Thoughts on this diamond? 2.01 M SI2

[jadesilver]

Hi everyone! Could I ask your thoughts on this diamond?

It has a HCA score of 1.6, but the cut grade is very good. There is faint fluorescence.

Here is the GIA report:
https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=1269873895

I am expecting a yellow tint if there is any and will be happy with that, I’m just wondering if the cut is acceptable based on the report and numbers. The price is USD7,802 which seems fair for a diamond with a HCA score below 2.

Photo of diamond (probably isn’t too helpful):



Would appreciate all advice and thoughts on this diamond!

 

[Karl_K]

It would be ok in a a pendant or earring but the shallow pavilion is pretty marginal in rings.
That is why it got gia vg.
It would also have to be checked to see if it is eyeclean.

 

[jadesilver]

Thanks so much Karl_K, that was exactly what I wanted to know, why it had a GIA VG Will definitely do my best to get someone to check if it’s eyeclean from 10 inches away.

According to this information about shallow pavilions, it says: “A shallow crown angle (33.5 – 34) can increase light return, but a shallow crown coupled with a shallow pavilion (<40.5) can also lead to light leakage. Shallow pavilions generally tend to increase light obstruction in a diamond. A steep (35.5 - 36.5) crown angle side can maximize the dispersion from that diamond, but a very steep crown (>36.5) makes a diamond smaller and may even change the contrast pattern of the diamond.”
https://www.prosumerdiamonds.com/crown-angle/

It looks like this diamond is smack on the edges of acceptable, the crown angle is 36.5 and the pavilion angle is 40.4. Would an ASET and idealscope image help to see if there is light leakage because of the shallow pavilion? Should the HCA score be disregarded for this diamond, or is it helpful?

 

[Karl_K]

That information on that page is flat out wrong.
Here is a 20 degree crown and a 40 degree pavilion.
White would be leakage and there is none.


On the other hard, a steep deep combo at 35/41.3 has leakage.


Now for that specific example:
33.5 with 40.5 has just the normal leakage for a mrb.

 

[Karl_K]

Now shallow pavilions below 40.5(actually ~40.45) do lead to increased obstruction.
What that means is that up close the arrows of a mrb ideal cut diamond go darkish(not black like in a picture, its more gray) and provide contrast and patterns to the diamond.
That is a good thing.
Once you get further away from the diamond the same dark areas just make the diamond look less bright.
With the right angles they provide contrast up close but dont make the diamond dark at a distance.

Which is why this diamond would work better in earrings and a pendant because the longer viewing distance is beyond the point where the arrows make the diamond look dark.

Now as far as changing the contrast patterns, both steep deep and super shallow can change the contrast patterns to a large degree as seen above.

 

[Karl_K]

With a 33.5 crown you have to go down to around a 35 degree pavilion before a lot of leakage shows up from the shallow pavilion.


Sorry if this is a lot to take in, bad information on diamond sites really annoys me!
I am not in any way annoyed with you for asking about it!

 

[jadesilver]

This is all great knowledge, thank you Karl_K! I understand clearly now with regards to how the angles affect the amount of light leakage. Thanks for providing the correct information.

Could I trouble you to explain this part please: “With the right angles they provide contrast up close but dont make the diamond dark at a distance.” Does that mean the part where past a certain distance, the diamond won’t look dark? Or does it mean at a particular right or left angle, the diamond won’t look dark?

Given that I have to choose between this diamond which has normal light leakage and looking less bright at a certain distance, versus other diamonds in this category (2.01 M SI2) that are over 2 on the HCA score and probably are not-as-well-cut (I don’t wish to say poorly cut because I have seen decent/passable diamonds that are quite symmetrical but over 2 on HCA), should I remove this diamond from my options completely?

Of course, “looking less bright” doesn’t sound great to me since the point of searching for only diamonds w a HCA score below 2 is to make a diamond look bright?

Is this diamond still considered as a diamond with a good cut, but with increased obstruction leading to it looking less bright despite the supposed good cut?

I very much apologize for my confusion and not being able to relate the various factors to each other :/

 

[Karl_K]

This is incredibly complex so dont feel bad about being confused.

Up close when you can focus on the patterns the contrast helps make it look brighter, at greater distances where you can not clearly focus on the patterns if they are still dark the overall impression will be it it less bright because the average brightness of the diamond is lower than in one where the arrows are not as dark.
Draw 2 circles on paper the size of the diamond with a lighter colored marker, add arrows to one with a pen.
View them at around 8 inches, the one with the arrows will look brighter, now look at them at full arm length and the one without the arrows will look brighter.

