Jump to content


A-List Jeweler
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LaurentGeorge

  1. This is not the answer you are looking for but I don't think it is possible to decide either way based on the report numbers. If you are buying a fancy yellow stone, then it is all about the color and neither report shows the actual color of the stones. Would it be possible for you to ask for pictures of the stones? and if they are from the same vendor, could you get picture of them side by side?
  2. Looks to me like the ring needs to be cleaned (especially the underside of the diamond) before it is photographed. Those pinpoints could be internal but look more likely to be external dirt reflecting through the stone. Regardless, this is not what a “milky” stone would look like. I’m sure other experts have access to imagery which I do not right now and could post to show you the difference.
  3. Sorry for digging up this slightly older post but in retail there is a ton of psychology. We don't inflate numbers in order to discount, but there are consumers who like to concept of getting a deal even if it isn't. I had a customer a while back who did not purchase the stone from me, but found an equivalent stone (they could have been a matched pair) from a dealer who gave him a 40% discount on their asking price. The discounted price was still 15% over our price but the customer felt the other retailer was more willing to "work with him" than I was. Head scratcher? Yes, but important to understand.
  4. I would avoid the 1.40 ending in 657 because of the overall depth and steepness of the crown angles. The two others are both extremely nicely proportioned. Davide and I both like the high top small table look, but if money is not an issue, I would probably go with the 1.51. It is a little deeper in the pavilion angle but the slightly shallower crown will compensate nicely. Without seeing the actual stones we can only judge the maps and it looks like the 1.51 is a cleaner VS2. It does show the inclusions under the table, but if they are white, they will be unobtrusive. If they are black and reflect, that is an entirely different story. The main point being that grading reports only allow you to evaluate up to a point. Seeing the stones or at least good pictures/videos of the stones is critical to the decision.
  5. It's extremely difficult to determine based on the the videos you have posted because none of them are done side by side but if you pay attention to the last video, you will notice a couple of things: the table is noticeably smaller creating a smaller window into the bow tie and (and this takes a little squinting) the bow tie area appears to have a larger number of distinguishable facets and less large lifeless areas. You might be better served by asking your jeweler to make a video for you with a couple of the top candidates set side by side in a real life setting, as opposed to this clinical grey scale background.
  6. The range of proportions above is complete nonsense. Sorry. Very well cut stones can certainly be found within those ranges but extremely poorly cut stones can as well. A stone with a 56% depth and 64% Table is unlikely to have the sparkle and scintillation of a stone with D64 T57. Yet both are within the so-called ideal range above. And we have not even looked at girdles or any other parameters yet. There are no defined ideal parameters for pear shapes but if you are trying to minimize the bow tie effect then a relatively small table in the 55 to 59 range with a little depth, 63-66 and a thin to medium girdle would be where I would focus my attention.
  7. This is an extremely shallow diamond, much more so than I had estimated. It would probably help you to see it on a live video, rather than what has been provided. My experience leads me to believe this stone will have a pronounced bow tie as well as a fairly glassy look, but this is only an educated guess. Sometimes, other factors can play a role in the overall look.
  8. As Furqan says, it is difficult to say based on the limited information we have. All oblong shapes will display some degree of bowtie but the intensity can be modulated by the cut (proportions). Can you post the grading report? My guess is that this stone has a depth in the 60 to 62% range, in which case the bowtie may be a little more pronounced, but this is only my opinion based on the 360v imaging.
  9. I thought they were all the same stone. Adding to Davide’s response, my biggest concern is not the setting but the inadvertent knock you may give your stone in the course of normal life. If that feather gets hit the right way it could cleave the stone in two.
  10. It's really more about what you prefer but all else being equal, since a G color stone is going to face up perfectly white in real life, I would opt for the larger GVS2 without hesitation. As much as a D color is the highest color you can get, it is more a mental thing than one you can clearly see. That is not to say a D won't face up whiter than a G, but a G, when not compared closely to a D will look perfectly white. Hope this helps.
  11. Keep in mind that all ovals have bow-ties. Some are more pronounced than others. This one is less pronounced but not invisible. As Furqan and Davide have asked: do you like the way it looks?
  12. It is always best to compare diamonds to other diamonds and see what attracts you to one or the other. Unfortunately, jewelers tend to showcase their stones under multiple spotlights and light sources. The more light sources you have, the more diamonds will sparkle, even the very poorly cut ones.
  13. Is it a good fit for an engagement ring? Yes. Could you find a better cut diamond? Yes. Your question is a little ambiguous as we really do not know what you are looking for. As for the specifics on this particular stone, I try to keep the overall depths of round stones shallower that 62.6% and my pavilion angles shallower than 41.2°. Because your depth is at 63.1% and PA at 41.6°, I would expect the center of this diamond to be fairly dark. The other downside is that it would look bigger if it were not as deep. I hope this helps. I know that others will answer more in depth (no pun intended).
  14. Are there any marks or stamps on the ring itself?
  15. It’s funny. My first question was to know why you think it’s a HW ring. Was it the box or is the ring actually stamped Harry Winston?
  16. None of the diamonds discussed in this thread have any fluorescence. One of the vendors used a blue reflector to do their imaging. If that is what you are referring to with your nonsensical statement, then you may want to revisit what you said.
  17. I was just presented with a few parcels of rough diamonds from Africa. The pictures looked good and the weights were interesting enough to take a closer look. These looked like octahedral diamond crystals. The picture you have posted is not as convincing. I saw the goods in person this week and as it turns out they were CZ imitations probably made in China. Only close inspection could make that determination. The pictures were extremely convincing. These pictures under a microscope show more that could be seen in the real life shots. The material had a smooth, nearly oily feel to it and the refraction was all wrong. Bring your stone to someone who knows what they are looking at and is not interested in purchasing it from you.
  18. I beg to differ minimally with Davide on these two designs. The first one, by Laings, has a cross-over that sits too low and bows too far out for a wedding band to fit flush, which I think was one of your requests. The second one, the Fiona style, is configured such that a wedding band will fit tighter to the overall shank. The cross over is elevated above where the band would be and the shank of the ring is a little more contoured to compensate for that cross-over. You could ask the vendors to send you a picture of wedding band next to each style and that would probably really help you make that determination. I hope this helps.
  19. At first glance I would tend toward the third stone (D-VS2) just based on the proportions. I would like to have a better idea of the location of the imperfections though. Could you get a video of the stone? The F-VS1 is quite nice as well but I prefer the proportions of the D.
  20. I third this motion. The first thing anybody ever notices about a diamond is its cut. You can have a K-SI2 with a gorgeous cut that will look better than a DIF with a crappy cut. In this case, you can easily lower the color and put the money into cut. You will get much more brilliance out of your stone and it may even face up bigger too.
  21. Davide said was I was thinking. The combination of he steeper PA and the slightly wider table will likely result in a darker looking center. Judging only on the proportions, I would steer clear of this stone in favor of the others.
  22. Looking at cut alone, they are all gorgeous. If I absolutely had to pick, I would put #1 and #3 in front of #2, but I'm splitting hairs. I only do this because of the pav angle and I am not saying #2 is bad, just that the other two might be better. What you really should do is have the vendors show you the stones side by side (video or live is best) so you can decide which look you prefer as that is the ultimate determinant.
  23. De rien. Nous sommes toujours là pour vous aider. Bonne continuation.
  24. As part of a collection to be held in a vault, I can understand. I think the use as a potential '"discreet" solitaire' led me to believe this was destined for a ring.
  25. Considering this forum is entirely English-speaking, I thought having a thread in French would throw people off.
  • Create New...