Why can't I find a diamond with the "ideal" specs?

[deviate]

However to me, it looks like (232164) looks like it has less leakage. Please let me know what you all think.

Painting.
So yes, less "leakage" at girdle, but not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing - just depends what you prefer to see.
Explanation: http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/

Whether it's visible? Well, it's THERE, and it will change the character of the stone visibly to someone who knows what to look for and who cares to look. The vast majority won't on both counts.
Of those who do note it, some will like it, some won't, and most won't care. I personally don't so I would choose the other (242826).

Can you have both stones shipped out to look at in-person? That's really the only way to find out how *you* feel. You aren't choosing between "good" and "bad" any more, or even "better" and "best" - it's strictly a matter of two perfectly good choices with different personalities.

Thanks for the link Yssie. I read it over and from the visual difference at the bottom I don't think I like the painting. In terms of the idealscope for 242826, does it look good or only average?

 

[yssie]

However to me, it looks like (232164) looks like it has less leakage. Please let me know what you all think.

Painting.
So yes, less "leakage" at girdle, but not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing - just depends what you prefer to see.
Explanation: http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/

Whether it's visible? Well, it's THERE, and it will change the character of the stone visibly to someone who knows what to look for and who cares to look. The vast majority won't on both counts.
Of those who do note it, some will like it, some won't, and most won't care. I personally don't so I would choose the other (242826).

Can you have both stones shipped out to look at in-person? That's really the only way to find out how *you* feel. You aren't choosing between "good" and "bad" any more, or even "better" and "best" - it's strictly a matter of two perfectly good choices with different personalities.

Thanks for the link Yssie. I read it over and from the visual difference at the bottom I don't think I like the painting. In terms of the idealscope for 242826, does it look good or only average?

Ah, now you are seeing plots where there are none that was not supposed to be a careful choice of words to discredit with subtlety. Given all the info we have, 242826 looks like a beautiful choice! And so does 232164, it just has a different character. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend 242826 to a friend, or buy it myself if I was in the market. Others whose opinions I would trust implicitly have said the same in this thread.

Hopefully that is more the reassurance you are looking for

 

[msop04]

However to me, it looks like (232164) looks like it has less leakage. Please let me know what you all think.

Painting.
So yes, less "leakage" at girdle, but not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing - just depends what you prefer to see.
Explanation: http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/

Whether it's visible? Well, it's THERE, and it will change the character of the stone visibly to someone who knows what to look for and who cares to look. The vast majority won't on both counts.
Of those who do note it, some will like it, some won't, and most won't care. I personally don't so I would choose the other (242826).

Can you have both stones shipped out to look at in-person? That's really the only way to find out how *you* feel. You aren't choosing between "good" and "bad" any more, or even "better" and "best" - it's strictly a matter of two perfectly good choices with different personalities.

Thanks for the link Yssie. I read it over and from the visual difference at the bottom I don't think I like the painting. In terms of the idealscope for 242826, does it look good or only average?

Ah, now you are seeing plots where there are none that was not supposed to be a careful choice of words to discredit with subtlety. Given all the info we have, 242826 looks like a beautiful choice! And so does 232164, it just has a different character. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend 242826 to a friend, or buy it myself if I was in the market. Others whose opinions I would trust implicitly have said the same in this thread.

Hopefully that is more the reassurance you are looking for

Agreed.

 

[Christina...]

I'm also in the camp that not all girdle enhancements negatively affect a stones performance. You may find the following article helpful...

http://highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=news-detail&id=2

 

[deviate]

I'm also in the camp that not all girdle enhancements negatively affect a stones performance. You may find the following article helpful...

http://highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=news-detail&id=2

Thanks for the link. Wow that's pretty technical. So I'm curious, how come when they do these "modifications" / "enhancements" they don't have to report it on the certificate?

This is way beyond me, I'm impressed that Yssie could tell right away it was painted from the idealscope. I just thought more red less white the better lol.

 

[Christina...]

I'm also in the camp that not all girdle enhancements negatively affect a stones performance. You may find the following article helpful...

http://highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=news-detail&id=2

Thanks for the link. Wow that's pretty technical. So I'm curious, how come when they do these "modifications" / "enhancements" they don't have to report it on the certificate?

