7 replies to this topic

[cda1911]

I hope I've found a diamond that I a comfortable with in my price range. Per the suggestions, here are the specifics:

1.53, H, SI1, Cut=Good
Polish/Symmetry = Very Good
Florescence = Medium Blue
Girdle = Medium to Slightly Thick
No Culet

The additional comments read: "Add'l twinning wisps, clouds, manufacturing remnants, and surface graining are not shown." The image can be found here:

[url]http://www.bluenile.com/cert/2126496809.pdf?params=cHJvZHVjdD1CTiZwaG9uZT04ODgtNTY1LTc2NDEmbGluaz1odHRwJTNBJTJGJTJGd3d3LmJsdWVuaWxlLmNvbSUyRiUyRl9MRDAyMzIzMDA5JnNrdT1MRDAyMzIzMDA5JmxhYj1naWEmc2l6ZT0xNjAwJmN1cnJlbmN5PVVTRCY%3D[/url]

My questions are as follows:

~~ Should I be concerned about the "imperfections" on the report?
~~ I LOVE the table % (55%) but the depth is 64.3%. Should that concern me and if so, why?
~~ I will get it appraised here locally. How do you find appraisers that don't work in the same shop as a jeweler? I would think that's simple but it hasn't been for me.
~~ I've gone through many of the forums regarding florescence, and I think this one is "okay" (seems to be more of a preference thing than anything). But if you want to share anything about it here, I'd welcome that.

Side note: I love the site. I've been reviewing topics, forums, and articles here for weeks. Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

CDA

[cda1911]

I apologize if the link doesn't work. I have attempted to upload a pdf file so you can see the images I am referencing but I am unable to.

[barry]

Clarity is the least of your concerns on this diamond.

A depth of 64.3% indicates the diamond will face up smaller than it's actual carat weight and that the cutter has squeezed the diamond so as to achieve the coveted 1.50 carat mark which does bring about a 15% price premium compared to a sub 1.50 carat stone. Essentially you're paying more money for a visually smaller diamond.

[barry]

BTW, what means "manufacturing remnants".

This is not GIA or AGS terminology.

[cda1911]

Thanks, Barry! For that type of diamond, should I understand that its depth more important than its table (If I had to give up one)?

[davidelevi]

Neither. Look at the cut grade, and bear in mind that among recently cut diamonds, about 45% get "Excellent", another 45% get "Very Good", leaving the bottom 10% with Good, Fair and Poor. Shopping for a diamond - any diamond - based on table and depth % is not a good way to go about it, and particularly for a GIA-graded round where you have a much more comprehensive cut grade.

@Barry - I never heard of "manufacturing remnants" either, but it's on the report http://www.bluenile...._pid=LD02323009. I can only imagine it means that some of the polishing material has remained embedded in the diamond surface.

[barry]

I would not go higher than a 62.5% depth.

All aspects are important.

Fluorescence is a non-factor as less than 1/2 of 1 % of fluorescent diamonds display a hazy, oily, or opaque appearance.

Read this 1997 study by GIA on the effects of fluorescence on a diamonds face up color and transparency:

http://lgdl.gia.edu/...7_fluoresce.pdf

[barry]

embedded remnants; now that could turn out to be a collectors item.