Vendor said i'm "out of whack"

[McGinnis]

Everyone has been schooling me on this site - i've been lurking, learning, and being a studious boy trying to absorb as much as I can before buying a stone. Not long ago, I took a leap. Bought the largest stone my budget would allow while trying to stay as true to the teachings of the cut kings and queens on this blessed site.
It's beautiful, from what I can tell but i'm pretty much a diamond virgin so
Here's the thing, i'm not sure if this is common but after the stone was purchased, I had buyer's remorse and started searching again to see if I made the right choice. This feels wrong and sort of like an illness

I wrote to the vendor who seemed nice enough in the beginning to inquire about a stone I recently found. He wrote back that i'd have to be nuts to want this stone over the one I purchased because of the proportions. Now, the stone I purchased wasn't perfect either-shallow with a tinge of brown. HCA was 1.8 vg/vg/vg/ex but that was because of spread. I get it. The new stone was ex/ex/ex/vg hence, the reason why I wrote back asking for an aset/idealscope image. He tells me there is no image available and that he thinks my "judgment is out of whack" (This is a vendor on PS so i'm not going to completely dismiss it but it still stings )

Anyway, regardless, i've done some searching. I want the clear opinions that only PSers can provide. I have so much trust in people that i've never met but somehow it doesn't seem wrong. I've loved you from afar.

So here goes. I've found two other stones within the same price range, one more included and costs slightly more and the other just a hair smaller.
Disclaimer: I know NONE of these are perfect and probably wouldn't even be considered by most on here and the one I purchased is very spready which i'm ok with but please let's not forget that i'm still putting myself through school and I like her so much that I need to put a ring on it.



1)
table-61
depth-58.8
crown angle-33.5
pav angle-40.8
1.8 vg/vg/vg/ex



2)
table-58
depth-61
crown angle-34.5
pav angle-40.8
hca 1.4
x/x/x/vg



3)
table-59
depth-60.6
crown angle-33.5
pav angle-40.8
hca 1.3 x/x/x/vg



4) This one is the one that I can't seem to get any info on besides the cert. and this one is the one that I got yelled for
table-60
depth-60.3
crown angle-32.5
pav angle-41
hca 1.5 x/x/vg/x

I don't understand why this is so offensive to him... it's not so bad compared to the one I purchased (the first one) because its spready just like the first. The only downside is the fact that I went from si1 to si2. HCA is much better imo. This one doesnt have a 30day return policy which worries me but I can get the same stone on another site for about 200 more

Welp, I give it to God and PSers. Thank you, to whomever actually sat through this.

 

[McGinnis]

Can anyone out their two cents in? I'm really curious as to which one I should be purchasing

 

[diannec18]

I have no clue, or I'd totally help, but I'm interested to see what others have to say...
Hope someone responds soon, I know how frustrating it is when no one answers...
Good luck!

 

[ame]

I wouldn't buy any of those. The tables are all too large for my tastes.

Keep the tables between 55-57

 

[McGinnis]

I have no clue, or I'd totally help, but I'm interested to see what others have to say...
Hope someone responds soon, I know how frustrating it is when no one answers...
Good luck!

Thanks for your empathy cherryiice. I'm very anxious and so far, it doesn't seem like I've made any good choices

 

[McGinnis]

I wouldn't buy any of those. The tables are all too large for my tastes.

Keep the tables between 55-57

Yes ma'am. I am continuing my search it's just that the prices on here stones are so kind...
Wish me luck. If you just HAD to though, which one would you choose?

 

[proto]

this is a taste thing, some people dont like 60/60 diamonds and prefer TIC proportions.

I think you cut out a huge number of excellent diamonds if you only stick to tables within that that range

 

[pfunk]

I think the images of the one you have look good. Plus you said you found it beautiful. There is nothing wrong with finding beauty in something that doesnt fall into the "ideal" proportions everyone pushes on here. If that big spready stone is beautiful, I would stop second guessing yourself. But if you do continue to search, I agree about not limiting yourself to tables 55-57. Thats a small range and will rule out some pretty stones.