 

[Karl_K]

I cant link diamonds but doing a PS search using k-L color and 2.0-2.5ct 8000 budget there are some better ones listed.
If you list your desired requirements including max budget, eyeclean vs eye cleanish, the prosumers here are awesome at helping you find options.
It wont be a super-ideal unless your budget goes up, but a beautiful diamond can be found.

 

[jadesilver]

I cant link diamonds but doing a PS search using k-L color and 2.0-2.5ct 8000 budget there are some better ones listed.
If you list your desired requirements including max budget, eyeclean vs eye cleanish, the prosumers here are awesome at helping you find options.
It wont be a super-ideal unless your budget goes up, but a beautiful diamond can be found.

Thanks very much Karl, I will keep looking! I tried the arrow drawing experiment but the circle with the arrows still looks darker to me when the arrows are 8 inches away haha.

I will try the PS search now. I am working with a jeweller who will buy back my old diamond so I’ll probably only be able to consider virtual diamonds preferably based in Asia that he can locate. Do you think my criteria of “$7800, eyecleanish (as long as no black inclusions smack in the center, ok w black inclusion(s) at edge), any fluorescence is ok”, is reasonable?

Should I also continue to use HCA to filter out diamonds? Or should I still consider diamonds outside HCA 2?

It has been pretty tough to find any diamonds in that range that score below 2 on the HCA scale (but I do console myself that I am trying to find a unicorn in that price range and I only need to find one and I am ok with not-so-eye-clean and fluoro and prioritizing cut instead as I was recommended to do so). Definitely not looking for Super Ideal.

Here’s a pretty nice JA diamond that scores 1.9 on HCA except for the big black spot in the middle haha xD

https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/l...m-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3682832

 

[Karl_K]

ok hmmmm
btw I typoed I searched for k-n.
Find some options give him the gia numbers and see if he can get them might work.

 

[jadesilver]

I searched for ones that had HCA score listed as excellent, I hope I did it right. There were quite a few with K-L-M options that were also in my budget. Thanks for this tip, I will get the GIA numbers and do that!

 

[OoohShiny]

Looking at the PS search tool, and if my understanding is correct...:

2.7ct M SI2
8.93 x 8.98 x 5.43
https://www.pricescope.com/diamonds/round/2_7-carat-m-color-si2-clarity-3537942#
60.7% depth, 60% table, 32.5° crown angle, 43.5% pavilion, 0% cutlet
HCA 1.7
Low crown and 60/60 means white light performance will be stronger than fire performance. Strong Fluorescence will lift the colour in some lights. Scattered inclusions may or may not be visible from a distance, would need assessment to be sure.

2.28ct L VS2
8.41 x 8.46 x 5.18
https://www.pricescope.com/diamonds/round/2_28-carat-l-color-vs2-clarity-4227877#
61.4% depth, 58% table, 35.5° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle
HCA 1.4
Smaller table and higher crown means more likelihood of fire. VS2 is promising but as inclusions can be bigger in a bigger diamond and still get the same grade as smaller inclusions in a smaller diamond (IIRC?) it would need to be assessed to see if eye-clean.

2.51ct N SI2
8.76 x 8.81 x 5.29
https://www.pricescope.com/diamonds/round/2_51-carat-n-color-si2-clarity-4236188#
60.2% depth, 59% table, 33.5° crown angle, 40.8° pavilion angle
HCA 1.3
Lower crown and 60/60 means white light performance will be stronger than fire performance. Medium Fluorescence will lift the colour in some lights. SI2 may be a deal-breaker - would need to get pictures if possible. (I can't get the report to load.)

2.01ct M SI2
8.04 x 8.07 x 5.01
https://www.pricescope.com/diamonds/round/2_01-carat-m-color-si2-clarity-3562343#
http://shyamcorporation.net/StoneDetail/Index?stoneid=SSYP-6673
62.5% depth, 55% table, 35° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle
HCA 0.9
Higher crown should give good fire. Inclusions are quite scattered but would need to be assessed. Looks reasonable in the video.

