7 replies to this topic

[NicNak]

Hello all,
Recently in my browsing I've come across a diamond I am interested in purchasing for an engagement ring.

I've attempted a couple times to have someone source it, 1 said they could and would ask the polisher for pictures and hasn't gotten back to me in a week, another said it's twinning wisp inclusions were bad and I shouldn't ever look at diamonds with those, and the last said the feather was not something I should consider.

Taking this information, diamond unseen, would you risk buying it?

Specs:
1.8ct, measurements: 7.95-7.97x4.69
H, SI2, 3x
no fluor

AGA 2A

HCA 1.7


Light Return Very Good Fire Excellent Scintillation Very Good Spread
or diameter for weight Excellent Total Visual Performance
1.7 - Excellent
within http://www.pricescope.com/wiki/holloway_cut_adviser range




thoughts?

[denverappraiser]

MOST of the cutters and dealers who post things on the virtual lists aren't prepared to supply photos so I'm not surprised that was a dead end.
The 'risk' associated with buying it has to do with the cost of shipping both ways. How that works is up to the dealer and it's part of the terms and conditions. Presumably these are posted on their website. They are not all the same.

All SI2's have SOMETHING in them. That's why they're SI2's and that's why they COST like SI2's. The question is going to be whether it's acceptable to you or not. I can't answer that in any direct way but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with either twinning wisps or feathers. Where did you find it if not in an advertisement by someone who is willing/able to source it?

Edited by denverappraiser, 30 April 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[NicNak]

Hello,
Thanks for responding. I'm finding it on multiple vendors virtual inventory. I was initially not concerned as much with the SI2 clarity as much as I was with the responses I got later about the inclusions. I was under the impression that twinning wisps were good inclusions to have in an SI2 and the feather will be a concern if it touches the surface - however I was told one never gets twinning wisps and the other told me to forget about the diamond due to the feather in the GIA report.

my main concern is more with the HCA - which although comes back in a good range, gives lower numbers for light return and scintillation. I guess the main question is, how much can I rely on an HCA of 1.7 with "very good" light return.scintillation, and an AGA of 2A in a diamond I can't see. I do understand there is a risk, but does this minimize my risk at all in buying it sight unseen?

[davidelevi]

Frankly, the GIA "excellent" cut grade supersedes whatever HCA or AGA rating - not least because it relies on much more complete information (including angle consistency and some minor facet information) and GIA has seen the diamond; Garry Holloway and David Atlas haven't.

Apart from that, I can't see how anyone can "dismiss" a stone without seeing it. Some feathers and twinning wisps are very visible, some aren't, and a report plot provides no clue as to what is the case with any stone. What are the return conditions that the vendors are attaching to the stone? With most decent dealers you have a few weeks to make up your mind, and the most you are out of is a return shipping....

[NicNak]

I believe some of them have the basic 30 day return, however when we inquired through one vendor they said it was for a direct sale only implying the return didn't stand? We didn't dig much more afterwards and I came on here to ask a couple questions. Ideally we wouldn't want to buy and return - but you're right, we could always just purchase and if we don't like return.

Do you happen to have any examples of visibly twinning wisps? My google searches and bringing up highly magnified photos without an "eye distance" shot for me to compare. If not, I understand - it would just be good to see if possible.

[NicNak]

ok I'm back. I ended up contacting IDJ in NYC who after hearing what I wanted suggested the stone I mentioned above. When I surprisingly asking if it were out of country he laughed and said it would be on his desk in 5 minutes... which it was. *sigh*

He had to run, but did send me the ideal-scope later (no pictures of the diamond yet). I think it looks dark but after my extensive reading (anxiety healed by intellectualization... i know) I realize that I need to trust his eye, and will ask his opinion tomorrow when I can break away from work.




Do you have any thoughts on this ideal-scope? Does it throw off any alarm bells I should know of?

[davidelevi]

There seems to be a dark patch under the table, however the IS image has been taken putting the camera on the IS lens, which is not the best way to capture a bright IS image (and it has been compressed too much to get the details, BTW).

Also, reflector images are not the be-all and end-all that they are touted to be, frankly: they are good to assess brightness on a narrow angle off the vertical, but not much else, and not everybody wants or likes a super-bright stone (and even fewer want a stone that's "good" only when you look at it on-axis).

[NicNak]

Hi David,
Thank you so much on your feed back. I did call and they re-did the IS which improved the darkness seen under the table - however, during that time they ran another search and came across another diamond which I'm now highly considering.

Here is the updated IS just for your and others reference: