A-List Jeweler
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

580 Excellent


About davidelevi

  • Rank
    Ideal Diamond

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

11838 profile views
  1. davidelevi

    Si2 diamond

    Hi Steph, welcome to Diamond Review! It is quite normal for an SI2 diamond to have inclusions that are visible without magnification. As to price, without knowing a lot more it's very difficult to give even a rough opinion. To start with, "it cost 13,500" in what unit of currency? USD? CAD? EUR? GBP? SGD? Where was it purchased? (a known luxury retailer like Cartier or Tiffany will have prices that are significantly higher than a "common" high street jeweller, and that in turn will be more expensive than an internet-based dealer) Did the centre diamond come with a lab report? By which lab? What else did the lab say - precise weight and colour? Fluorescence? Finish (symmetry and polish)? A stone weighing 0.98 ct is going to be priced significantly less than one that is 1.02 ct, but both could be described as "a 1 carat stone" (they shouldn't, but that's another matter). Is the cut a proprietary cut, or was it just defined as "cushion"? What about the ring? Does it have a brand name? In which material is it?
  2. davidelevi

    Is A Cavity In Diamond Acceptable?

    Sorry for the slow answer; I think I'm 4 or 5 hours ahead of you, and I went to sleep before you responded (I guess you are from Quebec?) Bear in mind that a "real" answer to most of these questions requires actually seeing the stone, however we have some indirect clues: 1. It's likely to be very small. I could not see it on the plot, until I realised that what I thought was another "indented natural" sign was actually the cavity with a single cross-hatch line. A GIA plot is not technically "to scale", but they do try to represent relative sizes. 2. Observed clarity: considering location, and the fact that GIA placed it fourth on its list of characteristics, I think it's very unlikely you'd see it without a loupe; depending on the setting and how high the stone seat comes, you may not be able to see it at all once it's set. 3. Integrity - see my answer to the first post on this thread. Honestly - don't worry. 4. It's on the pavilion (bottom) of the diamond. It's protected by a mm of the hardest natural substance known... Also, unless you have a 5 (or more) prong setting it won't work mechanically to have a prong there: you need one (or 2) on the point, and 2 behind the bulge for the stone to sit securely; the cavity is in front of the bulge. Extra pairs of prongs can be set more or less where one likes, but unless you like the look there is really no reason to have them - the stone is big enough to "carry" them visually, but it is overkill mechanically if the seat is fashioned properly. I'd worry more about protecting the point of the stone!
  3. davidelevi

    Is A Cavity In Diamond Acceptable?

    It's very close to the girdle...but below it, so I wouldn't worry about covering it with a prong - it will be hidden by the rest of the diamond. Most likely it would be not in a good place for a prong anyway, unless you have a setting with at least 5 prongs (it is a large stone!)
  4. davidelevi

    Is A Cavity In Diamond Acceptable?

    Hi André! The GIA site seems to be down. I'll keep checking and hopefully at some point before Monday it will be up.
  5. davidelevi

    Thoughts please

    You'll end up with a Type IIa - D if you continue this way... 😁 I realise that it is difficult with lockdown only about being released, but the only way to solve this is for you to see things; photos and videos only go so far. A really well cut I will look very white, in isolation
  6. davidelevi

    Thoughts please

    I find it less attractive (in the video and on paper) than the I-colour you were looking at a couple of days ago. YMMV.
  7. davidelevi

    PLEASE HELP!! Final choice!!!!!

    You are very welcome! Good luck with the choice, and congratulations for what will ensue!
  8. davidelevi

    PLEASE HELP!! Final choice!!!!!

    Couple of points - I think I have already given you feedback on all of these stones, so I'm not going to repeat this, but I'll focus on a couple of technical aspects: 1. Cut grades No such thing. That's Blue Nile's marketing categorisation which means "I want to sell you this diamond". If what you are using to determine "AGS" cut grades are the plots on the HCA app, then these are no longer relevant; AGS have changed their grading system at least twice since those tables were published, and the current AGS grading system is quite different from having a single set of parameters and measuring "distance" from those. 2. Clarity and effect on transparency No they would not. There are (relatively rare) SI2 diamonds where the clarity grading is due to clouds or wisps - not simply "there is a cloud in this diamond" - where the overall transparency of the stone is compromised. The call on transparency is one you need to make with your own eyes (or at the very least photos and video) - no lab grades it, even in the extreme case of (I1), I2 or I3 diamonds, where the inclusions are deemed so prominent that they may affect transparency and brilliance - note the "may" rather than "do". And I have seen plenty of I1 diamonds where the inclusions do not affect transparency or brilliance, even though they are obvious to see, at times even with the naked eye. 3. Colour grading I think what we are seeing is not so much a change in background, but in camera equipment and (especially) white balance setting. Which is why judging colour from photos is generally a thankless task, and judging colour from photos taken by unknown photographers using unknown equipment set up in an unknown environment and configured with unknown settings and post-processing is an impossible task. It is so variable on the individual observing and the circumstances that it is impossible to answer this in a certain way. Generally speaking, J-K is where people start noticing warmth in a significant way. However, a really well cut J-colour diamond can still look white "on its own", and platinum is more forgiving in this respect than rhodium (but less forgiving than unplated white gold). It all depends on what you want to "buy insurance for". Of these 3, ignoring price, my recommendation is to go with the 1.06 I. It's better cut than the other 2, it is clearly the least tinted and even though the inclusions may be easier to see they are not (to my eye and in as far as it can be seen in the video) unpleasant even though the main one is reflected 8 times! Whether the extra cash outlay is burdensome, only you can judge.
  9. davidelevi

