Thoughts on this diamond

[melbournelove]

We reached out to Denise at IDJ which our budget and she came back with this.
What are your thoughts on this diamond and how much do you think it's worth?

0.90 / EX / H / SI1 HCA 0.9 (faint fluorescence)



We think it looks beautiful but we're no experts and would like your input PSers

Denise is in the process of getting us one more selection, we have asked if this one is eyeclean.

 

[tyty333]

Your documentation is too small to read (probably why you are not getting any input).
The aset and idealscope look good but there is a lot going on inclusion wise and worry that it might
affect the brillance of the stone. For someone who is having to deal with importing the stone (Melbourne right?)
I would not go for this stone. I would want a VS2/VS1 or an eye clean SI1 that has 1 or 2 inclusions that
you can tell why it got that rating. Not an SI1 with a lot of stuff going on. Just my 2 cents. Hopefully
she can come up with some other stones that have less going on in them.

 

[flyingpig]

For someone who is having to deal with importing the stone (Melbourne right?)
I would not go for this stone. I would want a VS2/VS1 or an eye clean SI1 that has 1 or 2 inclusions that
you can tell why it got that rating.

+1.

If you are a US resident, I say go for it. Potential return is not a big deal. For an international shopper, it is a headache. Return shipping cost + currency exchange fee on refund.. Yikes.

Otherwise, it is a beautiful stone. For those who cannot read
The proportions are 57/34.1/40.6/61.1 with 6.21mm diameter 0.9 H SI1

 

[gm89uk]

I think it looks great. It's not H&A but id say it has a reasonable chance at being eye clean. If IDJ could guarantee it's eye clean from 6 inches or whatever you require (eg top & side) and the price is right, then why not?

 

[melbournelove]

Denise has confirmed it's eyeclean but we have still gone ahead and asked her to source a couple of other options for us.
Fingers crossed something nicer (less inclusions) comes along!

It would definitely be a pain to do a refund because we need to pay 10% GST when it arrives at customs and then if we were to return it, it would cost a bit to insure it to send back to US (and all this is before losing out on currency conversions and bank fees).

 

[melbournelove]

Denise has found another stone for us. We personally think it's a beautiful diamond.

0.85 / EX / H / VS1 HCA 1 (no fluorescence)

 

[melbournelove]

IDJ were even kind enough to make a video comparison of them side to side. However, the lighting made it hard to see. Here's some screenshots of the video. Sorry about the quality of the pictures. There is only 0.13mm surface difference and they look the same size to us! Can you tell which is which clarity?

 

[melbournelove]

BUMP

We need to decide by tonight as IDJ needs to send the diamonds back to the vendors. Here's the third option. They're all roughly the same price. They have confirmed all eye clean.

1.00 ct / EX / I / SI2

 

[gm89uk]

They all appear well cut, with the first being my favourite. The last seems to have sizeable inclusions, not to question their expertise (especially as they have the stone in hand) but I'd go for the first of it's truly eye clean and it's a safer colour, particularly that the refund would be extremely difficult. The second stone would also be lovely. Did you have any preferences from the video? Which one did they advise was the best performer? No meaningful conclusions can be reached by the blurred still images unfortunately.

 

[melbournelove]

They all appear well cut, with the last and first being my favourite. The last seems to have sizeable inclusions, not to question their expertise (especially as they have the stone in hand) but I'd go for the first of it's truly eye clean and it's a safer colour, particularly that the refund would be extremely difficult. The second stone would also be lovely. Did you have any preferences from the video? No meaningful conclusions can be reached by the blurred still images unfortunately.

We were leaning towards the first (0.85) and last (1ct). Reason is that the first should have great light performance and it's a higher color. From the video, the diamonds looked the same, it was just too blurry when they zoomed in. They also sent one with all 3. I couldn't even see the color difference because of the lighting used. I could however, see the size difference between the 0.85 and 1ct (although it's only 0.4mm)! We were thinking no to the 0.90ct because it has faint fluorescence, although it is a better color than the 1ct.

Is it possible to upload videos here? Or do you have suggestions so we can show you all three next to each other? Although the quality isn't great, it might help. We have less than 9 hours to decide!

 

[dustone]

They all appear well cut, with the last and first being my favourite. The last seems to have sizeable inclusions, not to question their expertise (especially as they have the stone in hand) but I'd go for the first of it's truly eye clean and it's a safer colour, particularly that the refund would be extremely difficult. The second stone would also be lovely. Did you have any preferences from the video? No meaningful conclusions can be reached by the blurred still images unfortunately.

We were leaning towards the first (0.85) and last (1ct). Reason is that the first should have great light performance and it's a higher color. From the video, the diamonds looked the same, it was just too blurry when they zoomed in. They also sent one with all 3. I couldn't even see the color difference because of the lighting used. I could however, see the size difference between the 0.85 and 1ct (although it's only 0.4mm)! We were thinking no to the 0.90ct because it has faint fluorescence, although it is a better color than the 1ct.

