Would you hold out for an extra 2/10th mm?

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/27/2009 5:07:00 PM
Author: elle_chris
Dreamer, based on your posts, I think we''re alot alike when it comes to color. I''ve had my G for about 2 years now and while sometimes I think I ''want'' a bigger stone, I now know I won''t sacrifice color to get it. so no upgrades for me

Since your friends blaring white diamond catches your eye, and you''ve already had an F, I think you should go for the G. It''s not always about size

That''s what my husband says

Still, you may be right. My DH wants me to have a G, and I think it would make me happy to have a G... having a J or K was always about size, an affordable way to get a diamond. Since I wasn''t at the size I wanted it bugged me a little. Like I''d made the trade and wasn''t getting the benefit I guess?

Feb I thought about that too. Based on the present inventory at WF and BGD, this would only save me about $400 bucks if it was an SI1. There are no other SI2s at BGD and there are no eye clean ones at WF! From my perusing, I think that for the same price as this J I could *amybe* find an eye clean I or J in the 1.3ct range... that isn''t a very big difference in size (0.2mm), and then it isn''t colorless! So it might not satisfy any of my desires

I just did some looking at virtual stones, and I honestly think that I cannot afford to get into the 1.4ct range either, even with an H SI2. It would be another 3 to 4k. At this point in time that is not doable.

 

[HVVS]

OK, so I spoke to Brian and all the inclusion, including the cavity, are located under the table. Sounds bad, but this is the most active part of the diamond and so it is the most difficult place to see inclusions. He looked at the diamond and said the cavity is very very tiny and not a concern, beyond mind clean issues I guess. The inclusions can be seen by eagle eyes at 3inches. And if I took extreme close-up arrows shots.

And therein is the rub

I want to go up in color but I am unsure whether I will care about the inclusions. ...

Since it has so many inclusions under the table, I'd pass it by and find something better for a ring. Brian says you can see inclusions at 3", and what you have to remember is that the clarity is graded face up, and "at a glance." So if you tilt and rock this one or you look at it in standard fluorescent lighting all the time, I think you are going to see one or more of those inclusions. Generally, it's better to have inclusions out toward the rim and avoid table inclusions for a ring, especially if you're looking at SI2 or I1 grades. Or at least that's been my experience. With SI1, a clear crystal table inclusion might hide. But I don't think an SI2 table inclusion will, and this G color stone has several to pick from. I think it would make a dandy pendant or earring but it would be too much of a compromise for a ring.

 

[Fly Girl]

Date: 11/27/2009 4:08:59 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 11/27/2009 2:55:59 PM
Author: february2003bride
I would go for it. Get the higher color and see how you like it. BGD has such a great trade in policy that when the right bigger diamond comes along, you''ll know exactly where you preference falls in terms of color!

LOL! Someone once called PSers like me ''diamond renters''. Seems apt at times.

I had an F diamond for a while, I sold it recently to my BIL (whence the money for the upgrade now

), and THAT is what started this whole color mess. must admit I really loved the icy white of the F. And I have an aquaintance who has a blaringly white diamond. It really catches me eye. So there it is, I think I know my preference for color.

But if I go to a G will I ever be able to go back down! That''s how I would get over 1.5ct.

My earrings are Js, but my ring stones are Es and Fs. I prefer the icy white to a little more size in the stones I''m looking at all day long. Very much a personal choice, but I would soooo go for that G SI2, and get rid of the K, if I were you. I prefer diamonds that are not just eye clean, but clean from the side as well, so that might hold me back, but it doesn''t sound like an issue for you.