2.1ct M VS1
8.18 x 8.22 x 5.08
https://www.pricescope.com/diamonds/round/2_1-carat-m-color-vs1-clarity-2153120#
62% depth, 55% table, 35° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle
HCA 0.9
Higher crown should give good fire. VS1 should definitely be eye clean, even with the inclusion in the table. Grading report says it's an N, though, not an M:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rap.certs/Gia/Certificates/2016/8/10/6232422638.pdf

2.3ct M VS1
8.42 x 8.44 x 5.28
https://www.pricescope.com/diamonds/round/2_3-carat-m-color-vs1-clarity-321474#
HCA 5.7 - so, er, no... lol
I don't know what's going on with the listing, though - listed as M but the grading report says S-T:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rap.certs/Gia/Certificates/2016/9/30/5233833976.pdf

 

[Karl_K]

32.5 crown angle is a bit on the shallow side, low crown height, the others the basic numbers can work other than the last one.

 

[5551212JS]

IMO if you look at the pic its not eye clean. The top view shows lots of inclusions.

 

[rockysalamander]

For your jeweler, have him only pull diamonds in these ranges if you are looking for a modern diamonds. If you like 60/60 stone which can a more spread but return more white light than fire, you would change the depth and table to be 59-61.

table: 52-58 (but I really prefer under 57)
depth: 60-62.3 {consider 59.5)
crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle; prefer 34.5)
pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

Run them through the HCA tool or compare to the AGS proportion chart (search online, I tend to use the AGS chart). Given that GIA rounds angles, I use two boxes in each direction to give me a sense of where it would fall if graded for cut by AGSL.

Color is very personal and I know you've given it some thought. In a modern round, I personally think if you are good with tint...go for it. I've seen some amazing O/P with a brown (not yellow) body color that were stunning. I generally prefer a brown body color (or grey which can sometimes be 'whiter' than yellow) in a lower colored diamonds.

 

[jadesilver]

@OoohShiny, thank you so so so much for taking the time to find these! I was really struggling because firstly, the GIA site wouldn’t load the reports, and secondly, when the reports loaded it was a big shock to find that many diamonds marked as M or L were actually an N or an OP or a ST like you mentioned! So I gave up after like 10 diamonds and punching in the HCA scores haha.

I LOVE the look of the first one you posted, but it’s a GIA color N listed as an M. I would happily buy that with some reassurance that it was an almost-M kind of N. I wish I could see all of these in person and I’d just be happy and confidently buy one of these!!!

 

[jadesilver]

For your jeweler, have him only pull diamonds in these ranges if you are looking for a modern diamonds. If you like 60/60 stone which can a more spread but return more white light than fire, you would change the depth and table to be 59-61.

table: 52-58 (but I really prefer under 57)
depth: 60-62.3 {consider 59.5)
crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle; prefer 34.5)
pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

Run them through the HCA tool or compare to the AGS proportion chart (search online, I tend to use the AGS chart). Given that GIA rounds angles, I use two boxes in each direction to give me a sense of where it would fall if graded for cut by AGSL.

Color is very personal and I know you've given it some thought. In a modern round, I personally think if you are good with tint...go for it. I've seen some amazing O/P with a brown (not yellow) body color that were stunning. I generally prefer a brown body color (or grey which can sometimes be 'whiter' than yellow) in a lower colored diamonds.

Hi rockysalamander, thanks so much, this is a big big tip on looking for a faint brown diamond! I would love a grey tint body color but I have never seen a single one in the diamonds I’ve looked at, only faint brown sometimes. I’m literally going to look for an M or N w faint brown now. Big tip thank you.

I will do my very, very best to take note of the numbers you’ve listed above. I will most likely be running them through the HCA tool and will look up the AGS chart.

 

[jadesilver]

I want to say a huge thank you to -everyone- I’ve interacted with on PS. Thank you for your very detailed and knowledgeable free advice. i am really super honored to have diamond experts taking the time to help me out.

 

[jadesilver]

For your jeweler, have him only pull diamonds in these ranges if you are looking for a modern diamonds. If you like 60/60 stone which can a more spread but return more white light than fire, you would change the depth and table to be 59-61.

table: 52-58 (but I really prefer under 57)
depth: 60-62.3 {consider 59.5)
crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle; prefer 34.5)
pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

Run them through the HCA tool or compare to the AGS proportion chart (search online, I tend to use the AGS chart). Given that GIA rounds angles, I use two boxes in each direction to give me a sense of where it would fall if graded for cut by AGSL.

