Twinning wisps and help choosing a diamond

[jg0517]

I have it narrowed down to two stones. The F color has the twinning wisps, which i didn't even know what they were until today. It also has additional twinning wisps not shown in the GIA diagram, pinpoints and surface grain. These inclusions are scaring me away from the stone. When looking at them with the naked eye, you don't know see them, but then again I don't have a trained eye. The G color stone has a faint fluorescence, which i've read is not a huge deal in terms of affecting appearance. I've attached the two GIA reports. Which stone is a better value? The F stone will cost me 1300 more than the G stone. Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[CanuckAB]

You've posted the same GIA report twice so unable to compare. The HCA score on the G stone is "2.4, Very Good if the price is right". You need to get an idealscope if seriously considering this one but most people would discard any stone getting a score over 2. I would personally pass on it. Without seeing the report for the F stone I cannot say anything about it.

As far as fluorescence, twinning wisps, pinpoints and surface graining, my stone has all these things and the only thing I can see is a faint blue in my stone when outside in sunlight due to it's STRONG blue fluorescence. These are commonly seen inclusions, along with crystals, clouds, knots, needles and feathers. Their location/colour can sometimes be the deciding factor. Twinning wisps are one of the best inclusions to have in SI stones. If you can't find the inclusions when looking closely for them then you have an eye clean stone. Many people here look for that and would not pay more money for higher clarity, something they wouldn't see. If it isn't "mind clean" enough for you then look for a VS2 diamond. Just be aware that some VS2 diamonds have been known to have a visible inclusion so you should still check for that.

Are you buying online or at a B&M store? If you let us know your budget and the specs you are looking for, there are a lot of people here who would love to help you get the best bang for your buck. If you are buying from a store that doesn't provide pictures or idealscopes, at least give us the reports of any other diamonds you are interested in and we'll give our opinions on them. Round brilliant diamonds are a shape where a lot can be determined by the numbers, unlike emerald cuts etc.

Good luck!

 

[jg0517]

My apologies, I did not notice i posted the same report twice. I've attached the report for the F stone. I put in the info for the HCA score and it came out to a 5.6, which is good only if price is the main criterion. My budget is 12K to 14K. The G stone i'm quoted at 12,200 and the F is 13,500. These are B&M stores and I do not have pictures. When looking at the F stone I didn't notice anything, but again I didn't even know what twinning wisps were so I didn't know what i should be looking for.

 

[jg0517]

Also in looking up the positives and negatives of the HCA tool, one of the things i read on goodoldgold's website was that, "Our independent research has determined that with a 35 degree crown angle, leakage is not visible to human perception until the pavilion angles reach 41.4 degrees (November 06)." This is also something else stated on their site:

"Diamonds with 41° pavilion angles (and even slightly over) are among the most beautifully cut diamonds in the world (when coupled with appropriate crown angles). Above we were examining how HCA scores got worse as leakage became more apparent when observed through red reflectors. According to both GIA and AGS laboratories (2 of the most renown and conservative labs in the world) the diamond in the above table with 35 degree crown angles and 41 degree pavilion angles (which gets a so-so HCA score of 2.2) consider this as a top grade and displays what is perhaps some of the best optics to be seen in round brilliant cut diamonds. In the above example the ever so faint amount of leakage in the center diamond and the diamond on the far right is impossible, I repeat, impossible to discern with human vision in any lighting environment you bring the diamond into. It is only something that can barely be seen under a red reflector and even at that it is still very difficult. Take this real diamond below as an example. It serves to demonstrate a few limitations of the HCA. Below are the proportional measurements as per a GIA FacetWare Report which does reflect a slight degree of rounding. It is a 1.89ct G Si1."


The G stone diamond i'm considering has the 41 degree pavilion angle with a 35 degree crown angle, which i guess is considered excellent under some standards but marked down under the HCA score.

 

[CanuckAB]

That is why it makes a difference and is important to know if you are seeing the stones in person or not. In my opinion all these tools are great but the act of looking at at diamond, preferably after seeing many to educate yourself about what you prefer, counts too. My own diamond is only a GIA VG , also purchased at a B&M store, and scored a HCA of .7. It is breathtaking and yet, if I was only going by "the numbers", I would never have even considered it because it wasn't a GIA EX.