 

[HVVS]

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6609/ is the current listing
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1792 is same stone and note where it is on the B-Scope http://www.gemexlive.com and enter Diamond ID of: br119gsi214811671
That GOG one is very white and it's eye clean at close inspection, it's the same diameter, and not much more money than AGS-1040375560020 at Brian Gavin, if that's the G SI2 you were looking at.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/27/2009 6:48:28 PM
Author: HVVS

OK, so I spoke to Brian and all the inclusion, including the cavity, are located under the table. Sounds bad, but this is the most active part of the diamond and so it is the most difficult place to see inclusions. He looked at the diamond and said the cavity is very very tiny and not a concern, beyond mind clean issues I guess. The inclusions can be seen by eagle eyes at 3inches. And if I took extreme close-up arrows shots.

And therein is the rub

I want to go up in color but I am unsure whether I will care about the inclusions. ...

Since it has so many inclusions under the table, I'd pass it by and find something better for a ring. Brian says you can see inclusions at 3', and what you have to remember is that the clarity is graded face up, and 'at a glance.' So if you tilt and rock this one or you look at it in standard fluorescent lighting all the time, I think you are going to see one or more of those inclusions. Generally, it's better to have inclusions out toward the rim and avoid table inclusions for a ring, especially if you're looking at SI2 or I1 grades. Or at least that's been my experience. With SI1, a clear crystal table inclusion might hide. But I don't think an SI2 table inclusion will, and this G color stone has several to pick from. I think it would make a dandy pendant or earring but it would be too much of a compromise for a ring.

Hmmm HVVS, from your name I suspect you are more picky about clarity than I am

To be honest I trust Brian's assessment over the grading report. He is an expert and is holding the diamond and looking at it, not just at a glance. He purchased this diamond from the cutter to be in their in house stock, so he would not have bought it unless the inclusions were difficult to see. Notcie it is the only SI2 in their inventory? He looked at it as did a few other people in his office (ok, his wife and daughter

) and only the most picky of the three could see it at 3 inches. That satisfies me, and if he misled me about the inclusions then I would just be sending it back to him, so he has no reason to mislead! Now whether or not I am comfortable with his assessment, that is another matter, that I am still pondering.

As an aside, in his opinion as well, inclusions under the table are better because it is an area with a lot of "action" in terms of sparkle scintillation, and so it is harder to see them. I owned an I1 previously and it had a cluster of black inclusions under the table and you *could not* see them when examining the ring. Yet they were very very obvious under magnification as seen in the attached picture below. So my own experience tells me that these types of inclusions under the table *can* be just fine.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/27/2009 6:59:38 PM
Author: HVVS
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6609/ is the current listing
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1792 is same stone and note where it is on the B-Scope http://www.gemexlive.com and enter Diamond ID of: br119gsi214811671
That GOG one is very white and it''s eye clean at close inspection, it''s the same diameter, and not much more money than AGS-1040375560020 at Brian Gavin, if that''s the G SI2 you were looking at.

It looks lovely, of course the plot does not tell us it is any more eye clean than the one I am considering. You really have to see it in person to judge. I suspect it is eye clean because like Brian, Rhino buys his inventory outright.

But that diamond is not only $800 more... it is $5500 more because I could not use my trade in

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/27/2009 6:50:36 PM
Author: Fly Girl

Date: 11/27/2009 4:08:59 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 11/27/2009 2:55:59 PM
Author: february2003bride
I would go for it. Get the higher color and see how you like it. BGD has such a great trade in policy that when the right bigger diamond comes along, you''ll know exactly where you preference falls in terms of color!

LOL! Someone once called PSers like me ''diamond renters''. Seems apt at times.

I had an F diamond for a while, I sold it recently to my BIL (whence the money for the upgrade now

), and THAT is what started this whole color mess. must admit I really loved the icy white of the F. And I have an aquaintance who has a blaringly white diamond. It really catches me eye. So there it is, I think I know my preference for color.

But if I go to a G will I ever be able to go back down! That''s how I would get over 1.5ct.

My earrings are Js, but my ring stones are Es and Fs. I prefer the icy white to a little more size in the stones I''m looking at all day long. Very much a personal choice, but I would soooo go for that G SI2, and get rid of the K, if I were you. I prefer diamonds that are not just eye clean, but clean from the side as well, so that might hold me back, but it doesn''t sound like an issue for you.

