Why is my new diamond not sparkly?

[Laila619]

Hi guys,

I recently bought an I color GIA graded round brilliant with cherry numbers and no clouds, twinning wisps, or other inclusions that might affect brilliance. The only inclusion is a small crystal. Being a seasoned PSer, I generally know what to look for, and what with GIA and their rounding, these numbers are as safe as it gets!

The stone's stats are as follows:
Cut grade: Excellent
Table: 55 %
Depth: 61.4 %
Crown: 34.5 degrees (15.5 %)
Pavilion: 40.8 (43 %)
Star: 50 %
LGF: 75 %
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluor: Medium Blue

I can clearly see the arrows and the stone is "pretty" but that's about it. I don't see any amazing fire or brilliance or flashes or tons of sparkle. It's "nice" if I had to describe it. But I'm underwhelmed. Is there something about the cut that could be causing this? Or is that really the best it gets? From other peoples' photos, their stones look so much more sparkly and lively. My stone is squeaky clean so it's not that either. Thanks!

 

[Snicklefritz]

So in every lighting condition it's not sparkly? Even outside in the sun and under direct spot lighting?

 

[Laila619]

Hi Snicklefritz,

Well it's a little sparkly and it's pretty, but I'm just underwhelmed. I guess I was expecting more...more big flashes, more fire, etc.

 

[04diamond<3]

how big is the stone? The number look great! So i don't understand why you'd be having that issue either....i know that in our home my ring doesn't "sparkle" because our lighting is terrible! do you have spot lights? I'd take it to a jeweler and see what it looks like in there.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

clairty please, and grading report or # and weihght

 

[Laila619]

It's a 0.77 carat. The clarity is SI2, because of a small black crystal. That is literally the *only* inclusion, but it's on the table, hence the SI2. Could the crystal being located on the table have something to do with it? I can hardly even see it at all.

What about painting/digging, or the shorter stars?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I wonder if you are used to a stone with longer lower halves and thus quicker scintillation? Those are good looking numbers. I find loose diamonds don't look as impressive as set diamonds. Setting a stone can help add contrast in my experience.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Also, what is the optical symmetry like in this stone? Perhaps you are used to a more random type of patterning and this one has more precise symmetry, or vice versa?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It's a 0.77 carat. The clarity is SI2, because of a small black crystal. That is literally the *only* inclusion, but it's on the table, hence the SI2. Could the crystal being located on the table have something to do with it? I can hardly even see it at all.

What about painting/digging, or the shorter stars?

If the inclusion is VS2 sized (which is what I hear you saying?), and you thought you made a lucky find of a miss graded stone, then the stone is very likely dull or cloudy.
if the inclusion is near the table that is good.
If its well down into the stone (near the culet) it will have a much worse impact on brilliance (and lower the grade because it can be seen many times).

 

[Laila619]

Dreamer, it is set.

I've been wearing it out and about in public and I'm just not that impressed. I haven't seen a ton of ideal cut diamonds in person before, so maybe I am just expecting too much, but I wonder if it wouldn't make AGS0 for light performance.

It has to be that lone crystal if I had to guess.

 

[Laila619]

Garry, no, I believe it's a true SI2 because you can definitely see the crystal without a loupe, but you have to squint. The stone isn't cloudy or anything, it just doesn't seem to have big flashes. It's more just a subtle glimmer/glitter.

 

[04diamond<3]

can you return it? It just doesn't sound like you're happy with it? What's it set in? I'm wondering if it's a necklace or something, going with a slightly smaller stone to get the brilliance you're expecting?

 

[Laila619]

Yes, most likely I'll return.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry, no, I believe it's a true SI2 because you can definitely see the crystal without a loupe, but you have to squint. The stone isn't cloudy or anything, it just doesn't seem to have big flashes. It's more just a subtle glimmer/glitter.

Could be long lower girdle facets?