 

[ame]

I wouldn't buy any of those. The tables are all too large for my tastes.

Keep the tables between 55-57

Yes ma'am. I am continuing my search it's just that the prices on here stones are so kind...
Wish me luck. If you just HAD to though, which one would you choose?

"Great prices" don't always yield ideal stones. IF you are happy with this one, stick with it. But if a vendor spoke to me that way, that vendor would not be getting my business.

I would not buy any of those. I would start from scratch, elsewhere, and find a vendor that doesn't tell me I am out of whack, for starters. Then I would search with a more reputable situation setting my sites on a table between 55 and 57, and a depth between 59-62 and go from there looking for ideal crown and pavilion angles within those ranges. My taste doesn't allow for a 60/60. I don't prefer the way a 60/60 returns light.

 

[proto]

personally not a fan of stone 1

prefer stone 2 or 3

hard to tell without size and price though

 

[MrsWhitney]

I wouldn't buy any of those. The tables are all too large for my tastes.

Keep the tables between 55-57

I agree with ame....

But I do understand wanting a larger looking diamond, yet proportions really make a huge difference (this coming from a devout emerald cut lover)...so I am not perfect with RBs.

 

[chrono]

personally not a fan of stone 1
prefer stone 2 or 3
hard to tell without size and price though

Ditto; no matter what, I would return #1 and keep looking.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI McGinnis
It's truly rude to insult anyone- agreed.

But ( you knew there was a but coming, right
Reading opinions of others can sometimes add confusion to what can- should be- a more visual, emotional and pleasurable decision.


Of course getting educated is a great thing.
But ( there it is again) too much information on things that are very subtle can spoil your purchase experience.
Personally, I'd eliminate stones with tables below 59%.
But that's my taste- and the difference is subtle to say the least.

SO- if you purchased a diamond, and are now questioning your purchase based on reading things here- as opposed to you not loving the stone for physical reasons.... it would be easier to understand a well meaning seller's frustration.
But not to excuse a rude response.

 

[McGinnis]

I wouldn't buy any of those. The tables are all too large for my tastes.

Keep the tables between 55-57

Yes ma'am. I am continuing my search it's just that the prices on here stones are so kind...
Wish me luck. If you just HAD to though, which one would you choose?

"Great prices" don't always yield ideal stones. IF you are happy with this one, stick with it. But if a vendor spoke to me that way, that vendor would not be getting my business.

I would not buy any of those. I would start from scratch, elsewhere, and find a vendor that doesn't tell me I am out of whack, for starters. Then I would search with a more reputable situation setting my sites on a table between 55 and 57, and a depth between 59-62 and go from there looking for ideal crown and pavilion angles within those ranges. My taste doesn't allow for a 60/60. I don't prefer the way a 60/60 returns light.

Ame, i'm actually considering starting from scratch...the vendor I am currently using has the best prices for stones that i'm seeing on other sites as well but they are selective about which stones have the 30 days money back while other sites offer a 30 day money back on all of their stones. Should I suck it up?

 

[McGinnis]

I think the images of the one you have look good. Plus you said you found it beautiful. There is nothing wrong with finding beauty in something that doesnt fall into the "ideal" proportions everyone pushes on here. If that big spready stone is beautiful, I would stop second guessing yourself. But if you do continue to search, I agree about not limiting yourself to tables 55-57. Thats a small range and will rule out some pretty stones.

The only image I have of the stone I have is the first one with one picture of the aset. The aset looks good to me but some are saying the first one is the worst out of the three. Now I really have no idea what i'm looking at

 

[McGinnis]

personally not a fan of stone 1

prefer stone 2 or 3

hard to tell without size and price though

Pronto, number 2 is 3390 and 3 is 3630 both bank wires.
Number 1 was 3560 with PS discount and bank wire. I do like how white it faces up but I somehow think it should really be sparklier. I've seen stones in person where it made me think it was borderline too sparkly for my eyes to handle. That's what i'm expecting and I just dont get that thought out of the current stone but then again, it might be because I know what to expect from diamonds now

 

[McGinnis]

I wouldn't buy any of those. The tables are all too large for my tastes.