HA! Don''t mince words fly girl!

I actually didn''t ask if it was clean from the side. I will. But if it isn''t it doesn''t really bother me too much. My setting hides most of the sides anyways.

 

[HVVS]

Well, the trade-in is a sticking point. But that GOG stone is eyeclean close up. The larger the diameter or table facet, the harder it is to hide an inclusion there. Maybe the closer to culet the inclusions are, the better they can hide. I''m with Glitterata, picky about clarity: I also like mine affordably low. I bought an SI2. It has a table area inclusion. There is one direction I can tilt the diamond that I see the single dark inclusion very clearly. Most people look at their own diamonds from 6-8 inches or possibly closer. In my case I was willing to give up perfectly eyeclean to get a colorless diamond, which I thoroughly enjoy. Generally I steer clear of table inclusions. They are bad for resale value if you ever want or need to sell a diamond outright, as well as likely to be seen clearly in a larger diamond.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/27/2009 9:04:55 PM
Author: HVVS
Well, the trade-in is a sticking point. But that GOG stone is eyeclean close up. The larger the diameter or table facet, the harder it is to hide an inclusion there. Maybe the closer to culet the inclusions are, the better they can hide. I''m with Glitterata, picky about clarity: I also like mine affordably low. I bought an SI2. It has a table area inclusion. There is one direction I can tilt the diamond that I see the single dark inclusion very clearly. Most people look at their own diamonds from 6-8 inches or possibly closer. In my case I was willing to give up perfectly eyeclean to get a colorless diamond, which I thoroughly enjoy. Generally I steer clear of table inclusions. They are bad for resale value if you ever want or need to sell a diamond outright, as well as likely to be seen clearly in a larger diamond.

Hmmm, interesting. Is this your own observation or have you read it somewhere? I don''t usually look at my diamond from 6-8 iches. That would mean holding my hand to my face whereas I tend to look at it more like 20 inches away. PS vendors seem to define "normal viewing distance" as around 8 - 10 inches. But even if I did enjoy walking around with my hand held 6 inches from my face

, this diamond would be ok because it is clean to 3 inches.

For me, G is as colorless as I will ever likely go, so this is actually a similar trade as the one you describe. I want a certain size and color and I have a limited budget, so something has to give and for me I guess it is clarity.

I could get an I SI1 for a couple hundred more. Would anyone choose this option?

 

[anitabee]

can i chime in here? honestly, i think you''re talking yourself into liking this diamond. you''re getting impatient. you want peeps to be your yes people. the only reason i say this is because i''ve TOTALLY been in your position. initially, when i got engaged, i received a sapphire that wasn''t to my size liking. eventually fiance gave me the go-ahead to upsize. i told the jeweller i wanted MINIMALLY a 6 mm round. after doing some searching, all he could find me was a 5.6 mm round which i caved after not enough thought, and felt, "good enough". you know what? after about 4 months i regretted that decision and really wished i''d stuck to my guns and simply WAITED to find exactly what i was looking for. lesson learned. (i''m now onto my 3rd upgrade which is a princess cut diamond which i''m very happy with).

i now know that if i would''ve waited a bit, been more patient, the RIGHT ROCK would''ve come my way.

hold out for what you''ve been wanting.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/27/2009 9:27:42 PM
Author: anitabee
can i chime in here? honestly, i think you're talking yourself into liking this diamond. you're getting impatient. you want peeps to be your yes people. the only reason i say this is because i've TOTALLY been in your position. initially, when i got engaged, i received a sapphire that wasn't to my size liking. eventually fiance gave me the go-ahead to upsize. i told the jeweller i wanted MINIMALLY a 6 mm round. after doing some searching, all he could find me was a 5.6 mm round which i caved after not enough thought, and felt, 'good enough'. you know what? after about 4 months i regretted that decision and really wished i'd stuck to my guns and simply WAITED to find exactly what i was looking for. lesson learned. (i'm now onto my 3rd upgrade which is a princess cut diamond which i'm very happy with).

i now know that if i would've waited a bit, been more patient, the RIGHT ROCK would've come my way.

hold out for what you've been wanting.