Is it possible to upload videos here? Or do you have suggestions so we can show you all three next to each other? Although the quality isn't great, it might help. We have less than 9 hours to decide!

Absolute rookie here. From what I read, fluorescence shouldn't be a deciding factor in and by itself especially if it's not a color D,E or F, in which case strong fluorescence can make the diamond hazy looking. Having sad that, I liked the 0.85ct stone (again a rookie here)

From the video screen shots, the diamond on the left looks smaller but nicer. Could be just the camera positioning and or lighting.

PS: I got thrown off with the first and second references. The first set of images posted were of a 0.9ct but your last post refers to the 0.85 as the first so had to go back and double check

 

[melbournelove]

Absolute rookie here. From what I read, fluorescence shouldn't be a deciding factor in and by itself especially if it's not a color D,E or F, in which case strong fluorescence can make the diamond hazy looking. Having sad that, I liked the 0.85ct stone (again a rookie here)

From the video screen shots, the diamond on the left looks smaller but nicer. Could be just the camera positioning and or lighting.

PS: I got thrown off with the first and second references. The first set of images posted were of a 0.9ct but your last post refers to the 0.85 as the first so had to go back and double check

Oh no, I always had in my mind that the 0.85 was first! Perhaps because in my mind, I had it in the order of small to large. The diamond on the left of the video is the 0.85

Yekutiel from IDJ says we can't go wrong with any of them but if he was forced to choose; his preference is 0.85, then the 0.90 and then the 1ct

 

[bmfang]

If you don't have any real preference for a 1ct stone, the first or second are preferable. The 0.9ct however looks better cut to me of those two, so that's my preference.

No need to worry about fluorescence in my books, especially when it is faint. The first stone doesn't look unduly affected by the fluor (I'm a big fan of fluor though). If you are worried about inclusions, then take the 0.85ct VS1 instead.

The 1ct I SI2 however is cut pretty well and there is a lot of red in ASET. Only thing is whether or not you could live with the black inclusions throughout the stone or not if you were to decide on that one. The crystals in it don't appear to be that large so unless one of those who look at it (or you) have eagle eyes, Denise at IDJ's view that it's eye-clean might be perfectly fine.

 

[melbournelove]

YouTube link of the three next to each other.

https://youtu.be/VLQCEl1EMzk

 

[melbournelove]

If you don't have any real preference for a 1ct stone, the first or second are preferable. The 0.9ct however looks better cut to me of those two, so that's my preference.

No need to worry about fluorescence in my books, especially when it is faint. The first stone doesn't look unduly affected by the fluor (I'm a big fan of fluor though). If you are worried about inclusions, then take the 0.85ct VS1 instead.

The 1ct I SI2 however is cut pretty well and there is a lot of red in ASET. Only thing is whether or not you could live with the black inclusions throughout the stone or not if you were to decide on that one. The crystals in it don't appear to be that large so unless one of those who look at it (or you) have eagle eyes, Denise at IDJ's view that it's eye-clean might be perfectly fine.

1ct would be nice to have! Provided that there's no warmth. When the term "eye clean" is used, would that mean that the black inclusions are not visible unless we use a loupe?

 

[dustone]

Sadly there is no official definition of what eye clean means. Generally speaking a person with 20/20 vision when looking(naked eye) at the diamond face up shouldn't see any inclusions or "appear" clean. What many fail to mention is the distance at which they look at it. If it is eye clean at 6" then it's safe to say that it is eye clean. I've seen this one website that claims eye cleanliness at 24" (Ouch).

 

[dustone]

If you don't have any real preference for a 1ct stone, the first or second are preferable. The 0.9ct however looks better cut to me of those two, so that's my preference.

No need to worry about fluorescence in my books, especially when it is faint. The first stone doesn't look unduly affected by the fluor (I'm a big fan of fluor though). If you are worried about inclusions, then take the 0.85ct VS1 instead.

The 1ct I SI2 however is cut pretty well and there is a lot of red in ASET. Only thing is whether or not you could live with the black inclusions throughout the stone or not if you were to decide on that one. The crystals in it don't appear to be that large so unless one of those who look at it (or you) have eagle eyes, Denise at IDJ's view that it's eye-clean might be perfectly fine.

1ct would be nice to have! Provided that there's no warmth. When the term "eye clean" is used, would that mean that the black inclusions are not visible unless we use a loupe?

Depends on the finger size. On a small finger, anything will look big enough. I watched the video a bunch of times trying to suss out the subtle differences. To be honest, it's hard for me to tell probably because I am far from an expert. They all have similar performance and the inclusions don't seem very visible. Same for the warmth. Apparently very people can tell 1 colour difference apart.

PS: Have a look at my thread. Love to get more thoughts on it as I have to make a decision soon as well. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-do-you-reckon.227914/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-do-you-reckon.227914/[/URL]

 

[bmfang]

If you don't have any real preference for a 1ct stone, the first or second are preferable. The 0.9ct however looks better cut to me of those two, so that's my preference.