    SI1 diamonds, surface graining and cloud comments

    The general amount of "stuff". Twinning wisps are wispy, but when there's a lot of them there is potential to see something from an angle or another. In particular, I thought the wisp that ends on the facet at 10 o'clock (or its reflection at 4 o'clock - or is it the original? This is why a video is not good...) was quite visible - then again, it's 20-25x and the stone is loose. Once set, everything will be less visible (usually).
  10. davidelevi

    SI1 diamonds, surface graining and cloud comments

    Both the H are nicely cut, at least as nicely as the J; I prefer the 1.15, which has more contrast (which I like); the 1.09 and the J are more uniformly bright. Other people may prefer that. The 1.15 is also the one that has more potential to be not eye-clean. However this is not something that can be determined reliably via a video or photo: you (and ideally it has to be you, not someone else) have to see the diamond. Sometimes GIA does not plot all internal characteristics because they are so diffused (or there are so many) that they would mess up the plot - the purpose of the plot is to allow identification of the stone, not that of providing indications on transparency or visibility of inclusions to the naked eye. Neither H seem to have cloudiness or haziness issues in as far as it can be seen in a video - again not the ideal way of looking for these things. My guess is that either H will be just on the border of OK for clarity and transparency. The J is cleaner, but it's definitely going to look a bit more tinted when compared. Again, whether you see it and in which conditions is very much an individual thing. Of the 3, given a good return policy (which BN has), I would bet on the 1.15 being the nicest overall stone. YMMV.
  11. You are most welcome. Do come back to tell us if you (both) are happy or not once you get the knot tied with a knot (OK, I know, I'm a dad, and that's a dad joke).
  12. All look good "on paper". Or at least good enough and similar enough that I don't think you can discard them based on the report info. There's $600 price spread - not sure whether that makes a difference for you (and I don't know how it compares to the "reference" stone, but I'll assume it was in this range). I'll ignore it in what follows, which is my purely subjective opinion - other people may come to completely different conclusions. The only one I would discard immediately is the one ending in 792. It may be eye-clean, but at some point the schmutz right in the middle of the table is going to trouble me. Kind-of-similar but much less so for 970, which has also got one of the least symmetrical and badly contrasted patterns (the overall amount of contrast is fine; I just don't like the pattern). Second one out for me. 745: it looks foggy, even though it has the highest clarity of all. Maybe the camera was out of focus? Nice pattern, though. Also, a bit of a thick girdle makes it smaller than it could be - however the price is not high considering it's a VVS in a bunch of VS (and some marginal ones at that!). It also seems one of the more strongly tinted (within them all being "I") - but again it could be the camera: don't set white balance for a while, and you can get much worse... with the same object! 621 also looks foggy. Same observations (minus the price!) as for 745, so it may be the camera for these two, if they are from the same wholesaler (JA does not own the diamonds). This leaves 806 and 780. 780 is a smidgen larger, but once set the difference will be totally invisible. It also seems a teensy bit more symmetrical in pattern (and it's $300 less). However, I prefer 806 - at least in the video. It's crisper and more lively. Compared to the "reference" (the one with the knot), the reference is more contrasted overall, and probably a bit less fiery. It's also a bit more schmutzy, but the inclusions are so spread out and not under the table that I don't think you'll ever see them (unlike some of the others here: our eye/brain system learns to spot patterns and over time things become more easily visible...). In all, and ignoring the knotty question AND the price difference (if any), I'd stick with 911 - based on the video.
  13. Very likely! It's possible that JA's supplier has been extra careful, and oriented the stone as in the report; nice of them. You see: you have good eyes, and I know what to look for... together we make a good team. 😉 I've looked at the video again, and I can still see something very similar "higher up" (i.e at 1:30) - either one could be a reflection of the other (or my eye-brain system making something up), which is another reason why it's really important to see these things "live". Honestly - nothing to worry about, and you got yourself a lovely stone. Congratulations!
  14. It's not going to look like a dot at all. If the external edges were visible it would not have got "excellent" polish (or a VS2 overall clarity). It should look a bit like this: (the parallel lines "inside" the facet - they are a grain boundary)
  15. That's what I was trying to say with my "point 3." above. Yes, it's definitely not a bad knot. FWIW, I think I have located it in the video; it's on the star facet at 1:30 (between noon and 3 o'clock with the table facing you), but the easiest way to see it is as a "shimmer" in the side view as the video rotates: that's the edge between the knot crystal and the main crystal, and you can see the grain lines there. At least, I think. This said, the only real way of seeing these things (and assessing whether they are visually bothering you or not, apart from any concern on the integrity, which I hope is addressed to the extent I can from my first post) is to do so in person. A video is not really a good proxy for a real diamond in which you are trying to find an inclusion.