LOL! Stick around a little longer and you'll see that this is a pipe dream around PS! ETA Oh I see you have been here a while... so you must know then!

 

[Circe]

Honestly, from your description, it sounds like a good stone, and something worth taking a chance on: the one thing I would want to know is where that cavity was. You don''t get the description "cavity" for something as inconsequential as a nick or a pit: that has to go a ways into the stone, and you''re saying most of the inclusions are on the table. If that''s on the girdle or pavilion, awesome, but anywhere on the crown would be enough for me to back away ....

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/27/2009 10:24:11 PM
Author: Circe
Honestly, from your description, it sounds like a good stone, and something worth taking a chance on: the one thing I would want to know is where that cavity was. You don''t get the description ''cavity'' for something as inconsequential as a nick or a pit: that has to go a ways into the stone, and you''re saying most of the inclusions are on the table. If that''s on the girdle or pavilion, awesome, but anywhere on the crown would be enough for me to back away ....

It is on the crown. According to Brian, it is very small and you cannot feel it when running your fingernail over it, and you cannot see it when you tilt the diamond and light reflects/glares off the table. On the clarity plot it is very small, I cannot see it, only know it is there because of the listing of clarity making inclusions.

I am wondering if SI1 is safer... well I know it is safer

but would it be better to have the mind clean thing. I like taking extreme close ups of my diamonds! haha

My DH is very positive about having the G color though. He says that othe than taking pictures for my PS friends

, what I will notice day in and day out is the color. And really, an SI2 is the only way I would go with a G I think. A G SI1 is ~$7500. That''s a nig difference to me.

But I could get an H or an I SI1 for not much more. But then it isn''t *really* colorless... must there always be a tradeoff?

 

[gailrmv]

Hey Dreamer,
I've just skimmed, but as to your original question - I would ask BGD how likely it is that they would have your preferred specs at the price point that you want. If it is likely to happen within say a year, then yeah I would wait. I've been thinking about an earring upgrade. At first I had a certain $ amount and certain specs in mind. I'd seen it before, but as it turned out, it was a really unusual thing for my preferred specs to be available at my price point. I actually decided to wait, because I decided I was pretty happy with what I had and I will probably wait til I can get my 'forever' pair. Ironically, once I'd decided that, a pair became available that met my criteria and I passed on them, but that's beside the point. If it is pretty likely that they'll have what you want eventually, I would wait and get it.

Re: your most recent post, I think you'll be happy with an H. I think it will be a big jump from a K! I think I'd rather have a n H SI1 than G SI2. The SI2 for an e-ring stone would bother me from a "mind clean" perspective. Of course, my ring is borderline H - I /SI1 and that seems to be my sweet spot, I may be a iittle biased! (I have an OEC that is either K or L color, and I do see a HUGE difference in color between my e-ring and the OEC.)

I'm also curious, are you checking with WF as well? How did you decide to go with BGD over WF for your new stone?

 

[coda72]

I would go for it if I were you. I have an SI2 stone that I can see only one inclusion in it, and that''s from the side. Besides, as already stated, you can upgrade the diamond again whenever you have the funds to do that. I am on my 3rd upgrade, and I know I''m not done. Like you, I want to upgrade the color as well as the size, and I know that will require quite a large cash outlay. But since I just upgraded in August, I''m probably going to wait a couple years.

 

[HVVS]

Most people look at their own diamonds from 6-8 inches or possibly closer.

It's in the recent journal article about definition of eyeclean. Without looking it up, I think it's a Garry comment, and was written about younger buyers/wearers of e-rings. Might have been one of the vendors, though.

