What do you think?

[sledge]

Since your setting is designed and made, I would ask Ritani what minimum & maximum size dimensions (in MM) you must stay within to find an acceptable diamond that will fit. You may have more play in your dimensions, but one of the issues with shopping by carat weight is that diamond proportions like table size, crown angle, pavilion angle, girdle thickness and overall thickness will change the dimensions of the diamond itself.

Also, I would ask Ritani what color, clarity and cut quality of stones they utilized for the halo. Since the setting is already made, you want the center stone to match so there isn't a visible color difference between the two.

Here's a few options that have ideal proportions:

0.65ct H SI1 - 35/40.6, 56 table, 62 depth, 80 LGF, med yellow fluor = $1,436

• Ritani Listing: https://www.ritani.com/diamonds/round-diamond-0-65-Carat-H-color-GIA-certified/D-752320
• Parcel & Stone Listing (for price match): https://parcelandstone.com/diamond/...728173352?utm_source=rarecarat&utm_medium=cpc
• Main concern: medium yellow fluor

0.64ct G SI1 - 34.5/40.6, 56 table, 61.6 depth, 80 LGF, no fluor = $1,606

• Ritani Listing: https://www.ritani.com/diamonds/round-diamond-0-64-Carat-G-color-GIA-certified/D-7N52M8
• Parcel & Stone Listing (for price match): https://parcelandstone.com/diamond/...729962657?utm_source=rarecarat&utm_medium=cpc

 

[sledge]

This isn't eye clean though right?

Hard to say. That is a magnified view. Generally speaking we like to have NO inclusions on the table and of white/clear variety instead of black.

Keep in mind, most people find they can focus around the 10" mark from their face. Consequently, many vendors consider "eye clean" to mean that from the top view at 10" away you cannot see any inclusions with proper lighting and 20/20 vision. There is no standard definition on eye clean, so the terminology itself is subject to the person defining it unless you set parameters.

I have pretty good vision and use a more stringent criteria that is 6" from the top or sides with all the same lighting and 20/20 vision requirements; however, that likely gets you into a VS2 clarity or better.

The other consideration here is your diamond size. It's my opinion that as you increase carat weight, and consequently the MM dimensions of the stone in the L&W profiles you need to increase clarity as there is more surface area for your eyes to focus on and see imperfections. Consequently, the opposite is true with smaller stones. Less surface area means you can get away with a little less clarity.

When in doubt, it's best to ask the stone supplier (Ritani, etc) if they can pull the stone from their vault and perform a visual inspection on your behalf. Be clear on the criteria for your definition of eye clean and ask them for the results.

 

[farrahlyn]

This isn't eye clean though right?

On a 2ct stone it definitely wouldn't be but on a small stone, there is a chance it will be. On my .4ct marquise, there was a black crystal inclusion right ON the table and i could not see it without a loupe. It's worth it to ask if the stone is eye clean.

 

[SimIGeek]

I was told that it would be vs h/I color side stones with excellent cut.

 

[sledge]

I was told that it would be vs h/I color side stones with excellent cut.

There can be some variation in H/I colored stones. I would definitely want to see the center stone in comparison to the melee stones to ensure it matched if I were you.

Also, I am curious what specifically they consider excellent cut melee?

 

[SimIGeek]

Idk. I was told it would match fine and they use the highest quality melee diamonds. The best part is they offer a full refund if I'm not happy SO we will see Monday. I can't stress about it. They told me it had an excellent light return and will send me a shine video and asat (I'm misspelling this) light return report tomorrow. And of course I'll upload photos on Monday when I get it.

 

[sledge]

Idk. I was told it would match fine and they use the highest quality melee diamonds. The best part is they offer a full refund if I'm not happy SO we will see Monday. I can't stress about it. They told me it had an excellent light return and will send me a shine video and asat (I'm misspelling this) light return report tomorrow. And of course I'll upload photos on Monday when I get it.

Oh cool. I didn't realize you made a decision on the center stone. Which one did you end up getting?

And ASET is the proper spelling.

 

[SimIGeek]

Oh cool. I didn't realize you made a decision on the center stone. Which one did you end up getting?

And ASET is the proper spelling.

My first image was a stone I had already purchased. I'm just hesitant being that I know nothing about this. They sent this photo to me today to reassure me. It looks like there is a little leakage but based on the responses this mite be the best bang for my $1,500 budget for the stone. I assume they will put the prong right where that really dark green spot is to cover it and it will look nice in the setting.