You are shopping in an environment that has a finite inventory vs online where the virtual inventory seems endless. Of course there will be a diamond out there that surpasses what your jeweler has in stock. If you are set on shopping in person, as did I, my advice to you is to see as many diamonds as you can. Try to develop a good rapport with your jeweler so that he is willing to help you find the best stone he has, or will be willing to get in more.

If you have already seen many diamonds and these 2 were the best you could find, then it is up to you. Now knowing the stats on the F, with a HCA of 5.6, I can't see how it can be a beautiful stone in all lighting situations. Make sure you see any diamond in other lighting situations. Those jewellery stores are set up with lighting that make even a dog look good. I'm pretty sure the G performs better than the F overall. If the crystal under the table is not visible, then between these 2 stones I would choose the G.

Edit: The inclusions are not scaring me off of either as long as the diamonds are eye clean.

 

[jg0517]

I am set on buying it in a store because I'm not an online shopper. I've always preferred buying things in person and especially on a big purchase such as this. I'm also set on getting 1.5 or above.

Do you think I'll be able to get a better stone for that price if i keep shopping around? I've been so unproductive at work today, filling my head with information about pavilion and crown angles.

 

[CanuckAB]

The only thing I could suggest to you is to find some prices from online stones that have similar specs and then add at least $1500.00 to $2000.00 to the average price as a guide. It may even be more than that. I also had to factor in exchange rates etc. Once you have found THE diamond, you could always attempt, politely, to negotiate a better price but I would be careful here. You don't want to hardball him and antagonize him to the point that he does a terrible job on setting your ring. I really don't think there are huge "deals" to be had on well cut stones. My jeweler gave me a break on my custom setting, not the diamond. He has also done other things for me like small repairs & re plating other rings at no charge. Think of it as a long term relationship.

Try not to rush this process. That's when you'll regret the result.

 

[JulieN]

41.4 combined with a 60 table is not optimal

 

[Gypsy]

Pass. That is not a good 60/60. The Pavillion angle is bad. https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/60-60-proportioned-diamond

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, I would definitely eliminate the F stone as the cut is not good enough. The G is better, but I don't really like the depth. I prefer a 1.5 ct stone to face up at 7.4mm, and you'll be more likely to find that if your depth is 60-62.0. So if you had to buy one of these two, the G would be the clear winner if it is really eyeclean.

I can understand wanting to buy locally, but what I found was that I could NOT find equal quality stones locally compared to those at online vendors who specialize in well cut stones. I sent for them to look at and had the option of returning if I didn't like a diamond. Be sure to compare prices as well.

 

[jg0517]

Is there something in the G stone that would signify to you that it's not eye clean. I didn't notice anything but will pay close attention when I go to see it again.

 

[CanuckAB]

The plot shows the crystals under the table. That doesn't mean that they ARE visable, just that they could be. Just look carefully when you go back.

 

[CanuckAB]

How do you feel when you look at this G? It's not bad by B&M standards and the resulting ring is going to be way more beautiful than the average preset ring you will find in the usual B&M store. I don't know how long you have been searching so it is up to you to decide if you want to see if you can top it. Is there a time deadline involved? If I were you, I would take the F off your list and see if the jeweller has other Gs with specs that meet your standards. G is plenty white. Aim for HCAs <2. Then compare them all.

As a side note: blue fluorescence usually results in a price reduction. It's very cool but not for everybody. It is usually not noticable in lower levels. I found out recently that many of my rings have some blue fluorescence stones and I wasn't even aware of it! Stick to blue fluorescence though if you decide it's ok in your stone. It does exist in other colours like yellow, green... but those colours are to be avoided.

Edit: if you do go for fluorescence, read up a bit on here about it. In higher levels, strong or very strong, you should check that the stone isn't an over blue. That is when the fluorescence causes the stone to get hazy/milky looking in sunlight. This is a rare occurance but one you should check for.

 

[jg0517]

I appreciate all the help. To give a little more background, I have gone to a couple of people "i know" who are jewelers and it will be one of these people that I eventually buy it from. The G looked great to me, but it was the first place I went to and therefore it was more of a learning experience than anything else. The only real basis and metric I had on price was from a few years ago when someone else I know bought a diamond, and I guess the prices increased substantially since then. Therefore, I was a little upset when we were at the store and I realized I wouldn't be able to afford the diamond I thought I'd be able to get.

