your opinion?

[civictypesi]

Color: I
Clarity: VS2
Cut: excellent (GIA)
Carat: 1.41
measurements: 7.15 x 7.18 x 4.49
polish: excellent
girdle: thin - medium, faceted
symmetry: very good
fluorescence: non

$7100

Good deal? bad deal? average? good diamond? what are your thoughts?

how do you determine the physical size of the diamond (measurement) relative to its carat size? is this a normal size for a diamond of this carat size?

how often do jewelers replenish their supplies? if it makes any difference, i''m really curious as to when james allen restocks their diamonds. going by my same diamond criteria, last week pricescope found a ton of options for me; this week (same criteria), only 1 choice.

 

[beach]

Can you post the diamond angles (crown, pavilion, depth etc..)? Also, you can pricescope your diamond above to find comparable stones....

 

[civictypesi]

oops, sorry about that:

Depth: 62% (can''t tell what the breakdown is for pavilion vs. crown)
Table width: 57%
Girdle diameter: 50%

 

[iraweissman]

It is really rare to have a diamond weighing 1.40-1.49. You're basically getting a 1.50 size diamond for a (albeit expensive) 1.25 price. But it's still probably at least $1000 cheaper than a comparable 1.50 diamond.

Go for it. You found yourself a great deal (as long as the VS2 isn't a dead center black).

 

[civictypesi]

thanks. i could try to negotiate the price. what price do you think would allow me to come out a "winner"? i wonder if the measurements are too small for a 1.41?

what are the categories? are they always by 0.10? and does anyone know how often the online jewelers listed on pricescope tend to replenish their supply?

 

[civictypesi]

also:
crown angle: 35.5
pavilion angle: 41

will it be shiny enough to reflect back to the naked eye? i never know what's good or bad angles

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/17/2009 3:34:35 AM
Author: civictypesi
also:
crown angle: 35.5
pavilion angle: 41

will it be shiny enough to reflect back to the naked eye? i never know what's good or bad angles

Hi Civi

The diamond doesn't have a good angle combo as above, it will very likely leak light as a result. The diamond is also facing up a bit small for the weight. You can do better.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/17/2009 4:16:53 AM
Author: Lorelei

Hi Civi

The diamond doesn''t have a good angle combo as above, it will very likely leak light as a result. The diamond is also facing up a bit small for the weight. You can do better.

Indeed.

Try running potential stones through here. You "ideally" want the x to fall within the overlap of GIA/AGS, or close to, with a score of less than 2. That will help weed out the undesirables, though it doesn''t automatically make it a winner. After that, it''s best to get more info on the stone to confirm if it''s a good one.

http://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp


As for wondering if the stone is facing up properly relative to the carat weight, here''s a handy chart, though don''t hold it to the exact measurements. You can allow a wee bit of leeway.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mm-to-carat-stone-conversion-chart.17578/

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 4/17/2009 1:05:55 AM
Author: iraweissman
It is really rare to have a diamond weighing 1.40-1.49. You're basically getting a 1.50 size diamond for a (albeit expensive) 1.25 price. But it's still probably at least $1000 cheaper than a comparable 1.50 diamond.

Go for it. You found yourself a great deal (as long as the VS2 isn't a dead center black).

I'd take the above comments with a grain of salt as his advice is not the best. The only thing that would cause the VS2 to be "a dead center black" is a bad cut, which this stone is bordering on. The angles and proportions work together to produce the beauty we like to see in a diamond, it really has very little to do with clarity. Clarity has to do with rarity or pureness, usually not light return (unless there's a big cloud or similar).

Having said that. I would pass on the stone you've listed. I think you can find something that'll perform much better for your money.

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 4/16/2009 11:00:39 PM
Author:civictypesi
going by my same diamond criteria, last week pricescope found a ton of options for me; this week (same criteria), only 1 choice.

Do you mind sharing your criteria? Maybe someone here can help you find something.