I just think you should avoid that particular BG SI2 diamond in favor of a cleaner one. There seems to be no shortage of decent RB SI2 diamonds in the 6.8 to 7mm diameter and the cutters seem to be cranking rather a lot of that size. It's much harder to find a bargain eyeclean high color (above I color) SI2 in the approximate 1.3 to 1.5ct range.

You might be happier with the I color. I'd be more inclined to go for a clean I than that G SI2, if I had to buy right now and couldn't wait. I is where most people start to see tint. It should look substantially whiter than a K.

 

[iheartscience]

Hmmm...it sounds like you don't really want this diamond, so maybe you should hold out for a bigger, more eye clean one. If it were me, I would probably go for it, because you can always upgrade the clarity later if it bothers you. (Or just send it back immediately!)

I would trust Brian's opinion on the clarity, though, and assume it's eye clean from where you'll be viewing it. Since you don't loupe your diamonds and you look at them from 20 inches away, why would the clarity bother you?

It seems like maybe your hesitation is the lack of size difference. I think the 1.4 definitely looks bigger than the 1.2, so if you think you could swing the 1.4 in a few months, hold out!

 

[gemgirl]

Date: 11/27/2009 9:17:47 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 11/27/2009 9:04:55 PM
Author: HVVS
Well, the trade-in is a sticking point. But that GOG stone is eyeclean close up. The larger the diameter or table facet, the harder it is to hide an inclusion there. Maybe the closer to culet the inclusions are, the better they can hide. I''m with Glitterata, picky about clarity: I also like mine affordably low. I bought an SI2. It has a table area inclusion. There is one direction I can tilt the diamond that I see the single dark inclusion very clearly. Most people look at their own diamonds from 6-8 inches or possibly closer. In my case I was willing to give up perfectly eyeclean to get a colorless diamond, which I thoroughly enjoy. Generally I steer clear of table inclusions. They are bad for resale value if you ever want or need to sell a diamond outright, as well as likely to be seen clearly in a larger diamond.

Hmmm, interesting. Is this your own observation or have you read it somewhere? I don''t usually look at my diamond from 6-8 iches. That would mean holding my hand to my face whereas I tend to look at it more like 20 inches away. PS vendors seem to define ''normal viewing distance'' as around 8 - 10 inches. But even if I did enjoy walking around with my hand held 6 inches from my face

, this diamond would be ok because it is clean to 3 inches.

For me, G is as colorless as I will ever likely go, so this is actually a similar trade as the one you describe. I want a certain size and color and I have a limited budget, so something has to give and for me I guess it is clarity.

I could get an I SI1 for a couple hundred more. Would anyone choose this option?

I would choose the I SI1. I own six SI1s and you can''t see anything at all from any distance, in any stone, even with your eyeball pressed up against any of my SI1s. They are all completely and totally eye clean. In fact four of the SI1s in my five stone are so loupe clean, you''d think they made a mistake in the grading. (One stone has a dot that can be seen only with a loupe).

Having seen a photo of that SI2 now? I wouldn''t buy that diamond because that would drive me absolutely batty, but that''s just me. I''m only speaking for myself.

Buying an SI1 will provide you with almost certain peace of mind.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/28/2009 9:49:22 AM
Author: gemgirl

Date: 11/27/2009 9:17:47 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 11/27/2009 9:04:55 PM
Author: HVVS
Well, the trade-in is a sticking point. But that GOG stone is eyeclean close up. The larger the diameter or table facet, the harder it is to hide an inclusion there. Maybe the closer to culet the inclusions are, the better they can hide. I''m with Glitterata, picky about clarity: I also like mine affordably low. I bought an SI2. It has a table area inclusion. There is one direction I can tilt the diamond that I see the single dark inclusion very clearly. Most people look at their own diamonds from 6-8 inches or possibly closer. In my case I was willing to give up perfectly eyeclean to get a colorless diamond, which I thoroughly enjoy. Generally I steer clear of table inclusions. They are bad for resale value if you ever want or need to sell a diamond outright, as well as likely to be seen clearly in a larger diamond.

