Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Last week
  2. You are very welcome - good luck, and let us know how you get on!
  3. Thank you all for being well spoken and helpful. I will wait and look at it in the sunlight.
  4. Realistically, there is no need to lower the price of jewelry. Buyers should understand that precious metals and stones are expensive.
  5. UV can affect visibility in any lighting environment that contains UV. You're correct, that's unusual and direct sunlight is, by far, the most common one.
  6. The hazy look people worry about is rare but no, it's not incompatible with IF. The GIA report doesn't mention it in any case but the test is simple enough. Look at it in the sunlight. If it fails, send it back. By the way, don't aim just for direct overhead sunlight. Look at it in the shade too. Your eyes work a little different in very bright light and it's easy to mistake the effect. If you're in doubt, consider booking an appointment with an independent appraiser while you're still in the return period. They'll know what to look for and should be able to explain the issues to you. Book your appointment now, some are kind of busy and there aren't that many of us out there (an IA is not the same as a jewelry store). I think JA gives 60 days but I'm not certain of that. They're a very cooperative company. At the end of the day, if it bugs you, send it back. It doesn't even matter why. There are plenty of stones out there without fluoro if you prefer. Here's 524 stones that meet those specs. There must be more that led you this one. Again, I'm not trying to talk you out of this one, it look like it's probably lovely but, as you point out, there's a premium attached to it. IF is overkill in terms of what it looks like, a VS2 will look the same to the unaided eye, and G is underkill. Most people can see the difference between an D and a G if they look carefully. It's an unusual choice. https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds
  7. The two things are completely independent. "Internally Flawless" means that there are no inclusions visible in the diamond at 10x magnification. Fluorescence - and its possible effects - are happening at the atomic lattice level, and the reason why you get the haze is (hugely simplified) that the amount of visible light being generated by the fluorescence is high enough to interfere with the external light being reflected and refracted by the faceting. The good thing is that not only the overblue effect is rare, but JA will take the stone back with a minimum amount of fuss IF it's not something you like.
  8. My hot button would be if it was milky or hazy and didn't look like the best diamond it could be because it had florescence, I could afford a diamond that doesn't look dull and meet the requirements of my gf. But I thought I was getting the biggest stone of her requirements to find out it may look like a nondiamond because of a feature that doesn't show up in the dealers pictures. If it is IF wouldn't that mean that it doesn't have the negative attributes of the fluorescence? Or do I not understand that right. I ended up with this stone because I was told fl to vvs1, d to g, over 1 c, cushion cut. I didn't know that fluorescence has a visibility past a special bulb, ie. Sun. And that it can make the stone look milky, hazy, not sparkle.
  9. I agree with Davide above but I'll go down another detour. You paid a premium for IF. Possibly a fairly healthy premium. That was offset by a discount for the fluorescence. Personally I like fluoro, I think it's cool, but it drives down the price. I would push for a discount as much as the next guy just because I could, but I might choose a fluorescent stone even if it didn't come at a lower price. You didn't pay a premium, you got a discount. What you paid a premium for is IF, an attribute that has no affect on sparkle, clean, clear, hazy, or milky. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to talk you off the IF cliff but if price is your hot button, why did you end with this particular stone?
  10. There is no way of telling from the JA pictures, since they've been taken in an environment with limited-to-no-UV. On the other hand, unfiltered sunlight ("open air") is rich in UV, and it will take you only a few seconds to see whether the stone is affected. I'm not sure where on this forum you may have read that. I have never seen statistics published on what percentage of fluorescent diamonds have significant effects on transparency, but pretty much everyone here would refer you to this study by GIA that confirms that they are indeed rare. https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/winter-1997-fluorescence-diamonds-moses I would say that there is only one way to find out... and that is by looking at it. Some people (myself included) quite like the effect. Others don't. Nothing wrong with either reaction. Well, the question is: "did you?" Generally, strongly fluorescent diamonds go for a significant discount vs. otherwise similar but non-fluorescent ones. Your diamond appears to be 'premium' in other respects (clarity, squareness, to some extent colour - possibly cut quality).
  11. Hello, I just purchased an engagement ring from James Allen everything seemed to be within the requirements set by my girlfriend however James Allen didn't give me the gia certificate until after I purchased it and it says strong blue fluorescence. I looked at the pictures on their website the diamond looks great. I've since searched fluorescence and realized that it may be undesirable, and in direct sunlight can alter the color. I'm not worried about black lights. However I am worried about paying a premium for something that might not be as sparkly, clean, clear, or hazy and milky. And second to that the color change in sunlight, if the whole hue of the diamond changes I'm not sure how I feel about that. Are you able to look at the pictures on their site and tell me if you think it suffers from the milky hazy negative affects. I've read people say that 0.2% of fluorescent diamonds suffer from these effects then I've read on this forum say if it's strong fluorescent it will suffer these effects. I am able to return this. Thanks https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.77-carat-g-color-if-clarity-sku-12637396
  12. Earlier
  13. The report looks fine. A one-year-old date on the report really doesn't matter - particularly if this is from a local "high street" store.
  14. Hi all! Can anyone advise the specs for GIA 6352517634 please? Does it matter if it is dated last year? Thanks!
  15. Yeah. This feeling will pass, lol. I just wanted to give her the perfect wedding ring, is all. I know buying her another ring in the future won't give the same sentimental value to it like this ring will have very soon. Yeah, I wanted a simple one for my ring. I initially wanted a 6mm band but also had a couple of comments from people that it would be too thick for my finger. I'm glad I listened.
  16. Hey, there's always upgrades, if either of you feels strongly about things... Like the satin finish. And that you didn't go too thick on your band. Congratulations!!!