 

[AmberGretchen]

Date: 4/17/2009 10:52:11 AM
Author: jet2ks

Date: 4/16/2009 11:00:39 PM

Author:civictypesi

going by my same diamond criteria, last week pricescope found a ton of options for me; this week (same criteria), only 1 choice.

Do you mind sharing your criteria? Maybe someone here can help you find something.

Ditto - this will help others to aid you in your search.

Also, it is true that 1.4-1.49 is a relatively rare size - generally cutters do aim to get over the "magic" price barriers, including one at 1.5

 

[civictypesi]

everyone is very nice here - please see: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-assistance-in-finding-diamond.112865/

 

[iraweissman]

I have to say, Girly Girl, that I''m a little insulted by your comments. Please see the attached photo for an example of a dead center black VS2 inclusion. Cut has absolutely nothing to do with where a black inclusion will lay in a stone. The stone in the photo might have the greatest cut in the world, but if you always see a black dot in the center of the table, it won''t look too pretty.

Date: 4/17/2009 8:33:43 AM
Author: girlie-girl

Date: 4/17/2009 1:05:55 AM

Author: iraweissman

It is really rare to have a diamond weighing 1.40-1.49. You''re basically getting a 1.50 size diamond for a (albeit expensive) 1.25 price. But it''s still probably at least $1000 cheaper than a comparable 1.50 diamond.


Go for it. You found yourself a great deal (as long as the VS2 isn''t a dead center black).

I''d take the above comments with a grain of salt as his advice is not the best. The only thing that would cause the VS2 to be ''a dead center black'' is a bad cut, which this stone is bordering on. The angles and proportions work together to produce the beauty we like to see in a diamond, it really has very little to do with clarity. Clarity has to do with rarity or pureness, usually not light return (unless there''s a big cloud or similar).


Having said that. I would pass on the stone you''ve listed. I think you can find something that''ll perform much better for your money.

 

[iraweissman]

Same diamond, but magnified more.

 

[civictypesi]

thank you everyone! your comments have all been very helpful! Here are the 2 final contenders in my diamond search:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-assistance-in-finding-diamond.112865/

I definitely value your wisdom!

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 4/19/2009 2:02:23 AM
Author: iraweissman
I have to say, Girly Girl, that I''m a little insulted by your comments. Please see the attached photo for an example of a dead center black VS2 inclusion. Cut has absolutely nothing to do with where a black inclusion will lay in a stone. The stone in the photo might have the greatest cut in the world, but if you always see a black dot in the center of the table, it won''t look too pretty.

Date: 4/17/2009 8:33:43 AM
Author: girlie-girl

Date: 4/17/2009 1:05:55 AM

Author: iraweissman

It is really rare to have a diamond weighing 1.40-1.49. You''re basically getting a 1.50 size diamond for a (albeit expensive) 1.25 price. But it''s still probably at least $1000 cheaper than a comparable 1.50 diamond.


Go for it. You found yourself a great deal (as long as the VS2 isn''t a dead center black).

I''d take the above comments with a grain of salt as his advice is not the best. The only thing that would cause the VS2 to be ''a dead center black'' is a bad cut, which this stone is bordering on. The angles and proportions work together to produce the beauty we like to see in a diamond, it really has very little to do with clarity. Clarity has to do with rarity or pureness, usually not light return (unless there''s a big cloud or similar).


Having said that. I would pass on the stone you''ve listed. I think you can find something that''ll perform much better for your money.

With all due respect, the OP didn''t post a stone with a black inclusion in the center... you did. You also failed to state in your response that you were talking about inclusions, you merely said "as long as the VS2 isn''t a dead center black". Lastly, there is no need to feel insulted, but there is a need to be as precise as possible when giving information on this forum so that comments cannot be misconstrued.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Ira,

Once again, you prove that your experience means nothing in the real world.

Now, you come up with so-called dead centar-black VS2''s that are not eye-clean. This is an age-old ''truth'' of the industry, that is incorrect.

True, if you have experience in average cut-quality goods, and if you have spent most of your time sorting stones and examining them with a loupe and with background-lighting from a desk-lamp, you think that such inclusions are ugly and, on a side-note, that this badly-cut stones got tremendous life.