This is way beyond me, I'm impressed that Yssie could tell right away it was painted from the idealscope. I just thought more red less white the better lol.

GIA will actually downgrade the cut if the painting is severe enough. It's easy to see in idealscope images....the M's around the girdle become larger and the smaller M's become less visible. Let me see if I can find you an image that better shows what I mean.

ok, see how the M's around the girdle become larger and the rest fade into the background. In some idealscope images all of the M's will fade into the background making the IS appear as if there is absolutely no leakage around the girdle. I'm sure someone else can explain the differences better, but perhaps this gives you an idea of what to look for...

 

[deviate]

I'm also in the camp that not all girdle enhancements negatively affect a stones performance. You may find the following article helpful...

http://highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=news-detail&id=2

Thanks for the link. Wow that's pretty technical. So I'm curious, how come when they do these "modifications" / "enhancements" they don't have to report it on the certificate?

This is way beyond me, I'm impressed that Yssie could tell right away it was painted from the idealscope. I just thought more red less white the better lol.

GIA will actually downgrade the cut if the painting is severe enough. It's easy to see in idealscope images....the M's around the girdle become larger and the smaller M's become less visible. Let me see if I can find you an image that better shows what I mean.

ok, see how the M's around the girdle become larger and the rest fade into the background. In some idealscope images all of the M's will fade into the background making the IS appear as if there is absolutely no leakage around the girdle. I'm sure someone else can explain the differences better, but perhaps this gives you an idea of what to look for...

Thanks Christina that definitely helps me out. I got curious and talked to JA some more and surprisingly they said that none of their stones are painted. I really hope they weren't being dishonest but perhaps just weren't knowledgeable on the matter. I would love to get both stones just to see but I'm in Canada and it would be such a hassle. I'm sure I'm just over thinking everything and either stone would be great choices.

 

[Christina...]

I'm also in the camp that not all girdle enhancements negatively affect a stones performance. You may find the following article helpful...

http://highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=news-detail&id=2

Thanks for the link. Wow that's pretty technical. So I'm curious, how come when they do these "modifications" / "enhancements" they don't have to report it on the certificate?

This is way beyond me, I'm impressed that Yssie could tell right away it was painted from the idealscope. I just thought more red less white the better lol.

GIA will actually downgrade the cut if the painting is severe enough. It's easy to see in idealscope images....the M's around the girdle become larger and the smaller M's become less visible. Let me see if I can find you an image that better shows what I mean.

ok, see how the M's around the girdle become larger and the rest fade into the background. In some idealscope images all of the M's will fade into the background making the IS appear as if there is absolutely no leakage around the girdle. I'm sure someone else can explain the differences better, but perhaps this gives you an idea of what to look for...

Thanks Christina that definitely helps me out. I got curious and talked to JA some more and surprisingly they said that none of their stones are painted. I really hope they weren't being dishonest but perhaps just weren't knowledgeable on the matter. I would love to get both stones just to see but I'm in Canada and it would be such a hassle. I'm sure I'm just over thinking everything and either stone would be great choices.

I agree, I'm not sure that JA can really come to that conclusion. That have an enormous virtual list and to make the blanket assumption that none of them have girdle enhancements is sort of ridiculous IMO. But your right, you have two very good stones to choose from and you really can't make a wrong decision. Go with your gut, order the stone and then view it in the real world and see what you think. Worst case, JA has a fantastic return policy and you return for another option. Honestly though, I think you will be happy with either of these stones.

 

[deviate]

I just wanted to give an update and to thank everyone for all their help. I decided to go with the 1.51 VS1. I want an open setting so I didn't want to take the chance of seeing any inclusions from the side with the 1.52 SI1. After looking at hundred's of settings, I couldn't find anything comparable to one I like at Birks so I'm going to get JA to make a custom one.

http://www.birks.com/en/products/Birks-1879/g1377/5000533314

I like the fact that it's very open, cathedral, and tapers on the top. I hope they do great custom work!

 

[Christina...]

Congratulations!! I've heard of others being very satisfied with their custom pieces from JA. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished piece! Did they give you a estimated time of completion?

 

[deviate]

Congratulations!! I've heard of others being very satisfied with their custom pieces from JA. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished piece! Did they give you a estimated time of completion?