No need to worry about fluorescence in my books, especially when it is faint. The first stone doesn't look unduly affected by the fluor (I'm a big fan of fluor though). If you are worried about inclusions, then take the 0.85ct VS1 instead.

The 1ct I SI2 however is cut pretty well and there is a lot of red in ASET. Only thing is whether or not you could live with the black inclusions throughout the stone or not if you were to decide on that one. The crystals in it don't appear to be that large so unless one of those who look at it (or you) have eagle eyes, Denise at IDJ's view that it's eye-clean might be perfectly fine.

1ct would be nice to have! Provided that there's no warmth. When the term "eye clean" is used, would that mean that the black inclusions are not visible unless we use a loupe?

Like what dustone has said, I've also seen eye-clean references from say 6 inches away to 10/12 inches away though I haven't seen one that claims 24 inches away!

According to BGD, the industry "standard" is between 9-12 inches away (so use a 30cm school ruler essentially as the viewing distance).
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/news/are-brian-gavin-si-2-clarity-diamonds-eye-clean/

If you can't easily see the black inclusions from that distance, you could pretty much say that it is eye clean. The only issue I have with the SI2 is that the black inclusions seem to impact on light performance. If it were white coloured crystals, to me it would be less likely to affect the ASET and Idealscope images so I'd be happy with that type of an "eye-clean" SI2.

To me an I coloured stone will exhibit a tiny hint of warmth but only when compared against a diamond next door to it that is either in the colourless range or the top end of the near-colourless range. Most of the I coloured stones that I've seen up here in Brisbane appear to exhibit too much warmth and maybe that is due to how they have been cut. I have heard from more experienced folks that if cut quality has been minimised for carat weight retention purposes, more of the body colour may come through.

I don't trust the grading labs that Michael Hill use (I've had sales staff tell me that the GSI grading reports that they use for their "certified stones" are either GIA reports or that they are better than GIA reports which means I followed by and ). The lighting in their stores is set up to allow their poor inventory to sparkle and I wouldn't walk away from I+ coloured stones on the basis of seeing I+ coloured stones at stores like that. Our K coloured Brian Gavin Blue arrived from the USA earlier this week, and it is certainly plenty white face up in its 18k white gold setting (it faces up almost as white as a G coloured GIA XXX stone we have set in 18k white gold as well).

If you are sensitive to colour, a minimum of G-H is likely to be better for you for "mind-clean" purposes like a VS1-VS2 grade would normally give to folks worried about inclusions being visible. I looked at the video and the three all look equally as good from that distance that Yekutiel was filming from.

The rest of us can give you recommendations, but only you guys will be able to determine which is the right stone for you.

 

[melbournelove]

Finger size is 4.25 which is an I.

We are still leaning towards the 0.85 and the 1ct.
0.85 because of its clarity and color.
1ct because of its size. IF the black inclusions aren't visible from the top view, then that's ok but it's hard to say without having the Diamond in front of us. Inclusions visible from the side don't bother us as no one will look at it from that angle.

We probably are more concerned that it's "mind clean".

In the picture of the 1ct diamond, it looks like there's a lot going on! But it's still eye clean from 6 inches (confirmed by IDJ). But if we were to bring the diamond closer to inspect, does that mean we could see the black without a loupe??

This process is so stressful especially since it's an international transaction.

 

[bmfang]

Would've responded earlier except I now have another body in my family to look after as of today (been trying to get the little bugger to sleep properly after my pathetic attempts at swaddling him when he is only 18 hours outta the womb).

My cardinal rule is this: if you have to choose between size vs clarity/eye clean, take the clarity/eye clean route. Especially important in international transactions.

So based on the stones that Yekutiel has chosen for you, it should be a no brainer (easier said than the decision made though, can fully appreciate that).

 

[melbournelove]

Congrats on the new addition to the family!

The no brainer would be the 0.85?

If only we could have these prices and quality available here in Australia. There's pros and cons to all three and I guess only we can make the decision.

We've asked Yuketiel how his international customers make their final decision hoping it can help us make up our minds.

All the best with your newborn

 

[bmfang]

Congrats on the new addition to the family!

The no brainer would be the 0.85?

If only we could have these prices and quality available here in Australia. There's pros and cons to all three and I guess only we can make the decision.

We've asked Yuketiel how his international customers make their final decision hoping it can help us make up our minds.

All the best with your newborn

Thanks melbournelove!

Totally with you on the lack of decent inventory (except at maybe some specialist jewellers who do source inventory from o/s for their customers).

Yup, the no brainer for me is the 0.85 H/VS1. That should well and truly put to rest any "mind clean" issues. Had the same situation for diamond studs I just bought (while prices are good and AUD is ok-ish against the USD). Went well and truly above what is necessary in stud diamonds due to one J SI1 stone in a pair having a rather large black crystal inclusion that could potentially affect light performance (based off ASET images). So went up to a pair of I VVS2's that are well and truly eye clean and those stones are almost the exact same carat weight for not that much more $$$s.

Almost time for his 4am feed now... *runs to get caffeine*