Reality is that such central inclusions and such black inclusions are more difficult to see with the naked eye in a well-cut stone.

Now, I do not know what your current professional situation is and if yoiu ever have or had the possibility to see very well-cut stones. If so, I would suggest that you examine this for yourself. If not, you will have to accept that your experience of the past years does not level that of many posters here.

Live long,

 

[iraweissman]

Paul and Girlie Girl:

You guys are vicious! First of all to Girlie Girl, what I said to the poster of the topic was that he got a great deal (as long as the VS2 wasn''t a dead center black). You said I failed to mention I was talking about inclusions, but what else could "dead center black VS2" mean if not an inclusion? You said the poster didn''t mention an eye-visible VS2, "I" did. But the poster didn''t post a picture of the diamond either way. I was simply mentioning the fact that just because a diamond is a VS2, doesn''t guarantee its eye-cleanness.

To Paul - I suppose a really nice make could someone make up for a noticeable black inclusion, but it wont mask it if it''s dead center in the table, no matter perfect it''s various "scopes" are.

Also: paul -- did you get my email? I tried to concede a point to you on a previous discussion, but the op deleted the thread, and there was no way to PM you. I tried to guess what your email address was.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Ira,

First of all, I do not accept being called vicious, and for sure, I do not accept you calling a consumer vicious. You are totally out of line.

Instead, your sudden appearance on PS and repeated incorrect advice can be considered very suspicious.

I truly wonder what your agenda is. At this point in time, also after checking your website, I think that you have made a deal with a supplier of JA. Every time that you recommend a stone of JA, you inform that supplier that you are the ''broker'', and if that sale goes through within a certain period of your recommendation, you earn yourself a commission.

Not only would this be against forum rules, it also hurts the forum, the consumers and even JA.

You would better come clean and explain your complete background, the goal of your website and how you make a living now after you stopped working for Schachter.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/19/2009 10:09:23 AM
Author: iraweissman
Paul and Girlie Girl:


You guys are vicious! First of all to Girlie Girl,

Actually Paul and Girlie Girl are nice.
I am the mean one :}

1: black center vs inclusions can be and usually are totally face up eyeclean.
2: eyeclean can not be judged from photos.
3: an inclusion under the bezel facet and over the lower girdles is often far more visible than a vs center carbon spot or black crystal. If it is over the mains it is not very likely to be eye visible as obstruction will hide it when it is close enough to the eye to be seen.

In step cuts a black inclusion under the table can be bad news but very much less so with RB's and princess cuts.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/19/2009 10:09:23 AM
Author: iraweissman
Paul and Girlie Girl:

You guys are vicious!

Ira, I very much disagree than Paul and GG are vicious! They are both highly regarded and respected members of Pricescope.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/19/2009 10:26:20 AM
Author: strmrdr
3: an inclusion under the bezel facet and over the lower girdles is often far more visible than a vs center carbon spot or black crystal. If it is over the mains it is not very likely to be eye visible as obstruction will hide it when it is close enough to the eye to be seen.

Ditto!

 

[iraweissman]

Date: 4/19/2009 10:25:36 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Ira,


First of all, I do not accept being called vicious, and for sure, I do not accept you calling a consumer vicious. You are totally out of line.


Instead, your sudden appearance on PS and repeated incorrect advice can be considered very suspicious.


I truly wonder what your agenda is. At this point in time, also after checking your website, I think that you have made a deal with a supplier of JA. Every time that you recommend a stone of JA, you inform that supplier that you are the 'broker', and if that sale goes through within a certain period of your recommendation, you earn yourself a commission.


Not only would this be against forum rules, it also hurts the forum, the consumers and even JA.


You would better come clean and explain your complete background, the goal of your website and how you make a living now after you stopped working for Schachter.


Live long,

Dear Paul,

Just to be clear, your line of questioning is not only out-of-line, it is incredibly rude. At the risk of justifying your rudeness, I will answer your questions in the hope that it will finally put an end to your attacks against me.