Hmmm, interesting. Is this your own observation or have you read it somewhere? I don''t usually look at my diamond from 6-8 iches. That would mean holding my hand to my face whereas I tend to look at it more like 20 inches away. PS vendors seem to define ''normal viewing distance'' as around 8 - 10 inches. But even if I did enjoy walking around with my hand held 6 inches from my face

, this diamond would be ok because it is clean to 3 inches.

For me, G is as colorless as I will ever likely go, so this is actually a similar trade as the one you describe. I want a certain size and color and I have a limited budget, so something has to give and for me I guess it is clarity.

I could get an I SI1 for a couple hundred more. Would anyone choose this option?

I would choose the I SI1. I own six SI1s and you can''t see anything at all from any distance, in any stone, even with your eyeball pressed up against any of my SI1s. They are all completely and totally eye clean. In fact four of the SI1s in my five stone are so loupe clean, you''d think they made a mistake in the grading. (One stone has a dot that can be seen only with a loupe).

Having seen a photo of that SI2 now? I wouldn''t buy that diamond because that would drive me absolutely batty, but that''s just me. I''m only speaking for myself.

Buying an SI1 will provide you with almost certain peace of mind.

That photo is *not* the SI2 that I am considering from BGD. It was an I1 that I owned earlier, I just posted the pick to illustrate to HVVS that in my experience, you can have a diamond that has inclusions on the table that are completely undetectable in normal wear.

I also have an SI1, my K, and it is completely eye clean, even in PS photo shoots. I think I would rather have an SI1, it is mind clean for me!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 11/28/2009 5:46:44 AM
Author: TanDogMom
Hey Dreamer,
I've just skimmed, but as to your original question - I would ask BGD how likely it is that they would have your preferred specs at the price point that you want. If it is likely to happen within say a year, then yeah I would wait. I've been thinking about an earring upgrade. At first I had a certain $ amount and certain specs in mind. I'd seen it before, but as it turned out, it was a really unusual thing for my preferred specs to be available at my price point. I actually decided to wait, because I decided I was pretty happy with what I had and I will probably wait til I can get my 'forever' pair. Ironically, once I'd decided that, a pair became available that met my criteria and I passed on them, but that's beside the point. If it is pretty likely that they'll have what you want eventually, I would wait and get it.

Re: your most recent post, I think you'll be happy with an H. I think it will be a big jump from a K! I think I'd rather have a n H SI1 than G SI2. The SI2 for an e-ring stone would bother me from a 'mind clean' perspective. Of course, my ring is borderline H - I /SI1 and that seems to be my sweet spot, I may be a iittle biased! (I have an OEC that is either K or L color, and I do see a HUGE difference in color between my e-ring and the OEC.)

I'm also curious, are you checking with WF as well? How did you decide to go with BGD over WF for your new stone?

Well, stones this size and price in this color are not common. But diamonds are the price they are because it is what they are worth on the market. There are no real deals.

And I have not decided to go with BGD or WF yet, this diamond just came up at BGD and I thought it warranted serious consideration. WF didn't have anything close. But they just got a new shipment...

Back later!

 

[Lurchie]

Date: 11/27/2009 1:11:02 PM
Author: Circe
Hm, decisions, decisions ....

If this is going to be your last upgrade for a long time, I''d say wait: otherwise, given the psychology of the diamond addict (uh, just going on personal experience here

), you''ll be good for the immediate future. Fascinated, fixated, delighted by that white searchlight gleaming up from your finger! But in a year or two ... there''s the possibility you''ll be thinking ''what if?'' and trying to imagine your ring gaining a little weight.

On the other hand, if ''long time'' is a period that''s likely to not exceed your joy and delight in the whiteness of the stone, go for it. It does look like a beautiful stone. Me, I think I''d want size *and* color before I upgraded ....

Ditto