11 replies to this topic

[Charlie5]

I have included GIA reports for both.

1.00 ct diamond is $6110. 1.02 ct is $6443. Which would you buy?

The 1.00 ct can be seen here under magnification at James Allen
[url="http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-VS2-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1421132.asp"]www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-VS2-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1421132.asp[/url]

A gemologist at James Allen said that the plot on the 1.00 is intimidating but looks good under a loupe and has excellent brilliance and fire to naked eye. She also said that all of the inclusions are low refraction.

I personally like the plot on the 1.02, the EX symmetry, med blue flour over the 1.00. I am having a gemologist at Brilliance look at the 1.02 tomorrow. If they say it has no cloudiness or milky appearance, should I go with that one? What are the odds that the med. blue FL makes the I color look like an H or G and has no cloudiness to it?

Thanks,
Charles

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by Charlie5, 16 November 2011 - 04:35 PM.

[bmwdriver82]

the 1.00 is the better choice overall because of the medium blue on the 1.02, otherwise i would take go with the 1.02 but that medium blue is a killer.

[davidelevi]

bmwdriver - why? All the evidence is that overblues are rare, and in any case not with a medium level of fluorescence. See this GIA study http://lgdl.gia.edu/...7_fluoresce.pdf

Charles - the plot is not a valid reason for choosing. It is only a guide to locate and identify the inclusions, not an indicator of how visible they are. A small black crystal is a lot more visible than four large, white, diffused clouds, but the plot looks a lot better with one small circle than four large ones... In any case, both are graded VS2, so in 99.99% of cases the inclusions will not be visible.

On fluorescence - don't worry about cloudiness. It's rarely an issue, and then only on strong fluorescence. It may well have a positive effect on the yellow tint (which is hardly going to be noticeable anyway), but only in sunlight. Artificial lighting doesn't have enough UV.

Other than that, you'd need to see them both to decide which one to prefer; they are both likely to be great stones, but with a slightly different look.

Edited by davidelevi, 16 November 2011 - 09:36 PM.

[Charlie5]

I cannot look at both stones side-by-side. One is from Brilliance.com and the other from James Allen. I do not have the funds to purchase both and send back the one I don't like.

That being said, does the crystal inclusion in the 1.02 seem to be in a location that is likely in one of the contrast areas of the pavilion? i.e. Can you make reasonable judgement whether or not it will blend well based on it's location? Even if it is stark black?

NOTE: More inclusions can be seen in the James Allen 1.00 if you go to the link in my first post and look at the report as a larger file.

Here is the link to the Brilliance.com 1.02
[url][url]http://www.brilliance.com/diamonds/1.02-carat-round-i-color-vs2-clarity-super-ideal-cut-gia-certified-loose-diamond-D12305883#tab-report[/url][/url]

Thanks,
Charles

Edited by Charlie5, 17 November 2011 - 07:17 AM.

[denverappraiser]

Charlie5, on 17 November 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

Can you make reasonable judgement whether or not it will blend well based on it's location?

No.

[Charlie5]

David and Neil,

If you were me, and COULD NOT see both diamonds at the same time, which would you chose based on info that I have?

Keep in mind, I want a stone that looks best to the naked eye. Being that these are both VS2 and very likely eye-clean, I move on to brilliance and fire. Since I don't have them in front of me I have to go off of cut specs, where they are nearly identical. Does a stone with EX symmetry look better to the naked eye than the "same" stone with VG symmetry?

Would the med blue flourescence on the 1.02 affect your decision either way?

Sorry for so many questions. I've been reading for awhile and you gentlemen seem to be the most knowledgeable I've come across. Local jewelers here are either less educated, less experienced, or just plain crooks.

Thanks,
Charles

Edited by Charlie5, 17 November 2011 - 08:13 AM.

[denverappraiser]

I think you're doing this backwards. Choose your dealer FIRST. Then ask and listen to their advice.

If you're still concerned about what you got, have it appraised while you're still within the return period.

[Charlie5]

I'm trying to decide between two diamonds from two different dealers who are online. In this case, how exactly do I choose a dealer first?

I chose a local dealer 3 months ago. In the end I decided not to pay his 20% premiums over nearly identical online diamonds, not to mention the 6% sales tax.

[denverappraiser]

The way to choose between online dealers is based on their customer support, prices, information, terms and conditions, the way they communicate with you, recommendations from friends, neighbors and coworkers etc. It's basically the same way youi vet a local dealer. There's a discussion about this in the FAQ section that may be helpful. It's harder to do than comparing the storefronts because people have a better 'feel' for how to shop local vendors and because there are SO many of them but the process and objectives are pretty much the same.

After you pick a dealer, call them up and tell them what you're doing. Send them the link to the other stone(s) and ask questions. There's a decent chance they'll be able to get the exact same stone if it's not part of someone's branded inventory. The onus is on them to explain why you should be buying from them and why the one they're pushing is better than the other ones you're considering.

Edited by denverappraiser, 17 November 2011 - 10:34 AM.

[davidelevi]

Charlie5, on 17 November 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

David and Neil,

If you were me, and COULD NOT see both diamonds at the same time, which would you chose based on info that I have?

I would go for the 1.00 because I like the cut parameters a little better - but that's guess and as Neil points out there isn't enough info on the reports to make that call with any level of reliability.

Quote

Keep in mind, I want a stone that looks best to the naked eye. Being that these are both VS2 and very likely eye-clean, I move on to brilliance and fire. Since I don't have them in front of me I have to go off of cut specs, where they are nearly identical.

Agreed. Which is why I'd go for the cheaper one first (which also happens to be the one I prefer "on paper"), look at it carefully, have your chosen expert look at it, and return if there is anything that does not convince you. However, if your heart tells you to go with the 1.02 first, there is nothing at all wrong with it.

Said this, Neil's advice to choose the dealer first and the stone second is excellent.

Quote

Does a stone with EX symmetry look better to the naked eye than the "same" stone with VG symmetry?

No. You won't be able to tell why it has got a VG vs EX without a fair amount of experience/training and a loupe.

Quote

Would the med blue flourescence on the 1.02 affect your decision either way?

Not in the least. If anything I'd count it as a positive.

Quote

Sorry for so many questions. I've been reading for awhile and you gentlemen seem to be the most knowledgeable I've come across. Local jewelers here are either less educated, less experienced, or just plain crooks.

Thanks,
Charles

No need to apologise; we are here to help - unfortunately, you have pretty much got to the stage where remote opinions by people that don't have access to the diamond are of limited use, since they are guesses and opinions rather than fact-based advice.

[Charlie5]

I asked for light performance tests on both diamonds. James Allen got back to me within a hour with this Idealscope image of the 1.00. Gemologist also confirmed excellent brilliance and fire.

Does this confirm what you saw in the cut dimensions?

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Charlie5, 17 November 2011 - 12:47 PM.

[davidelevi]

It looks pretty good - as expected considering the cut grade and the parameters on the report.