My background: Grew up in Miami, Florida. Graduated 8th out of 850 from Miami Killian Senior High School. Freshman year went to Washington University. Following freshman year transferred to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Graduated MCL, and decided to emigrate to Israel for ideological reasons. Unexpectedly wound up in the diamond business after becoming friendly with the family of the Leo Schachter company.

I won't rehash what I did for LS, as I've already explained that to you elsewhere on the forum.

And now to answer your most out of line question: how I make my living now. I am presently working on developing a line of baby products (primarily strollers) for the Israeli market. I am flying to China on Wednesday to attend the Canton Fair to meet with potential suppliers.

I own another web business on the side, but it's not a real money-maker: I sell ancient Jewish coins excavated in Israel mounted in silver jewelry. To the ops of the forum, I apologize if this breaks the rules - I did not intend whatsoever to advertise by mentioning that. I was bullied into answering such by one of your more apparently respected members.

And now, finally, I will explain my other website which is linked in my signature. I started this website because I always hated what I did working in diamonds. All we do in the business is rob people of their hard earned money to sell them an illusion. I was happy to be out of the business, and I wanted to do what I could to lessen the blow that DeBeers brainwashing has taken on the world's consumer. I knew I wouldn't successfully convince the world (even though it's true) that the diamond engagement ring is an invention created by the people who are selling you the diamonds, so I wanted to do what I can to at least help people spend the least amount of money possible while still getting something that looks decent and will make a wife-to-be happy.

Yes, I do have some affiliate links on my website that link to James Allen. Blue Nile and other online vendors offer affiliate commissions as well. I chose JA over the others because I felt they had a superior offering. Other than those affiliate links, I have no financial interest (unlike all of the other opinions in the peanut gallery on this forum) in the diamond business whatsoever.

I only launched my website in the last month. I bought the domain from someone else who was doing something similar. I'll be happy if I ever get any commission money from those affiliate links, but I'd be overjoyed if I earn enough to cover my expenses.


I sincerely hope the ops of this forum will handle this correctly and not allow another user to be bullied as I just was publicly. All of the information you cornered me into sharing is private and should have had to be exposed. I hope you are satisfied, Paul.

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 4/19/2009 10:09:23 AM
Author: iraweissman
Paul and Girlie Girl:

You guys are vicious! First of all to Girlie Girl, what I said to the poster of the topic was that he got a great deal (as long as the VS2 wasn't a dead center black). You said I failed to mention I was talking about inclusions, but what else could 'dead center black VS2' mean if not an inclusion? You said the poster didn't mention an eye-visible VS2, 'I' did. But the poster didn't post a picture of the diamond either way. I was simply mentioning the fact that just because a diamond is a VS2, doesn't guarantee its eye-cleanness.

To Paul - I suppose a really nice make could someone make up for a noticeable black inclusion, but it wont mask it if it's dead center in the table, no matter perfect it's various 'scopes' are.

Also: paul -- did you get my email? I tried to concede a point to you on a previous discussion, but the op deleted the thread, and there was no way to PM you. I tried to guess what your email address was.

Firstly, LOL at you calling me vicious. I do assume you know the definition of the word? I've not done or said anything that could be classified as vicious, nor has Paul. Perhaps I should enlighten you with a definition:

1. addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral; depraved; profligate: a vicious life.
2. given or readily disposed to evil: a vicious criminal.
3. reprehensible; blameworthy; wrong: a vicious deception.
4. spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip; a vicious attack.
5. unpleasantly severe: a vicious headache.
6. characterized or marred by faults or defects; faulty; unsound: vicious reasoning.
7. savage; ferocious: They all feared his vicious temper.
8. (of an animal) having bad habits or a cruel or fierce disposition: a vicious bull.
9. Archaic. morbid, foul, or noxious.