Not yet, I still have to talk to them to give them all the details for the custom piece and then they'll do up the CAD design. I'll definitely keep everyone posted! Thanks again!

 

[msop04]

I just wanted to give an update and to thank everyone for all their help. I decided to go with the 1.51 VS1. I want an open setting so I didn't want to take the chance of seeing any inclusions from the side with the 1.52 SI1. After looking at hundred's of settings, I couldn't find anything comparable to one I like at Birks so I'm going to get JA to make a custom one.

http://www.birks.com/en/products/Birks-1879/g1377/5000533314

I like the fact that it's very open, cathedral, and tapers on the top. I hope they do great custom work!

Yay!! I'm excited for you, deviate!! I think JA will do a great job with your setting -- it will certainly be a beautiful ring, and I can't wait to see it!

 

[deviate]

So it will take 3-4 days for the CAD design to come in and once approved, 2-3 weeks. Pretty long wait but I rather it done right vs a rushed job.

On a side note, I found out another friend just bought a ring from a local "wholesaler" and we started to get into details and everything. He told me he got a 1.2 D, VVS1 - hearts and arrows for $17K but it was certified from EGL. I warned him from all I read to stay away from EGL and only buy a stone certified from GIA/AGS. He said he did a lot of research as well and was concerned that it was EGL certified but he brought it to an independent appraiser and they did verify it was D VVS1. He said it's really nice and it really sparkles. I really don't want him to get scammed. It seems like a ridiciously/amazing deal for those kind of specs.

 

[Christina...]

So it will take 3-4 days for the CAD design to come in and once approved, 2-3 weeks. Pretty long wait but I rather it done right vs a rushed job.

On a side note, I found out another friend just bought a ring from a local "wholesaler" and we started to get into details and everything. He told me he got a 1.2 D, VVS1 - hearts and arrows for $17K but it was certified from EGL. I warned him from all I read to stay away from EGL and only buy a stone certified from GIA/AGS. He said he did a lot of research as well and was concerned that it was EGL certified but he brought it to an independent appraiser and they did verify it was D VVS1. He said it's really nice and it really sparkles. I really don't want him to get scammed. It seems like a ridiciously/amazing deal for those kind of specs.

It is a ridiculously amazing deal for those specs and the thing is its just not possible. EGL is in business to make money not to save consumers money...same for the jewelers selling EGL stones. If your friends diamond was worth 30k the jeweler selling it to him would have sold it for 30k. Diamonds sell for what they are worth PERIOD. If the stone was truly a D VVS1 ideal cut HA then it would have been sent to GIA or AGS and sold by the jeweler for the premium that those labs demand because of their accuracy. It was sent to EGL only because the dealer decided he could make a larger profit from the bogus grading than he could with an accurate GIA report. Your friend purchased a 17k diamond if a 1.2 F VS1 by GIA cost 17k then thats likely what your friends stones true grading is. And that isn't even getting into what EGL will consider and label as HA.

 

[msop04]

On a side note, I found out another friend just bought a ring from a local "wholesaler" and we started to get into details and everything. He told me he got a 1.2 D, VVS1 - hearts and arrows for $17K but it was certified from EGL. I warned him from all I read to stay away from EGL and only buy a stone certified from GIA/AGS. He said he did a lot of research as well and was concerned that it was EGL certified but he brought it to an independent appraiser and they did verify it was D VVS1. He said it's really nice and it really sparkles. I really don't want him to get scammed. It seems like a ridiciously/amazing deal for those kind of specs.

It is a ridiculously amazing deal for those specs and the thing is its just not possible. EGL is in business to make money not to save consumers money...same for the jewelers selling EGL stones. If your friends diamond was worth 30k the jeweler selling it to him would have sold it for 30k. Diamonds sell for what they are worth PERIOD. If the stone was truly a D VVS1 ideal cut HA then it would have been sent to GIA or AGS and sold by the jeweler for the premium that those labs demand because of their accuracy. It was sent to EGL only because the dealer decided he could make a larger profit from the bogus grading than he could with an accurate GIA report. Your friend purchased a 17k diamond if a 1.2 F VS1 by GIA cost 17k then thats likely what your friends stones true grading is. And that isn't even getting into what EGL will consider and label as HA. [/quote]

Yep, Christina is absolutely right... just be glad this wasn't you.