 

[sledge]

My first image was a stone I had already purchased. I'm just hesitant being that I know nothing about this. They sent this photo to me today to reassure me. It looks like there is a little leakage but based on the responses this mite be the best bang for my $1,500 budget for the stone. I assume they will put the prong right where that really dark green spot is to cover it and it will look nice in the setting.

This makes no sense.

Are you saying the image on the far left is the ASET of your stone? Because that is a computer generated ASET from an AGS report.

You linked to a GIA report in your initial post, which doesn't work BTW. A GIA stone will not have a computer generated ASET or have an AGS counterpart unless this is a preloved stone that was previously AGS certified. If so, get that AGS cert number as AGS also provides a meaningful cut grade.

Someone is either shamming you, or I missed the link to the actual stone you bought.

And FYI the green spot on the computer generated ASET at the 11 o'clock position is the least of your worries. See the blue circle in the center that has green in the middle? That blue represents leakage and shouldn't be there. It should be red. Again, if this ASET is even for your stone, it appears you have leakage under the table which isn't surprising with the steep 36 crown and steep 41.2 pavilion that @crbl999 posted earlier.

 

[SimIGeek]

I'm sorry I uploaded the wrong file.

 

[crbl999]

And FYI the green spot on the computer generated ASET at the 11 o'clock position is the least of your worries. See the blue circle in the center that has green in the middle? That blue represents leakage and shouldn't be there. It should be red. Again, if this ASET is even for your stone, it appears you have leakage under the table which isn't surprising with the steep 36 crown and steep 41.2 pavilion that @crbl999 posted earlier.

The blue is contrast and not necessarily a bad thing, especially in the right amounts as it contributes to brilliance and scintillation. I'm not an expert and have no idea what the impact of that amount of contrast will be on the stone to the naked eye.

https://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/about-aset.htm

I'm sorry I uploaded the wrong file.

That stone is poorly cut and will have light leakage under the table. That is what the white ring near the center represents. Not a stone I would recommend. You can do much better in terms of cut. You may have to reduce size or slightly increase your budget in order to do so; but it will be an amazing stone compared to this one.

 

[OoohShiny]

The blue is contrast and not necessarily a bad thing, especially in the right amounts as it contributes to brilliance and scintillation. I'm not an expert and have no idea what the impact of that amount of contrast will be on the stone to the naked eye.

https://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/about-aset.htm

+1 to this - IIRC Rhino posted a reply to something I mentioned about it being table reflection at the bottom of the pavilion mains, the reflection being something that was historically used to judge the size of the table, but I have no idea where it is now. lol

That stone is poorly cut and will have light leakage under the table. That is what the white ring near the center represents. Not a stone I would recommend. You can do much better in terms of cut. You may have to reduce size or slightly increase your budget in order to do so; but it will be an amazing stone compared to this one.

+1 to this!!

 

[sledge]

The blue is contrast and not necessarily a bad thing, especially in the right amounts as it contributes to brilliance and scintillation. I'm not an expert and have no idea what the impact of that amount of contrast will be on the stone to the naked eye.

https://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/about-aset.htm

+1 to this - IIRC Rhino posted a reply to something I mentioned about it being table reflection at the bottom of the pavilion mains, the reflection being something that was historically used to judge the size of the table, but I have no idea where it is now. lol

Sorry. I misspoke earlier when I said leakage. But with the dark blue I am not convinced this will add interest, not at the ratio shown on that particular image. I think the stone will look dark when observed at in the 75-90 angle, just like the arrows will. Contrast is good to a point, but I'm not sure this is complimentary in this particular case.

I'm envisioning it will look like this:

 

[lovedogs]

I really urge you to reconsider this stone. It's not well cut, and isn't the best bang for your buck, IMHO.

It worries me that they are claiming this is an ideal stone. Because it isn't.

 

[sledge]

To give you an idea what we are talking about, I am posting the images of the stone they are trying to pass off as "ideal" to true ideal cut stones.

ASET:

Hearts Image:

Arrows:

 

[farrahlyn]

The first ASET wasn't bad at all, i was relieved when i saw it. But the second, ACTUAL report is not even close to ideal. I always hesitate when people post stones they have already purchased but you did ask for thoughts on this particular stone. Right off you were told it would have light leakage and according to the ASET, it does.

What should be explained is that if you have a stone of similar size with more ideal proportions like the ones we have linked, that stone will reflect more light, looking larger. Not saying your stone will be a total dud but it's not ideal and definitely not even above average.

The halo is already going to provide a lot of finger coverage. Dropping just a bit in size won't make a huge difference visibly size-wise and the brilliance will more than make up for any difference in size. I would ask what are the minimum and max measurements that will fit in the halo and go from there. We can help with suggestions as well as possibly price matching from other sites. im positive you can find better.