurance!! I can't wait to receive the ring (even though it's not mine) :razz:
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
You're most welcome @istase2000, glad I cold help you.

I'm excited for you, and can't wait to see pics of the finished product. Please do remember to post some eye candy for us.

The setting is quite lovely, and a great choice. I did a custom setting for my wife, and they asked how I wanted the prongs done for her. This setting isn't custom, but you should contact JA as you may be able to modify them to your liking.

We have another thread going on here about fluor with some pretty strong opinions on both sides. IMO, you always have to assume fluor may cause haziness and to perform due diligence to rule it out and that you should never bank on seeing a color boost. I also believe the size, type & location of inclusions can play into the haziness factor when a stone fluorescences. Then you have the debacle about the test methods and equipment used to grade fluor stones create an environment where a false color grade is accidentally assigned.

The more I read & learn, the more I'm convinced we should be overly cautious and consumers need to do their homework before committing to a fluor stone. Otherwise, they may end up disappointed.

If you want to read along...

 

mcosme

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
384
@sledge - I have been reading that thread. Really interesting!

Thanks for your patience with me! Definitely will post some eye candy when it finally arrives :). The only thing about purchasing during this holiday season is live chatting is super slow!

Happy that they've added "make prongs as delicate as possible" on the order!
 

flyingpig

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
2,975
Nothing has changed. The 1.27 E SI1 is still my favourite in this thread. I expected you would go with this one. That is why I have been quiet and just spectated. :)
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top