What do we think about this Diamond?

[DJMC88]

I recently placed an order for this diamond (so it will appear as not available) but I am curious the groups thoughts?

I personally think the proportions and cut are nearly perfect, and although it's a 1.21ct, it faces up closer to a 1.25ct in size due to it's seemingly perfect proportions.

*I asked the rep about the "out of focus" nature of the images, and they assured me it's either camera or possibly residue from polishing that will wipe clean.

Has anyone else had experience with these seemingly "hazy" 3D images from JA? Did the diamond disappoint in real life? There is a generous return policy, so if it does indeed look hazy, I can always exchange it for something else.

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.21-carat-h-color-vvs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-21127893

 

[MissGotRocks]

It faces up larger due to the 61.1 depth. It didn’t make their True Hearts label but it still looks like a very pretty diamond.

 

[DJMC88]

It faces up larger due to the 61.1 depth. It didn’t make their True Hearts label but it still looks like a very pretty diamond.

Do you think that shallow depth would have a negative impact overall in terms of light performance?
I will say, this is one of the diamonds referenced by diamond screener for ideal proportions...

Cut Estimator – Diamond Screener

www.diamondscreener.com

I didn't even realize this until after purchasing!

 

[DJMC88]

It faces up larger due to the 61.1 depth. It didn’t make their True Hearts label but it still looks like a very pretty diamond.

I'll add, because of their fast shipping, JA was able to put my other option on hold if I find the one I purchased was indeed hazy looking. The other is this:

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.20-carat-h-color-vvs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-25712239

Which doesn't suffer from the same "out of focus" imaging, but I thought the first one overall had better cut.

Any thoughts?

 

[jjca]

The cut on #1 is much more symmetrical. I don't personally care for the second option. Have some caution with the 35.5/40.8 without advanced imaging (like ASET) and/or a light performance addendum to the GIA cert.

 

[DJMC88]

The cut on #1 is much more symmetrical. I don't personally care for the second option. Have some caution with the 35.5/40.8 without advanced imaging (like ASET) and/or a light performance addendum to the GIA cert.

Thanks for the reply!
Echoed my sentiment exactly. #1 was my first choice (and ultimately bought) but that fuzziness gave me pause, so #2 was sort of the "next best" in my price/ct range.

 

[freddyboston]

I've noticed the fuzziness with some of JA True Hearts imaging and other in house diamonds... might be something to do with the camera they use for those...
it's more of a "soft focus" than hazy

 

[MissGotRocks]

Thanks for the reply!
Echoed my sentiment exactly. #1 was my first choice (and ultimately bought) but that fuzziness gave me pause, so #2 was sort of the "next best" in my price/ct range.

Definitely the first choice! The second is just about too deep and the crown angle is deep as well. You can always use the HCA tool here as well. These tools are really to be used as rejection tools to weed out poorly cut diamonds. If it gets a good score, it could be worth pursuing. Just remember that GIA rounds their numbers so stellar numbers don’t always produce stellar results. That is why idealscope and ASET images are so important when evaluating a diamond.

 

[DJMC88]

Definitely the first choice! The second is just about too deep and the crown angle is deep as well. You can always use the HCA tool here as well. These tools are really to be used as rejection tools to weed out poorly cut diamonds. If it gets a good score, it could be worth pursuing. Just remember that GIA rounds their numbers so stellar numbers don’t always produce stellar results. That is why idealscope and ASET images are so important when evaluating a diamond.

1.1 on HCA, seems to look pretty good! Hope the soft focus as Freddy mentioned is just camera!

 

[MissGotRocks]

1.1 on HCA, seems to look pretty good! Hope the soft focus as Freddy mentioned is just camera!

I feel pretty confident that it is just the camera. Come back with pictures when you receive it!

 

[DJMC88]

I feel pretty confident that it is just the camera. Come back with pictures when you receive it!

Well, I received the diamond this morning. JA isn't kidding about their overnight shipping.

It's been hard to get a good picture with my old phone, but I did order a cheap loupe and tweezers to just give it a look before saying this is definitely the one, but initial reaction is it look great!

Took it outside in the 1030am sunlight and it was almost blinding when it catches the light right!

I don't have anything else to compare it to, so I can't say it sparkles more or less than something else, but it is certainly doing something.

I'll try to get some pictures once I have better magnification, or at least once it's put in the setting!

Thanks again to you and all who have chimed in. Really put me at ease about those JA fuzzy images.

 

[jjca]

Go on Amazon and buy one of those "diamond ring holders" - It's a little fake ring that will hold your stone so you can see how it looks on your finger. That's what I did before sending mine off to DK to make sure I loved it in all lights.

Share some pics and vids! Glad you love it!

 

[DJMC88]

Go on Amazon and buy one of those "diamond ring holders" - It's a little fake ring that will hold your stone so you can see how it looks on your finger. That's what I did before sending mine off to DK to make sure I loved it in all lights.

Share some pics and vids! Glad you love it!

Good idea! Though, after looking at it at 10x and 30x, I can't see a reason not to love it!

My pictures are still terrible, but here's one, and a short video of it in light. I don't even think the video does it justice, though.

Next stop: setting.

 

[DJMC88]

Best I can do is video converted to gif..

 

[freddyboston]

now that's a happy lively stone !!!

 

[psychopass]

ok