Keep the tables between 55-57

I agree with ame....

But I do understand wanting a larger looking diamond, yet proportions really make a huge difference (this coming from a devout emerald cut lover)...so I am not perfect with RBs.

Hey Mrs. Whitney, hope you're keeping your chin up. I've been following your journey. Having approx 50 grand to work on my gf's ring would be a dream. Lucky gal

 

[McGinnis]

personally not a fan of stone 1
prefer stone 2 or 3
hard to tell without size and price though

Ditto; no matter what, I would return #1 and keep looking.

Chrono and Proto, I read hca is a weeding tool, IS/ASET is a selection tool. What am I not seeing with #1 on the aset that makes is less desireable than 2 or 3? I'm confused becasue #1's aset looks nicer to me with less light green around the edges.
Btw, I'm not committed to #1 at all just thought i'd clear that up

 

[McGinnis]

HI McGinnis
It's truly rude to insult anyone- agreed.

But ( you knew there was a but coming, right
Reading opinions of others can sometimes add confusion to what can- should be- a more visual, emotional and pleasurable decision.


Of course getting educated is a great thing.
But ( there it is again) too much information on things that are very subtle can spoil your purchase experience.
Personally, I'd eliminate stones with tables below 59%.
But that's my taste- and the difference is subtle to say the least.[/b]

SO- if you purchased a diamond, and are now questioning your purchase based on reading things here- as opposed to you not loving the stone for physical reasons.... it would be easier to understand a well meaning seller's frustration.
But not to excuse a rude response.

Rockdiamond, if it really is that subtle, is it not worth fussing this much over?

 

[Rockdiamond]

A really great question.
Take any thing people buy.
There's aspects of ....I don;t know, toilet paper that drive one person crazy, but mean nothing to someone else.
Can some people see the difference easily between a 56% table and a 60% table.

Absolutely.
Can most people notice the difference?
No.

You've got a diamond in your hands.
Are there aspects of it's appearance that you do not love?

 

[McGinnis]

Its sparkly. VERY very sparkly. Just not "omg wow that's sparkly" But i'm only comparing memories of sparkle to this stone

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here's what I'd suggest:
Go look at some diamonds in stores near you- are you in an area with jewelry stores?

it's quite likely that the stone you already have will be nicer than many/most you see.
You placed an emphasis on getting the largest stone- and I totally agree that many buyers feel that's a good choice.
"Cut is king" is a great mantra, but no kingdom operates without plenty of other elements.
Sometimes getting a slightly "lesser" cut ( according to PS standards) with larger spread is the best option.

 

[proto]

Please just list the GIA number for the stones if you want feedback and opinions.

It will save you drip feeding information to us and us repeatedly asking questions for further details.

If you feel uncomfortable sharing the GIA number, use MS paint to black out the number and upload an edited image of the GIA grading reports.

While you have provided price, there is no information on the size of the diamond so there is no way to make any judgement or give any opinion on which is a good bargain or anything.

I don't like the first ASET because the patterning looks off to me. It doesn't look like what an ideal cut diamond should look like to my eyes (possible I am mistaken). This may be a function of the table depth ratio, or painting/digging (or perhaps something else entirely). Someone more technical may be able to provide more information, I half remember a diagram showing graduation in changes to one of the factors above, and how the ASET changes, I just cant remember which one it was that makes the ASET change from your typical one to the one that look like #1.

In particular I dislike the blue ring around the centre of the diamond. Compared to 2 and 3, these rings are of red, areas where the most light is reflected (or best angle of returned light). While the colour schemes between 1 and 2+3 are slightly off, you can track comparative red vs blue within each image. I dont want an area of relative darkness (or least light returned) right in the middle of my stone.

