Would you believe this is eye clean?

[WhitGA88]

Hello - I was forwarded this image along with a picture. The vendor forwarded me the notes from the cutter (presumably) and it is listed as "eye clean". The plot shows only twinning wisps, but also says "surface graining not shown". Do you think it will actually be eye clean? Worth the risk?

The reason I am considering this stone is that it is the right size, budget and is I color. Most diamonds in we are considering are J color.

The cut on this stone is 62.1 / 56 / 35.5 / 40.6 = HCA 1.7

 

[LuvTheGlitter]

How’s big is it? That factors in to its eye clean potential. And what’s its clarity grade? What lab graded it?

 

[WhitGA88]

2.2ct

 

[ac117]

The definition of eye clean varies by vendor and by person, quite frankly. Their definition might be top down from 12 inches away but if you look at the ring any closer or from the side then it will be obvious. Some people prefer mind clean stones bc once they see the inclusion they can't UNSEE it. I will tell you that having seen larger stones with different clarity grades at different angles and distances, this inclusion is quite dark and large and I would doubt that it would be sufficiently eye clean for me. If it were off to the side where it could be covered by a prong, that would be a different story...

 

[marymm]

Well, on my monitor that photo shows a dark crystal inclusion near the very center of the stone, yet you saw the plot for this stone shows only twinning wisps ... for me I would not think the plot matches the stone pictured ... perhaps the vendor has mixed up stone and grading report? Regardless, I would not think the pictured stone to be eyeclean.

 

[ringo865]

It looks to have much more body color than an I on my screen. Maybe brown/grey vs yellow.

 

[WhitGA88]

Thanks for your replies. Here is the link I was sent for this stone: http://www.pkstone.co.in/video.aspx?vstr=182101104 . Any further thoughts appreciated.

This stone is one of 5 stones that I have been staring at for 2 days trying to decide between. The reason I am struggling so much is that I cannot get images/ASETs in a timely fashion (or at all). Every stone I have liked sells before I obtain images! With that being said I've decided to buy the best one based on the info I have and return if necessary.

As I mentioned on another thread, I have a GOG H&A stone on the way to my house that my boyfriend thinks is "the one". While it very well may be the best one, it exceeds our budget, is J in color and I wanted something a little bigger. While I can find bigger for less money, finding I color or better has been difficult (I hate it, but it just is what it is). Still, both of us do want to get a stone that is in our budget to compare before having it set.

While I know it's next to impossible to actual rule any of these in/out without images - do any of these jump out as definite "no" ? I very much appreciate your input!

All of these stones are GIA XXX and have HCA <2

#1: 2.22 I/SI1 (faint fluorescence) 62.1/56/35.5/40.6 - 4% girdle (Picture in original post and link above are from this stone) = ~$13,600

#2: 2.31 J/SI1 (inclusions on side, no fluorescence) 61.5/58/35/40.8 - 4% girdle (All photos attached below are of this stone) = $13,500


#3: 2.12 J/VVS2 (no fluorescence) 59.9/57/33/41 - 2.5% girdle (No pictures - yet) =$14,500 (a VVS at this price point must mean there is a serious flaw somewhere right?)

#4: 2.16 I/SI2 (no fluorescence, vendor says eye clean - plot reveals twinning wisps and a feather off to the side, comments says pinpoints and surface graining not shown, no pictures yet) 60.5/56/32.5/41 - 3.5% girdle = $14,300

#5: 2.22 J/VS2 (Faint flouresence, small cloud on table per plot but comments state additional clouds and pinpoints not shown, NO pictures available) 61.5/56/35/40.8 - 3% girdle = 14,700

Thanks so, so much for your input!!

 

[tyty333]

The GIA report does not look like the correct report for that stone with the black inclusion in the middle.

 

[WhitGA88]

Oh goodness - how do you think I would go about verifying? I would just toss it aside but the GIA report doesn't look bad - so if it was a different stone (without a center inclusion) it may be the best pick!

 

[absolutme77]

The diamond should have the GIA number engraved but as others said, the GIA report does not match that diamond. Is the vendor local? They should be able to show you the engraving under a loupe or microscope.