Secondly, with regard to your statement "what else could 'dead center black VS2' mean if not an inclusion?" With your stated experience I would have thought you'd know a poorly cut stone could cause that. Here's an idealscope comparison chart showing how a poorly cut stone will have a 'black center'. I've copied the image from this site: http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart.asp

Lastly, it seems you need to re-read the forum rules and registration agreement as it appears you didn't understand them. I'll link them for you:

https://www.pricescope.com/disclaimer.asp

https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/register/register.asp

 

[iraweissman]

I would like to apologize publicly both to Paul and Girlie Girl regarding using the term vicious. When I said with an exclamation mark that "you guys are vicious!" I meant it tongue in cheek. As if to say, "man, you guys are really ganging up on me!" Instead of criticizing my opinions, you both attack me personally. That''s what I was referring to. I realize now that tongue-in-cheekiness doesn''t really translate well in the written word, especially when we don''t know each other personally.

And regarding the term "center black," if you speak to anyone in the wholesale end of the business and say the words "center black" it ALWAYS refers to an inclusion, not darkness created by poor make. I figured the pros on this board knew that.

 

[girlie-girl]

Again, with all due respect... I never personally attacked you. I did however find fault with the information you were providing and pointed it out. How is that a personal attack?

Please also remember not everyone who reads these boards is a "pro" (myself included), nor are any of us wholesalers. It's a consumer forum after all. This is the reason I previously stated it was imperative that posters be as precise as possible when giving information so that comments cannot be misconstrued. One cannot assume what another's knowledge level is in this environment.

 

[Imdanny]

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/19/2009 11:28:50 AM
Author: iraweissman

Yes, I do have some affiliate links on my website that link to James Allen. Blue Nile and other online vendors offer affiliate commissions as well. I chose JA over the others because I felt they had a superior offering. Other than those affiliate links, I have no financial interest (unlike all of the other opinions in the peanut gallery on this forum) in the diamond business whatsoever.

Paul''s question was 100% spot on.
You are in the trade and linking stones from a seller you have a business relationship with as well as being rude to consumers.
Both are very much against the rules.

Anyone linking a diamond is not in the trade as that is not allowed.
Almost all of the people giving advice here are consumers and have no financial interest in any sales.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/19/2009 11:58:30 AM
Author: Imdanny
What does any of this have to do with the OP?

The OP is being helped in another thread.
A little truth telling and house cleaning helps everyone.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 4/19/2009 11:28:50 AM
Author: iraweissman


...And now, finally, I will explain my other website which is linked in my signature. I started this website because I always hated what I did working in diamonds. All we do in the business is rob people of their hard earned money to sell them an illusion. I was happy to be out of the business, and I wanted to do what I could to lessen the blow that DeBeers brainwashing has taken on the world''s consumer. I knew I wouldn''t successfully convince the world (even though it''s true) that the diamond engagement ring is an invention created by the people who are selling you the diamonds, so I wanted to do what I can to at least help people spend the least amount of money possible while still getting something that looks decent and will make a wife-to-be happy.

Yes, I do have some affiliate links on my website that link to James Allen. Blue Nile and other online vendors offer affiliate commissions as well. I chose JA over the others because I felt they had a superior offering. Other than those affiliate links, I have no financial interest (unlike all of the other opinions in the peanut gallery on this forum) in the diamond business whatsoever.

I only launched my website in the last month. I bought the domain from someone else who was doing something similar. I''ll be happy if I ever get any commission money from those affiliate links, but I''d be overjoyed if I earn enough to cover my expenses.


I sincerely hope the ops of this forum will handle this correctly and not allow another user to be bullied as I just was publicly. All of the information you cornered me into sharing is private and should have had to be exposed. I hope you are satisfied, Paul.

OK, so you''re "happy to be out of the business" and you think that diamond sellers exist only to "rob people of their hard earned money" and you''re on THIS website why again...............?

Just so you''ll know (and won''t be surprised if more of your "advice" is questioned) Pricescope posters typically are more discerning about their diamonds than merely "getting something that looks decent and will make wife-to-be happy".

There are mall jewelers and mass merchandisers that offer product to that low standard.