Hope this has been helpful.

 

[McGinnis]

Please just list the GIA number for the stones if you want feedback and opinions.

It will save you drip feeding information to us and us repeatedly asking questions for further details.

If you feel uncomfortable sharing the GIA number, use MS paint to black out the number and upload an edited image of the GIA grading reports.

While you have provided price, there is no information on the size of the diamond so there is no way to make any judgement or give any opinion on which is a good bargain or anything.

I don't like the first ASET because the patterning looks off to me. It doesn't look like what an ideal cut diamond should look like to my eyes (possible I am mistaken). This may be a function of the table depth ratio, or painting/digging (or perhaps something else entirely). Someone more technical may be able to provide more information, I half remember a diagram showing graduation in changes to one of the factors above, and how the ASET changes, I just cant remember which one it was that makes the ASET change from your typical one to the one that look like #1.

In particular I dislike the blue ring around the centre of the diamond. Compared to 2 and 3, these rings are of red, areas where the most light is reflected (or best angle of returned light). While the colour schemes between 1 and 2+3 are slightly off, you can track comparative red vs blue within each image. I dont want an area of relative darkness (or least light returned) right in the middle of my stone.

Hope this has been helpful.

Proto, here are the pics in order. I didn't mean to drip feed. I just figured asets/IS pics were key to determine light performance. I've got a long way to go.
1) $3560 (purchased)


2)$3390

3)$3590
4)$3540

FYI, I just checked online to get the certs on here and now they have an asterisks next to the bankwire price stating that its only when purchased with a setting. This was not there before. Maybe i'm just going to scrap them and start over.

 

[proto]

after seeing the reports, I repeat my preference for NOT #1

2 is my choice

1 2 3 almost all same size/budget

#1 has strong fluor (which you may like or wanted, or you may not have identified as an important characteristic). This is not in my taste although many people love it.

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence

read the link above for background info

 

[16ocean]

My hesitation on diamond #2 that "clarity is based on clouds not shown" and it is an SI 1.
Potentially this could be a cloudy diamond.

 

[16ocean]

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.01-carat-j-color-si1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-449582
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.06-carat-j-color-si1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-73761

These are the closest I can find to your budget that might be more of a sparkler.

 

[mrs-b]

Hmmmm.

McGinnis - I LOVE the diamond you bought. I have some of everything - super ideal cut H&A's, old cuts, AVR's - and so on and so on. But I gotta tell you, I love a 60/60 (or in your case 61/59) cut diamond as much of any of them, and if you want the economy of a J colored stone, but the whiteness of something higher up the chain, a shallower cut stone can often be a great find.

I like the ASET. I LOVE the spread. And I really like the facet pattern. The flecks of blue don't worry me at all and there's clearly 'red' that runs all the way to the center. I also prefer the star pattern which sits at the very center, rather than the nondelineated patch of 'green' which often forms a discrete circle in the middle of a lot of diamonds. I think the sparkle would be fab, and unless your girl is after a very rarified standard of cut, the stone you've bought should tickle her fancy no end!

I'd stay where you are - I think it's a lovely stone. Are there some better cut? Sure. There always are. But it's a very nice stone, you've said it sparkles a LOT, and I'm guessing she'll love it.

Good luck!

 

[MarionC]

When you say sparkly but not quite sparkly enough it can, in some cases, mean that the diamond needs a good cleaning or two. Even the smallest am't of dirt [that is invisible to the eye] can quickly reduce the WOW factor.

 

[McGinnis]

My hesitation on diamond #2 that "clarity is based on clouds not shown" and it is an SI 1.
Potentially this could be a cloudy diamond.

16ocean, I was worried about that too. I was hoping someone would mention it to justify my thoughts too. Nothing worse than a cloudy diamond, at least to me.