 

[WhitGA88]

No Vendor isn’t local The online vendor said they would check when it comes to their office. As I only have 10 days to decide about the GOG stone, feeling pressure to just pick another one that can get delivered quick. Any thoughts on the other stones listed above?

 

[tyty333]

Oh goodness - how do you think I would go about verifying? I would just toss it aside but the GIA report doesn't look bad - so if it was a different stone (without a center inclusion) it may be the best pick!

Contact the vendor and ask for the report that goes with that stone. Tell them the one in the link does not look to be correct. Ask them if they have any
images of the stone that that GIA report belongs to.

 

[rockysalamander]

Since you are repleat with options, I was hesitate to post this, but I ran accross this 60/60 stone that would fit your budget. Good angles and nice chubby arrows. Spread is 8.06 mm, so still may be a bit smaller than your goal. VS2 and looks very clean. JA will generally provide and IS upon request.

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...i-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-4385952

 

[WhitGA88]

Thanks for your suggestion - If I wasn't trying to find a bigger stone for our budget it would be great - but the GOG stone is similar price and has bigger diameter!

 

[WhitGA88]

The vendor for the above stone is a drop shipper. He has the supplier in NYC verify the inscription and that it was eye clean (he said inclusion very easy to see with loupe but not from the eye and multiple angles) Unfortunately they did not take pictures other than the idealscope I requested.



So now the decision (which I MUST make tonight) is:

2.22 I/SI1 (faint fluorescence) 62.1/56/35.5/40.6 - 4% girdle (Picture in original post and link above are from this stone, ideal scope attached here) for $14,226.

OR

#2: 2.31 J/SI1 (inclusions on side, no fluorescence) 61.5/58/35/40.8 - 4% girdle (Photos attached a few posts above are of this stone) for $13,500.

Please, PS, tell me which to choose! If only I could get both

 

[skypie]

That's one poorly taken IS. By the numbers I would go with #1 but I think #2 looks better from the pictures.

 

[rockysalamander]

Take a minute and breath. You are putting yourself under a crazy amount of pressure.

If the GOG stone does not make your heart sing, return it. If the stone with the inclusion in the center is 100% returnable with cash back, not store credit. Give it a try. There is a small cHance it is eye clean, though I'm highly doubtful. If not, I'd pass Regardless, I'd pass on the second one. Maybe it would be wiser to stick with something smaller, but with a great upgrade policy. You can gain size over time.

 

[Tourmaline]

There's no way that a plot for that stone with the massive inclusion would not show the massive inclusion. I wouldn't trust the vendor.

 

[ChristineRose]

As that is a virtual stone, you can get it from other dealers. I found four other dealers that had it in their virtual inventory. One of them had "request a picture" as an option. They list a price also.

I also think you could ask another dealer--really, any dealer you want to work with--if they can source it. I was hoping James Allen might have it as they would have a picture, but I wouldn't hesitate to call them.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hello - I was forwarded this image along with a picture. The vendor forwarded me the notes from the cutter (presumably) and it is listed as "eye clean". The plot shows only twinning wisps, but also says "surface graining not shown". Do you think it will actually be eye clean? Worth the risk?

The reason I am considering this stone is that it is the right size, budget and is I color. Most diamonds in we are considering are J color.

The cut on this stone is 62.1 / 56 / 35.5 / 40.6 = HCA 1.7

If it has a GIA report with only twinning wisps on the plot, the image is NOT of the stone in the report. (If you have the report # we can look it at the lab's report check page). That is either a crystal or perhaps categorized as a cloud under the table, and because it is so prominent, would almost certainly be the grade setting inclusion.

A diamond that size with a center inclusion that big would almost certainly not be eye-clean.

Always make sure you are buying from a trustworthy vendor and have recourse after the purchase. It is also a good idea to take your purchase to a qualified independent gemologist to have the stone verified and evaluated before you are fully committed.

 

[WhitGA88]

Thanks everyone! Yes I do have the report number. It is 7276491973.