Color is very personal and I know you've given it some thought. In a modern round, I personally think if you are good with tint...go for it. I've seen some amazing O/P with a brown (not yellow) body color that were stunning. I generally prefer a brown body color (or grey which can sometimes be 'whiter' than yellow) in a lower colored diamonds.

Hi rockysalamander, you mentioned in a different thread that you don’t like K color and you prefer L-Z colors, I was wondering why you have this preference? Thanks again for the tip on brownish diamonds, my jeweler is looking for some now

 

[lalala]

For your jeweler, have him only pull diamonds in these ranges if you are looking for a modern diamonds. If you like 60/60 stone which can a more spread but return more white light than fire, you would change the depth and table to be 59-61.

table: 52-58 (but I really prefer under 57)
depth: 60-62.3 {consider 59.5)
crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle; prefer 34.5)
pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

Run them through the HCA tool or compare to the AGS proportion chart (search online, I tend to use the AGS chart). Given that GIA rounds angles, I use two boxes in each direction to give me a sense of where it would fall if graded for cut by AGSL.

Color is very personal and I know you've given it some thought. In a modern round, I personally think if you are good with tint...go for it. I've seen some amazing O/P with a brown (not yellow) body color that were stunning. I generally prefer a brown body color (or grey which can sometimes be 'whiter' than yellow) in a lower colored diamonds.

Hi rockysalamander, you mentioned in a different thread that you don’t like K color and you prefer L-Z colors, I was wondering why you have this preference? Thanks again for the tip on brownish diamonds, my jeweler is looking for some now

Rocky does not prefer L-Z colors in MRB's IIRC.. she prefers H+. However, as she noted, color is very personal and you've been looking at lower colors and seem comfortable with tint.

IOW, If you are going to go with tint, might as well go low on the color scale. If you want white, go H and above.

Not speaking for @rockysalamander at all, just my interpretation and second paragraph is my input.

 

[rockysalamander]

Rocky does not prefer L-Z colors in MRB's IIRC.. she prefers H+. However, as she noted, color is very personal and you've been looking at lower colors and seem comfortable with tint.

IOW, If you are going to go with tint, might as well go low on the color scale. If you want white, go H and above.

Not speaking for @rockysalamander at all, just my interpretation and second paragraph is my input.

@lalala got is about right. In modern rounds, I personally prefer H+ or very low. I find that if you like lower colors, just go for the color and love it. I find some Ks are not quite white enough and not quite tinted enough. But, @lalala is correct that color is very personal (and Ks vary more than Is due to the width of the color range in that grading). Not only how much you can see (biological/genetic differences) but how much that does or does not bother you. This is the same about yellow vs brown vs grey body color in the middle colors (in lower colors like M-, I often like all three). BUT, there are many PS member and posters who have and love their K diamonds. They like that they are more a chameleon and face-up very white (especially super-ideals). For some, being white 80% of the time and another color the rest is either desirable (or maybe tolerable) due to the size bump and or cost drop you can enjoy. My sister, who has all the same history with gemstones as I, is all about "the deal". So, she loves the lower colors for their lower cost, without size/clarity compromise. A diamond is really the sum total of its details and how it matches your needs and expectations. So, as lalala said, don't worry about my preference if you like colors below J!!

 

[jadesilver]

@lalala got is about right. In modern rounds, I personally prefer H+ or very low. I find that if you like lower colors, just go for the color and love it. I find some Ks are not quite white enough and not quite tinted enough. But, @lalala is correct that color is very personal (and Ks vary more than Is due to the width of the color range in that grading). Not only how much you can see (biological/genetic differences) but how much that does or does not bother you. This is the same about yellow vs brown vs grey body color in the middle colors (in lower colors like M-, I often like all three). BUT, there are many PS member and posters who have and love their K diamonds. They like that they are more a chameleon and face-up very white (especially super-ideals). For some, being white 80% of the time and another color the rest is either desirable (or maybe tolerable) due to the size bump and or cost drop you can enjoy. My sister, who has all the same history with gemstones as I, is all about "the deal". So, she loves the lower colors for their lower cost, without size/clarity compromise. A diamond is really the sum total of its details and how it matches your needs and expectations. So, as lalala said, don't worry about my preference if you like colors below J!!

Very interesting. Thanks for responding. I was just curious as to the particular differences between K and L-Z for you that made you mention that Ks weren’t your thing. That’s interesting that Ks aren’t white enough and not tinted enough and I agree!