davidelevi

A-List Jeweler
  • Content count

    7817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

459 Excellent

About davidelevi

  • Rank
    Ideal Diamond

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

2547 profile views
  1. SI2 - Cloudy diamond fire vs non-cloudy

    As Laurent says, in theory the setting should not make any difference - unless the previous setting was covering significant portions of the crown, in which case less light might have come in (and therefore gone out). Almost certainly the fact that you can see the culet has nothing to do with it... unless you are Pepper Potts on Extremis, in which case light coming from your skin might make a difference. Jokes aside, there is an easy way to know if the undercarriage is making a difference: look at the ring when it is being worn: no light will be entering the stone from below, since it will be blocked by a finger. If the difference persists, it's due to something else, most likely cleanliness (which is also easier to achieve if the pavilion is "free").
  2. Hoping for reassurance about my round brilliant e ring!

    It "reads" very well; personally I like smaller tables and larger crowns (opposite preferences to Garry Holloway, for example). It certainly isn't a dud/dog/poorly cut stone by any means.
  3. Hoping for reassurance about my round brilliant e ring!

    Not much to add, other than the fact that the HCA has not seen the diamond, you have - and the HCA only reflects its developer's aesthetic preferences, not yours. Enjoy your diamond, and congratulations!
  4. Need Help Picking between Two 1ct Round Diamonds

    Not much to add to ADN's observations, other than noting that in this case the price for a smaller table and larger and steeper crown is a fairly large (relatively!) difference in diameter. I would bet that side-by-side, diamond 1 will look visibly larger than diamond 2. This said, I'd rather pocket the $200 and go for #2 myself as well.
  5. Ring value

    Unfortunately, it's not something that is easy to (or perhaps even possible) to do without the ring. The 1987 value is not very relevant, but the description is inadequate to do anything more than provide a very broad range of say $7500 to $13000 (or more) depending on the precise characteristics of the stone, the setting and the marketplace where you are looking to replace the item (an anonymous internet dealer is going to be much cheaper than Cartier on 5th Avenue in Manhattan; the latter would probably charge you more than $30,000, but would not sell you an I-1 stone). More importantly, if the purpose is that of making an insurance claim, the policy has probably been bound on the basis of the appraisal... which means the insurer will only accept liability up to the declared/insured value ($7300?) - which may or may not be enough to replace the item like for like. You can just about find 2 carat H-I/I1 stones for around $7,000, but they are generally not very well cut, and the inclusions may be quite prominent - we know nothing about either factor in the stolen item.
  6. Need help choosing an AGS 0 princess cut/reading ASETs

    Well, the 1.523 certainly looks large. None of those sets my heart on fire (pun intended), at least in the video, but I don't see any reason to prefer the 1.510 to the 1.523...
  7. SI2 - Cloudy diamond fire vs non-cloudy

    Lighting can achieve miracles, and the lighting in the video of ring #3 is seemingly different from the other two. Whether that's an extra spotlight, different camera position/focus or postprocessing/editing is an open - but I would say irrelevant - question. It could also be that the default angle of filming/lighting is simply more flattering to ring #3 than it is to the other two (but the lack of contrast makes me think it's not just that: look at the engraving/marking inside the three rings). Whether stone #3 is actually as sleepy as it looks in its "solo" video, or that video is to some extent non-representative is also an open question, as is the reason for the sleepiness. In either case, proportions have not much to do with it, though you are right that diamond #3 is much less desirably cut than the other 2.
  8. Princess Cut Diamond Measurements

    IF you do decide to take it to an appraiser, make sure that the appraiser understands clearly your question... most people will seek appraisals to get appropriate insurance cover. This does not seem to be your main purpose.
  9. Advice on my potential diamond please

    Just to simplify the process of you looking things up, here is a direct link to roughly similar stones. Remember to add HST and to use a realistic exchange rate (right now around 0.80) if you are comparing to current Canadian "retail" prices. https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=1&fShape=Rnd&fCaratLo=1.20&fCaratHi=1.25&fColorLo=H&fColorHi=H&fClarityLo=SI1&fClarityHi=SI1&fCutLo=exc&fCutHi=exc&fDepthLo=0.0&fDepthHi=100.0&fTableLo=53.0&fTableHi=56.0&fSymLo=&fSymHi=poor&fPolLo=&fPolHi=poor&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=none&fFlrHi=none&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=999900&fLabGIA=1&fLabAGS=1&adv=1
  10. Advice on my potential diamond please

    I'll disagree with the last sentence... it's something like your fair price if you are purchasing online from a "price-driven" vendor. It's not necessarily your fair price if you are purchasing on the high street. And there may well be SI1 with far more evident inclusions than these (we don't know one way or the other, but these don't seem to be very prominent, despite location and type being not particularly benign!). All this said, the process above gives you a good point from which to negotiate.
  11. Need help choosing an AGS 0 princess cut/reading ASETs