 

[Ashleigh]

Laila, I had a diamond like yours too. Asset good, numbers alright, all other technology showed mine to be a performer but it had only white light and little fire dispersion, so different from the rest of my diamonds and I didn't know what was wrong. Recently Karl and Wink mentioned something about virtual facets, didn't really understand the discussion but thought it sounded like what might have contributed to my diamond problem. It seems our eyes are still our best judge even with all the technological confirmation that it was a performer.

Can we see a picture of your new diamond? Is it overcast whenever you went out recently? If not, quickly exchange it while you still can.

Just wondering if you have this same issue as me as my ex diamond really had me puzzled: you know diamond throws dispersion in car right? All the wonderful red, yellow, orange etc will appear on seat/door when sun hits it in car but my ex diamond never behaved like that. I wore that diamond for around 2 years so I knew it wasn't due to non ideal lighting.

 

[yssie]

Hi guys,

I recently bought an I color GIA graded round brilliant with cherry numbers and no clouds, twinning wisps, or other inclusions that might affect brilliance. The only inclusion is a small crystal. Being a seasoned PSer, I generally know what to look for, and what with GIA and their rounding, these numbers are as safe as it gets!

The stone's stats are as follows:
Cut grade: Excellent
Table: 55 %
Depth: 61.4 %
Crown: 34.5 degrees (15.5 %)
Pavilion: 40.8 (43 %)
Star: 50 %
LGF: 75 %
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluor: Medium Blue

I can clearly see the arrows and the stone is "pretty" but that's about it. I don't see any amazing fire or brilliance or flashes or tons of sparkle. It's "nice" if I had to describe it. But I'm underwhelmed. Is there something about the cut that could be causing this? Or is that really the best it gets? From other peoples' photos, their stones look so much more sparkly and lively. My stone is squeaky clean so it's not that either. Thanks!

They are "safe" by most PSer and PS-vendor conventions, but... they might not be for you. Did you love your old stone? Did your old stone have the fire and flashes and sparkle you want? IIRC you had a Leo with an unusually high crown and shallower pav... it's a different flavour of stone (my personal favourite) and maybe "safe by most PSer and PS-vendor conventions" isn't what best suits your tastes...

ETA: very high crown, shallow pav, and extra pav facets = coloured splinters, vs. bigger slower flashes of more white light in many types of lights. Maybe you're just more of a strawberry person than a chocolate person!

 

[Karl_K]

Is it clean??
Before returning it get it professionally cleaned and try again.
During the setting process all kinds of gunk can get left on a stone that will have a dramatic effect of its brightness.

Everyone, remember that should be the first question every time this comes up.
If I had nickel for every time the diamond turned out to be dirty id be rich.

 

[yssie]

Is it clean??
Before returning it get it professionally cleaned and try again.
During the setting process all kinds of gunk can get left on a stone that will have a dramatic effect of its brightness.

Everyone, remember that should be the first question every time this comes up.
If I had nickel for every time the diamond turned out to be dirty id be rich.

Karl, she said in the OP that it's squeaky clean
ETA hmm. Polishing compound? But that'd be black... what else?
ETA Hopefully not glue like w/ Enerchi's first experience

 

[Karl_K]

ETA hmm. Polishing compound? But that'd be black... what else?

not always black and there are other things that can leave a film on the stone.
Contaminated US solution for one.
If its still bad after a good steam clean then its time to consider other options.

 

[braga123]

Am I the only one who hasn't seen a picture? Can we see one or the link to the thread for the pictures?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Stones with ideal proportions are not aliens, they should still make you happy like your other diamond did! Either the inclusions is causing issues or else you just don't like the flavour of this cut!

 

[Ashleigh]

ETA hmm. Polishing compound? But that'd be black... what else?

not always black and there are other things that can leave a film on the stone.
Contaminated US solution for one.
If its still bad after a good steam clean then its time to consider other options.