We got the GOG stone in today and while the sparkle and brilliance are gorgeous, the first thing I noted was the color

The vendor I am using for the stone in question is a PS recommended vendor. I'm tempted to just try it out given its 100% return policy as it is I color. Even though it it is only 1 color grade higher I am hesitant to buy another J online - and most stones in our budget are J even when I drop the carat down a little.

All of the J stones we saw at B&M stores looked white to us (under many light sources) so we are a bit surprised...and bummed!

I did like the size of the GOG stone in person - so I'm hopeful I can find a great cut, eye clean, white 8.2mm diamond somewhere!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thanks everyone! Yes I do have the report number. It is 7276491973.

After viewing the report and plot, it is clearly not the same stone as the one in your original picture. Just so you know. If the stone in the report is being represented as eye-clean, I am not surprised. Many people like twinning wisps because that are difficult to see with the naked eye. However, an Si1 with nothing but twinning wisps and comments of additional twinning wisps and graining, is an indication that the stone may have transparency deficits. That is, it could lack crispness. That's an important consideration for anyone desiring excellent light performance.
Sounds like you have multiple alternative options, but if you are still considering that stone, you might want to request accurate pictures/videos of it if possible. If not, and you take possession of it, you should get a consultation from an experienced independent gemologist. At very least, compare it carefullyyourself to another stone of similar size, color and cut quality in a VS1 or better clarity grade. Any transparency deficits that may exist in the Si stone will become apparent in a side by side evaluation.

 

[ac117]

I would see if they could access one of these. Keep in mind that you might have to compromise on something, you'll just need to decide what that is.
Very nice if no transparency issues: https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...i-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-4406591
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3418971

 

[WhitGA88]

Thanks guys - I agree that while the questionable stone meets what I wanted on paper it just is too risky without a decent photo from the person that holds the stone.

I know I need to compromise somewhere...and after seeing the GOG brilliance, sparkle, and symmetry I think that place is going to be with carat. Of course, I'd like to find a great SI2 or a J that really is white and keep it ideal cut and 2+ (the GOG stone was 8.19 mm, and I'd love to stay around size)...but I am at the point now where I really want to minimize the risk of getting a stone and not liking it - so lower carat it is. Hopefully I can find something with great brilliance and sparkle still?!

AC117 I like these stones - I'll ask JA if they are eye clean - but unfortunately I have already requested 3 idealscope images and was told I would not be able to get any more. Knowing this, would you hesitate in any way with these?

 

[rockysalamander]

Thanks guys - I agree that why the questionable stone meets what I wanted on paper it just is too risky without a decent photo from the person that holds the stone.

I know I need to compromise somewhere...and after seeing the GOG brilliance, sparkle, and symmetry I think that place is going to be with carat. Of course, I'd like to find a great SI2 or a J that really is white and keeping it ideal cut and 2+ (the GOG stone was 8.19 mm, and I'd love to stay around size)...but I am at the point now where I really want to minimize the risk of getting a stone and not liking it - so lower carat it is. Hopefully I can find something with great brilliance and sparkle still?!

AC117 I like these stones - I'll ask JA if they are eye clean - but unfortunately I have already requested 3 idealscope images and was told I would not be able to get any more. Knowing this, would you hesitate in any way with these?

Maybe your BFF is in need of a diamond and liked those on JA?

 

[farrahlyn]

AC117 I like these stones - I'll ask JA if they are eye clean - but unfortunately I have already requested 3 idealscope images and was told I would not be able to get any more. Knowing this, would you hesitate in any way with these?

just request the ASET using a different email address.

 

[ac117]

Ditto or your "dh could inquire"

 

[WhitGA88]

I confirmed they both appear to be eye clean and 1 ASET image is pending, the other one was unavailable. Thanks!

The GOG stone is starting to "warm" up on me.....it is definitely champagne colored in some lighting (i turned on my phone flash light to see the fire in the dark and it was straight up yellow) but mostly faces up totally white - from the side it does have hint of yellow 90% of the time. When it is set will this get worse? better?

I planned on putting it in a custom platinum setting with i/j melee