Your thoughts on this diamond??

[HeatherL]

Okay, this is one of the diamonds that I am considering, I am not looking for the absolute perfect diamond or a branded diamond, but I do want it to be a nice. I posted on another post about an oval, but this is where I am on the fence, I like the look of ovals but I want the sparkle of the round. I like both, but am thinking a round will not disappoint me, but worry that an oval will. Here is the link to a diamond that I am considering and the IS image should be as an attachment (I hope). And it scores a 1.4 on the HCA. Does it look eye-clean to you and would I definetly see arrows? Thanks!

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1104269



I will have another IS image for this diamond tomorrow-I like it better because it is cleaner, and I am very much a person that needs a clean diamond, so we will see!

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1187894

 

[HeatherL]

Yeah, it worked!!!! I just wanted to clarify that the IS is for the 1st diamond listed, and I should be getting an IS for the 2nd diamond listed tomorrow.

 

[JulieN]

Very nice. BTW, you only posted one diamond link, repeated.

 

[HeatherL]

Julie, thank you, I corrected it, I am so nervous and excited about this. This diamond is going to be my 15yr wedding anniversary upgrade. So my husband and I just want to make the right choice. I just hope everything works out!!! Thanks again!

 

[:)]

Congrats on your anniversary.
If you are worried about eyeclean, you need to ask them. We can''t tell from magnified photos
Also, if you are concerned with technical symmetry, then you really need a hearts pic taken with a hearts and arrows viewer (I assume this is why you are asking about arrows??) - I don''t think that JA offers that though.

 

[HeatherL]

Okay here is the IS for the 2nd diamond, this diamond is cleaner however I don''t think the IS looks as nice. Of course I am just a beginner so I may be wrong. Any suggestions?

 

[stone-cold11]

I would prefer the stone with the 1st IS too.

 

[Ellen]

Both stones were tilted (so IS is messed up a bit), though the second one looks like it a bit more. At this point, I would have Jim look at them both and assess which one he thinks performs better, if there is one.

 

[HeatherL]

Thank you Ellen, how do you tell that the stones were tilted during the IS? I would have never of known that, and I am just trying to learn. Do you think that both of them would have potential? Do you think the tilt of the stone is making the IS look better or worse? Thanks.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/3/2009 6:19:20 PM
Author: Ellen
Both stones were tilted (so IS is messed up a bit), though the second one looks like it a bit more. At this point, I would have Jim look at them both and assess which one he thinks performs better, if there is one.

Ditto

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/3/2009 6:58:27 PM
Author: HeatherL
Thank you Ellen, how do you tell that the stones were tilted during the IS? I would have never of known that, and I am just trying to learn. Do you think that both of them would have potential? Do you think the tilt of the stone is making the IS look better or worse? Thanks.

If you look at the arrow shafts, you can see some are longer than others, they should all be the same length. That's how you tell the stone wasn't even.

And yes, that can affect the IS pic. I do think they both have potential!

Also, at VS2, almost all stones are eyeclean. Those inclusions are very tiny. But it won't hurt to ask just the same!

And you're very welcome. Let us know how it goes!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

The stone does not necessarily have to be tilted to produce such a picture. It might just as well be the true face-up appearance of the stone.

Then again, getting a diamond exactly level for these pics is not the most simple task.

Live long,

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/4/2009 10:48:32 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
The stone does not necessarily have to be tilted to produce such a picture. It might just as well be the true face-up appearance of the stone.

Then again, getting a diamond exactly level for these pics is not the most simple task.

Live long,

Hi Paul,

From other experts/prosumers on here, this has always been the general consensus on why arrows would look as such. It also seems to only be from certain vendors (mainly JA), there are some who never have a picture appear like the ones we are discussing, which would lead me to think it was tilted. (assuming they are well cut diamonds to begin with) Also, if you look at the actual diamond photo, the stone/table looks "off", I doubt it does in real life? (pretty exaggerated)

But I suppose sometimes it could be the actual stone.

 

[John P]

Date: 2/4/2009 11:14:23 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi Paul,

From other experts/prosumers on here, this has always been the general consensus on why arrows would look as such. It also seems to only be from certain vendors (mainly JA), there are some who never have a picture appear like the ones we are discussing, which would lead me to think it was tilted. (assuming they are well cut diamonds to begin with) Also, if you look at the actual diamond photo, the stone/table looks 'off', I doubt it does in real life? (pretty exaggerated)

But I suppose sometimes it could be the actual stone.

Indeed. And for my purposes it's easy to verify when other photos are present. With a single photo it's not as simple to know whether it may be a tilted table or variance problem: http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/symmetry/_6.htm

Manufacturers know that a 2D cut grade won't reveal these issues. In most cases a hearts photo will. Properly level crown photos (several for x-ref) can too, as will a 3D scan. Even a report that shows variance in angles typically gives some indications.

This is strong justification for cut-focused sellers, especially those advertising cut precision ('Hearts & Arrows') to provide hearts photos as well as the standard array of crown images and other information.

 

[Ellen]

Thank you sir!

 

[strmrdr]

ok guys and gals...
If you follow the links and look at the regular pics you will see that the stone is indeed tilted in the IS and tilted a different way in the regular pics.
Saying it is the stone without taking all the data into account is wrong.
There is no way an actual issue with the diamond would produce both variations so it has to be tilt.

That out of the way...
Neither stone is h&a if that is important to you.
The first looks to have excellent light return, the second is borderline and I would call it VG.

 

[John P]

Date: 2/4/2009 11:45:19 AM
Author: strmrdr

ok guys and gals...
If you follow the links and look at the regular pics you will see that the stone is indeed tilted in the IS and tilted a different way in the regular pics.

Thanks Karl. I admit to not following the links. I have frequently answered in other threads as Ellen indicated in her post - often it''s photo tilt - and wanted to explain my system of x-reference & why it''s nec.

 

[John P]

Date: 2/4/2009 11:41:31 AM
Author: Ellen
Thank you sir!

Tip of the hat.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/4/2009 11:45:19 AM
Author: strmrdr
ok guys and gals...
If you follow the links and look at the regular pics you will see that the stone is indeed tilted in the IS and tilted a different way in the regular pics.
Saying it is the stone without taking all the data into account is wrong.
There is no way an actual issue with the diamond would produce both variations so it has to be tilt.

That out of the way...
Neither stone is h&a if that is important to you.
The first looks to have excellent light return, the second is borderline and I would call it VG.

I did do that, and added it to my splainin, though I didn't bother going into it being tilted a different way. I figured inferring tilted/saying off was good enough?

(just saying if in fact I was the "gal")

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/4/2009 12:04:51 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 2/4/2009 11:45:19 AM

Author: strmrdr

ok guys and gals...

If you follow the links and look at the regular pics you will see that the stone is indeed tilted in the IS and tilted a different way in the regular pics.

Saying it is the stone without taking all the data into account is wrong.

There is no way an actual issue with the diamond would produce both variations so it has to be tilt.


That out of the way...

Neither stone is h&a if that is important to you.

The first looks to have excellent light return, the second is borderline and I would call it VG.

I did do that, and added it to my splainin, though I didn't bother going into it being tilted a different way. I figured inferring tilted/saying off was good enough?

(just saying if in fact I was the 'gal')

You did good :}
Keep up the good work.

if it looked to be tilted the same in both pics then it might be a stone issue and needs a further look, if they look to be tilted different directions then it is a tilt issue.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/4/2009 12:17:46 PM
Author: strmrdr


You did good :}
Keep up the good work.

Fank you.