I just remembered that the benchman put my diamond into a noisy machine after touching up on my bezel and he said acid in there. It's not drop into acid but another type of machine. Maybe you can ask them to clean using acid for you? Maybe it has that film Karl mentioned.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

ammonia and detergent, very hot, in an ultrasonic cleaner.
not acid - that is for removing flux after heating and soldering

 

[John P]

My first instinct (SI2) was potential clouds. I know others asked but I'd ask again, any chance there is a comment about clouds on the report? ... My second instinct was to ask if it's clean and that's been covered from here to yonder (which is Texan for 'there').

Also, what is the optical symmetry like in this stone? Perhaps you are used to a more random type of patterning and this one has more precise symmetry, or vice versa?

It's a cut-nerd topic, but certainly worth consideration. There are technical differences between a diamond with top basic proportions, and one with top proportions that also has a level of 3D optical precision to make the qualities 'pop.' When all else is equal, precise alignment of all 57 facets in 3D space promotes larger virtual facets - creating larger dispersive fans - which allows the human eye to see more/larger bursts of color. Sharper precision also promotes purer spectral hues, with less pastels, and a crisper on/off to the quality of scintillation.

The basic numbers are great, but remember that '40.8' and '34.5' both stand for 8 separate measurements. We don't know what the deviation from those averages is. 40.8 could imply 40.6, 40.6, 40.7, 40.8, 40.8, 40.9, 41.0, 41.0 / or it could imply 40.2, 40.3, 40.5, 40.6, 40.9, 41.2, 41.3, 41.4 / which is a different prospect with less 'pop'. 34.5 also represents 8 different measurements, and 75% stands for 16 different measurements.

Going farther, GIA reports round the given averages. So where you see '34.5 degrees' printed, the actual average was rounded to the nearest 0.5 degree, meaning the real number could be 34.3-34.7 (cut-nerds will say 34.26-34.74). And where you see 75% it was rounded to nearest 5%, so the actual number could be 73-77%. The good news, in this case, is that the averages are so centrally positive that the true numbers will not be straying into areas which cause any reduction in brightness. We just don't know the level of cut-consistency or optical precision here.

I wonder if you are used to a stone with longer lower halves and thus quicker scintillation?

This is also valid, especially with the rounding aspect possibly making the number 73%. Candidly, I'd hope shorter LH would promote larger visual events in this size, which could be a positive? But what's being seen could either be either deviations from average numbers or sub-par optical precision coupled with size, since a 0.77s dispersive fans are smaller than 1.00+ to begin with.

On the whole, with all the above said, the basic numbers are nice. In my experience that's enough for most people, but not necessarily for everyone. You may have very astute eyes and expectations for a certain 'pop' which aren't being fulfilled. No problem with that, I know many people who occupy that niche. Or, it could simply be as others have suggested, and you may prefer a different flavor than the modern RBC. Either way, you're not wrong for wanting what you want.

 

[Laila619]

Hi everyone,

I'll try cleaning it again.

John P, there are no clouds. I'm kind of anal about types of inclusions (I won't buy ones with feathers or clouds), and the only inclusion is a black crystal on the table that someone who has better eyesight than me would not like. No other inclusions are listed. Is it possible a GIA grader could miss clouds? I'd doubt it, or he probably wouldn't have a job!

Maybe a stone with 80% LGF and a steeper crown would be more pleasing to my eye.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Shorter LG's would make more fire and longer would appear brighter. But at 75% they will be between 72.5 and 78.5 - which is in the shorter domain.
To achieve GIA Excellent symmetry the stone must have reasonably tight variations in angular differences. So even if it is 55.5% 34.25 and 40.7 with 78.5% and borderline GIA VG symmetry, and just under GIA's rules for digging and painting - it should still have buckets of life.
Please clean it, or maybe even send it to one of our appraisers like Neil or Dave for an opinion?

 

[Laila619]

I wonder if that black crystal is just reflecting throughout the stone and thus affecting the sparkle?

 

[JulieN]

that is unlikely.

 

[treasurehunter]

A combination of the small table combined with 50 star instead of 55 and shorter lower girdle halves ?

 

[MissGotRocks]

Laila, can you post a picture of the ring?