Who has the guts

[focalmatic]

http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_031ct_j_i1_h%26a.htm

Who would have the guts to take a chance on this one?

 

[seeker78]

Go for it! It looks like a beautiful stone, and you''ll save thousands of dollars. Remember, cut is the most important thing.

 

[MiniMouse]

If you''ve got the chance of seeing it, why not! It is possible to find the odd I1 stone that is fab. I know one of our fellow PS''ers had an absolutely gorgeous I1 and the inclusion is barely visible as it''s mostly hidden by prongs. I for one would love her diamond!

I''m a little nervous about this particular diamond having it''s blemishes on the table, but it''s worth checking out. Best thing is to ask Jonathan or one of his crew for an honest opinion of how eye clean it is.

 

[WinkHPD]

I am not sure I understand your question. What guts does it take to have the stone sent in and look at it?

If Jon says the inclusions are hardly noticeable, then they undoubtably are hardly noticeable. Often you can get an incredible value in an I1 stone, and sometimes you can get a lousy value in an SI1. The cut is MUCH more important to most of my clients than the clarity, and for those on a budget they would snatch that stone in a heartbeat if they were looking for a stone at this time.

The hardest part about that stone is finding one cut like it, most do not honor the lower qualities with the better cuts, but I am thinking and hoping that this is beginning to change.

I say, take the plunge, look at it, and if you don''t like it, then send it back. Easy decision.

Wink

 

[valeria101]

From the pictures, it seems rather obvious that the inclusions are mostly visible from an angle (with the diamond tilted 10-15 degrees in one direction across the largest cloud, not face up).

Perfect recipe for a pendant... and it shouldn''t fare too bad in a low-set ring either.

With such ''lucky'' low clarity stones, seeing is believing.

Just IMO.

 

[Mara]

I would SO buy an I1 for a pendant or as an earring where it may not get as much scrutiny, and I would not entirely rule one out for an e-ring setting, we have a few gals here with amazing I1''s that are eye-clean....!!

 

[Lorelei]

Absolutely I would give this one a shot, better IMO to have a slightly visible inclusion and a spectacular cut than IF rubbish cut

 

[focalmatic]

I wonder how this one would compare.
Working down on clarity and to these I''s and J''s really allows you to get a bigger rock, huh.

GOG 1.012

 

[Lorelei]

You are really doing your stuff, asking questions and comparing now.

Indeed going lower on colour and clarity but keeping the cut quality as high as possible will get you a better looking and bigger rock. This one looks lovely

If interested check with Jon that it is eyeclean or that the inclusions are hardly visible - depending on your comfort level.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/3/2006 9:17:18 AM
Author: focalmatic
I wonder how this one would compare.
Working down on clarity and to these I''s and J''s really allows you to get a bigger rock, huh.

GOG 1.012

Less tempting than G-Si2 for about the same cash. I would rather bet on many small and scattered inclusions than a single large one. Sometimes a single large inclusion can be a good thing (thinking of a feather strategically paced perpendicular to the table - for example). This time, I just don''t know.

Between the Si2 and I1, SI2 looks better to me, this time. It needn''t be so for every SI2 and every I1 in the world.

And speaking of feathers strategically placed... here''s one in H-Si2 Can you find in the picture?

Those G and H Si2 happened to be in line with the $4500-ish budget.

I/J SI2 should be less, in theory. And sure enough... if you run a search for ''In House'' I-J, SI1-I1 below 4k there will be at least two with excellent pattern and stats.

Hope this helps