  17. Yeah, I knew you were going to say that Because of her reaction, I kinda regret not getting her a ring with slightly bigger stones (0.065ct). I could've gotten just 9 x 0.065ct and ended up with about the same price anyway. That would've put the ring at 2.5mm wide. Not sure why I didn't think of that but I guess I was fixated on the number of stones (11) that would make it close to a half eternity. On another note, I ended up with a 5mm satin finish bevel-edged ring which I love.
  18. It looks pretty good and well balanced visually to me - but I'm not the one who's going to be wearing it 24/7... 😁
  19. We got our wedding rings already. Hers has 11 x 0.05ct stones (2.35 diameter) in a 2.35mm band. Here's a pic. My fiancee thinks that we should've went with the next bigger stones (0.065ct) because it looks small in her finger. For me, the size of the stones is about right and compliments the e-ring well. What do you guys think about the wedding ring size?
  20. Totally agree with Furqan. If one is a 3.50, it either looks remarkably small, or the 3.08 looks pretty large - they seem the same size. It's not necessarily a deciding factor (liveliness would be much higher on the list for me), but still... it's probably the only thing we can say from the photo.
  21. If that's all the information to go by - there's not much there for us to make a choice about. The choice would largely depend on price points, value for money, what someone prefers visually, upgradability and resellability etc etc In this particular instance you should make a decision on what you like physically.
  22. Which would you prefer ? I can’t make a choice! similar color (G) and Clarity (vs1). Ones a 3.08 and ones a 3.5 cushion. they are cut differently. I haven’t seen the certifications.
  23. "Ideal proportion range" is actually a fairly meaningless expression. One thing that the extensive GIA studies on cut quality and perception demonstrated is that there is a very broad set of diamond proportions that people find 'beautiful'. AGS - who set up the first systematic assessment method for diamond cut - has decisively moved away from the concept of "ideal proportions" as a single set of numbers, and has developed a much more complex process to grade cut than just looking at a few numbers, so don't worry too much about 'the numbers' as such. If you (both) like one more than the other in real life observation, then that's the right one. That another person on an internet forum sees two sets of numbers on a lab report and prefers 'the other one' is pretty much irrelevant. The only thing I would recommend you do is to take a look at both diamonds again in different lighting environments: under the shop spotlights, but also in a back office, under flat, diffused lighting; out in natural light - both direct and diffused, and in dim light such as under a desk or in a badly lit corner of the shop. If the preference for one stone over the other remains consistent in all those environments, it's a pretty safe choice. In terms of the effect of cut quality and proportions on price, it can be significant, but there is nothing on the information you posted to make me think it should be as big as HW is making it! The 'very best' cut can have a premium of 15-20% vs. the average "GIA excellent", and there may be another 10% between the average EX and the 'bottom of EX', but I don't see evidence that either of those stones is at the 'very best' end (which is not something you'd see from a GIA report alone, BTW), and while the pavilion of the F/VVS is very steep, the rest of the proportions complement that steepness nicely, so I wouldn't call it 'at the bottom' either. Note that all this is remaining within one single cut grade: GIA excellent. By comparison, (fair) price variability due to colour is much less - within the same grade - until one gets to fancy colour diamonds, and the same goes for clarity in grades VS2 and above (as the inclusions are pretty much invariably invisible to the naked eye). Variability of price in SI1 and lower clarity grades is much more pronounced, as inclusions can go from totally invisible to ruinously visible, and even to the point of endangering stone integrity and durability (I2 - I3). Price variability with weight is a bit odd... it's largely linear within certain bands, but it has very big jumps in price/carat at specific weights: 0.30, 0.50, 0.70, 0.90, 1.00, 1.50, 2.00...
  24. Thank you for the detailed response. We looked at these two diamonds in a HW store. Without looking at the labels, my GF actually chose Diamond 2 (F/VVS2), because it looked brighter to her. We did some homework on diamond proportion, and we developed some concern about Diamond 2, which is not in the ideal proportion range (neither does the Diamond 1?). One more question - How does a diamond proportion affect its price, compared to the traditional attributes (color, clarity, etc.)? Thanks again!
  25. Table size as such has very little to do with "light leakage". The steep pavilion and shallow crown of the F/VVS2 however are not my preferred combination of angles. Other people may like them, but I would prefer the more "classical" proportions of the D/VS1. No, I wouldn't say so. Some difference, yes, but not as much. The median price for 1.5x ct D/VS1/xxx/NF is about $1,000 higher than for F/VVS2. $6-7k is over 30% difference of the prices quoted by competitive internet-based vendors. Obviously Harry Winston is going to charge a lot more than internet dealers, but still... Assuming the choice is only between these two, sight unseen, I would pick the D - it is enough better cut that I think it would more than compensate the slightly smaller diameter with greater liveliness. This also assumes that an extra $7k is not a strain on the budget - but, if you are shopping at HW, that's probably a fairly reasonable assumption. Have they brought the two diamonds in for you to see and compare? What do you think?
  26. Hi everyone, Looking for your suggestion on the following two diamonds for Harry Winston engagement ring. Diamond 1 1.51 carat D color rating VS1 clarity, with a few crystal, cloud and pinpoint at the edge Table size 58% Diamond 2 1.51 carat F color rating VVS2 clarity, with 3 pinpoints near the center Table size 61% Both diamonds have excellent cuts, symmetry, and no fluorescence. Diamond 1 is $7,000 more expensive than Diamond 2. My questions are: Is 61% table size considered too much for light leakage? Is the $7,000 price difference well justified by the difference in quality of the two diamonds? How would you choose between these two diamonds? Why? I've attached reports for both diamonds. Thank you for your help on this!
  27. Try taking it to someone like a jewelry store or a pawnshop. They're usually prepared to test it for free and while you wait.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...