However, I was looking at the G stone for quite a while, and if my memory serves me correctly there was nothing I could see with my naked eye. As a note, I was able to see imperfections with my eye on other SI1 and SI2 diamonds, so its not a vision thing. I've looked at about 20 stones now and this was the best out of all of them.

I have a little bit longer to wait, but all this running around is difficult for me with my work schedule. I asked one of the jewelers if he thought he'd get anything better in the next few weeks, and he said probably not. I guess I will ask the other, but right now I'm leaning towards the G stone.

Edit: I did read up about fluorescence and would not go above anything higher than faint.

 

[CanuckAB]

I don't know your future fiancé but most here would put cut over size so keep that in mind. A well cut 1.4c will look more beautiful than a poorly cut 1.5c. Feel free to post any other stats of stones you may come across if you choose to continue looking.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it all turns out. Don't get discouraged! PLEASE come back and tell us what you ended up going with.

 

[CanuckAB]

A well cut 1.4c will look more beautiful than a poorly cut 1.5c.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not saying that the above mentioned G is not "the one" or is poorly cut. Rather, I was trying to say that, due to limited inventory at B&M stores, you might want to look just under the 1.5c limit as there might be something there that is even better cut wise. If you don't look, you won't know. Anyway, I hope you did not take my previous comment the wrong way.

 

[jg0517]

Did not take it the wrong way at all and I appreciate all your help. I'm going back to the store over the weekend and will make a decision then on whether to wait or purchase it. The majority of consumers who buy engagement rings do not research it even this far. I'm glad I did!

 

[CanuckAB]

Ok, I'm sitting back and waiting for news, or pictures! good luck!

 

[jg0517]

Continued doing research and I guess this is where I don't understand these generalizations about why diamonds that score above a 2.0 on the HCA should be discarded.

I know this is only one example, but in looking at this diamond on GOG

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/12066/

The HCA would be a 3.4. However, the megascope has rated it excellent in brilliance, fire, and scintillation. So i guess in this case, the HCA is not accurate.

 

[Roqsteady]

Continued doing research and I guess this is where I don't understand these generalizations about why diamonds that score above a 2.0 on the HCA should be discarded.

I know this is only one example, but in looking at this diamond on GOG

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/12066/

The HCA would be a 3.4. However, the megascope has rated it excellent in brilliance, fire, and scintillation. So i guess in this case, the HCA is not accurate.

Gary Holloway himself has said that the HCA is just an approximation. It's a tool to sift through thousands of diamonds listed online. Now of course, you can find beautiful diamond that lie outside the ranges that would give an HCA score - but what consumer has the time to look through the online ocean of diamonds to do that? Once you have an ASET/IS image, the HCA does not matter anymore - you can see the visual performance for your own eyes. People like to live by rules to simplify and make their lives easier - it does not make it absolute truth. As a math person, I'd put it like this:

The likelihood of randomly finding a good performing diamond (absent all other information such as HCA/IS) is higher in a pool of 1000 HCA < 2.0 diamonds than randomly finding a good performing diamond in a pool of HCA > 2.0 diamonds. Does that mean you can't find a good diamond in a pool of HCA 2.0+ diamonds? Of course not - but there's no way to confirm the performance elsewise from the diamond certificate which is why vendors like GOG do it for you.

 

[CanuckAB]

The HCA is a rejection tool that helps you weed out diamonds that will probably have performance issues. It is very helpful for people like you and me because we don't have the knowledge, experience or eye to choose great stones. There are many diamonds that are beautiful with HCA over 2 but I'll leave those to the experts to find.

Your example above is an AGS diamond and you do not run AGS diamonds through the HCA tool. These stones have already had their performance checked and diamonds that score AGS0 are the top of the top. The work has been done for you! All you need to do with these stones is check that they are eye clean to your standards! They are a very safe choice - one I would always recommend to people who are afraid of having to return diamonds, especially if from out of country. I'm not sure how available they are if you are shopping at a B&M store. I couldn't find any when I was shopping here but then again, I only went to some local stores.

edit: Roqsteady said it better.