    It isn't just care taken with the photographs - it's also that the proportions are different; look at crown (and pavilion) angles and heights, for example. Brian's stones have a significantly higher and steeper crown, with a less steep pavilion. While both companies cut superb stones, they will look different; personally I prefer Brian's style, but there is nothing wrong with Whiteflash's. Which gets us to your question: The "problem" is that the expression "light performance" (which incidentally I hate) is vague. What does "light performance" mean when at the very least there are 4 parameters that need to be traded off against each other? We all agree that the 1.51 is bigger than the 1.319, but if one stone is more fiery and the other one is more uniformly bright, which one has the best "light performance"? It clearly comes down to a personal choice. You seem to read an ASET just fine; what you may need to train yourself into is to accept that an ASET is adding (or revealing) information about how a stone reflects light (and in a fairly static way, at that); it's not issuing a single, immutable and complete verdict on whether YOU like that stone.
  12. Need help choosing an AGS 0 princess cut/reading ASETs

    None of the 4 presents what I (personally) would call as "too much contrast" and all 4 are bright - for princess cuts. If brightness is your hot button, I would not recommend a princess cut... Importance of contrast: for me it's vital. A small flat mirror is 100% brightness, 0 contrast - and not particularly interesting to see. Other people may well see it differently (including, it seems, a majority of princess cut buyers, since this is what the majority of princess cuts tend to look like nowadays: uniformly bright, but without an interesting pattern of dark and bright areas that changes as the stone moves). Of the 4, I would personally go with the first one (1.390). It faces up large(ish - again, not a princess cut strength), and it has a nice distribution of brightness and contrast. Runner up is the 1.280, not least because of the price - it's probably going to be less fiery than either of the BGD stones, though. The 1.312 has a few windows/dark areas which I don't particularly like (in this exalted company; it's still better cut than 99% of the princess cuts you'll find). The 1.510 is also a lovely stone, but it is significantly more expensive because it goes above the 1.50 threshold.
  13. Advice on my potential diamond please

    The diamond looks fine (on paper!). I particularly like the high crown and small(ish) table, though others may find that total depth is just a shade high. Link to the GIA report: https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=5181589599 A reasonable range in any currency depends on where you are shopping... you can easily buy a stone that is currently advertised by a "price-oriented" online vendor, or you can go to the nearest Cartier boutique and pay twice as much or more. A typical high street retailer will be somewhere between the two. All can deliver "value" and none is necessarily a ripoff; same goes for US vs. Canadian vs. European prices: there are differences in costs (salaries, rents, insurance, ...) and tax rates that cause at least some of the price differences, and while one may decide to source things abroad to save money that doesn't make the price "at home" a ripoff. You can find prices for the first type of dealer on the Diamond Finder here: https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds remember to add the appropriate rate of HST and to convert with a reasonable exchange rate USD prices - this will give you a "floor" to work from (note that among the vendors advertising here there are already significantly different levels of service - and sometimes of quality - and this can result in different prices even for stones that appear very similar). On the inclusion, to some extent the jeweller is correct: no-one is going to look at a ring from underneath in ordinary circumstances. On the other hand, some people are bothered even by the thought that there is "something" in their diamond. Neither point of view is right or wrong - it is a purely personal decision. I would however recommend that you observe the diamond (and the ring, if it is set) into several different lighting environments, not just under typical jewellery storefront spotlights: try diffused lighting (back-office), natural light both direct and diffused (window or outside... if they let you go out!), dim light (under a desk) and see how visible the inclusions are in each of those before you commit.
  14. New Cartier ring w/ 6 year old GIA report, normal?

    Hmmm... the two "similar cases" you found don't sound very similar, other than because of the (relatively) old report you are getting, but you are purchasing "new" from one of the top names in retail jewellery (even though they do live very much of past glories, in my opinion, but that's another story). In the other two cases we were dealing with unknown sellers - and possibly "used" stones - in which case an appraisal or a regrade would be a prudent thing. The diamond - as one would expect from Cartier - seems a really great stone from all points of view (in as much as things can be judged from a report alone), and I would say that 6 years in stock for a $20k ring that can be "basically" bought minus the red box for ~ half the price is not an unbelievably long period of time. No, they do not sell "used" jewellery unless it's an antique - and it would be clearly marked as such if they did (and you'd pay even more through the nose for it). What is clear BS is the "old reports are better". As far as I know, there haven't been even minimal changes to GIA grading standards and methods since 2011 (or in fact since 2006, when they introduced their cut grade for rounds). A really old report (pre-1994 IIRC) may grade a fluorescent stone in a stricter way for colour, since GIA changed light source then, and started using something with a greater amount of UV radiation, but a) your stone is inert, and b] it's not a mid-90s report anyway. I wouldn't think you've got a lot to worry about, but the only ways of solving this other than keeping the ring and accepting their word are to either exchange the ring for something with a more recent report or to get the current ring appraised. Both have their problems: how recent is recent enough? Many stones advertised for sale on the relatively "fast moving" sites have reports that are 2-3 months old or even less; I would not expect a ring by Cartier to be that "young" simply because of their likely lead times in manufacturing things (and stock turnover - one of the reasons why they charge so much: they don't sell that much...). Would a 2015 or 2016 report make any difference? I don't think so. As to appraisals, do you have time to get one from a proper, independent expert? And to be honest the only thing for which I'd be concerned is the likelihood of microscopic damage to the stone that would make the VVS1 grade no longer valid. You are paying such a premium for it, that it frankly makes little difference again.
  15. 0.70ct Round Diamond G VVS2

    Surface graining is not an issue at any clarity, if GIA graded polish as Excellent or Very Good. And at VVS clarity, any characteristic is going to require a loupe and a well trained eye to be seen.