A-List Jeweler
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

478 Excellent

About davidelevi

  • Rank
    Ideal Diamond

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4328 profile views
  1. 1.44c Round I color/VS1 vs. 1.40c Round I color/VVS2

    Unless your main priority is to say "I got you a full carat and a half", I'd go with the 1.40 from Zoara. 1. The extra weight (and money) gains you nothing in terms of size, since it's all gone in the girdle. 0.04 mm is not going to be visible without tools. 2. Strong fluorescence may (in very rare cases) give a hazy or milky appearance to the stone in sunlight. It definitely will impair your ease of reselling or even trading in the stone. 3. The "very good" symmetry is actually visible in a significantly less symmetrical pattern in the high magnification video. This is not necessarily a minus for everybody, but it does bother me a bit in a modern round with aspirations to "ideal cut".
  2. 1.44c Round I color/VS1 vs. 1.40c Round I color/VVS2

    No concerns from me.
  3. 1.44c Round I color/VS1 vs. 1.40c Round I color/VVS2

    Paper-wise it looks fine; top 1 or 2 of the stones we discussed in this thread for proportions. Nice spread with a decently symmetrical pattern and without an overly large table (for my taste). You do realise that part of the low(er) price is due to fluorescence? It will have next to no effect on looks, but it does make it harder to sell (or re-sell!), hence the discount.
  4. 1.44c Round I color/VS1 vs. 1.40c Round I color/VVS2

    I'm not a fan of the look of either of these two - I don't like flat crowns and large tables, but that's a personal preference and there are plenty of people who do; going out and looking at similar stones (and those with higher crowns) is the only way to find if you do. Forced to choose between these two, I'd pick the VS2. Even though the reply on clarity may seem glib, it's fairly true: pretty much all VS2 are eye clean, though sometimes a small black crystal is visible at some angle. The feather is easily visible.... from the back/side in a 20x video!
  5. A few things to bear in mind: 1. The difference will decrease significantly the closer you get to 2.0 - it will still be there at 1.99, though. 2. The devil is in the details - you really need to compare like-for-like, and the info on reports is often not sufficient to do so. 3. The temptation for a cutter to hit a significant threshold like a full carat in exchange for cutting (relatively) poorly is huge. This will decrease the number of available stones very near the threshold. Here's an example: https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=0&fShape=Rnd&fCaratLo=2.00&fCaratHi=2.01&fColorLo=G&fColorHi=G&fClarityLo=VS1&fClarityHi=VS1&fCutLo=exc&fCutHi=exc&fDepthLo=50.0&fDepthHi=80.0&fTableLo=40.0&fTableHi=80.0&fSymLo=ideal&fSymHi=exc&fPolLo=ideal&fPolHi=exc&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=none&fFlrHi=none&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=1000000&fLabGIA=1&adv=1 G/VS1 XXX diamonds between 2.00 and 2.01: price range $23k to $30k (excluding a couple of clear outliers) https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=0&fShape=Rnd&fCaratLo=1.90&fCaratHi=1.99&fColorLo=G&fColorHi=G&fClarityLo=VS1&fClarityHi=VS1&fCutLo=exc&fCutHi=exc&fDepthLo=50.0&fDepthHi=80.0&fTableLo=40.0&fTableHi=80.0&fSymLo=ideal&fSymHi=exc&fPolLo=ideal&fPolHi=exc&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=none&fFlrHi=none&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=1000000&fLabGIA=1&adv=1 same as above, but 1.90 to 1.99: note that there far fewer stones (6 , excluding duplicates against ~40 between 2 and 2.01), none over 1.91, and prices range from $20k to $22k
  6. 1.44c Round I color/VS1 vs. 1.40c Round I color/VVS2

    I like both of the last two more than any of the first three. Whether that means anything for you really depends on your priorities. For example - the 1.46 will face up visibly larger than the 1.41, but the 1.41 seems to be cut a bit more symmetrically (judging from the single still photo available) and with a combination of crown/pavilion angles that I prefer. Personally I'd go for a lot lower clarity (VS2/SI1, or even SI2 if I trust the vendor to tell me whether it's eye-clean!) but go for a top-of-the line cut; these are both higher clarity but "only" 90% there on cut - however there is nothing wrong with preferring clarity.
  7. Don't worry - nobody is born with a lot of diamond knowledge! We are here to help you understand and (hopefully) discriminate between good and so-so vendors and diamonds, so do keep asking questions.
  8. Should I be concerned about black in emerald aset images

    Um... the problem is that normally one gets black OR white, these being the background colours on which the image is taken. Having both makes me think that the image has been taken incorrectly. "Leakage" is also a very ill-defined concept; the white or black "I can see the background" areas should be referred to as windowing. To be honest, especially for non-rounds, a well taken video trumps any reflector images: the geometry of ASET and idealscope is thought for rounds - and it provides relatively limited information in any case. The video looks good - though again this way of filming is thought for rounds (or at most square) shapes: you never see the long sides from a significantly different angle, and the stone should be rocked to demonstrate that there is no "leakage" on those sides either - you can see the "frames" on the short sides changing from black to white, but not the long sides because the light-to-stone angle varies much less on the horizontal plane. If this is right for you from all other points of view (outline/shoulders, size and price), I really see nothing against it.
  9. OK - you seem to have some things bass-ackwards: There is no reliable cut grading for cushions; vendor-issued cut grades are a) not comparable and b] not based on any serious, published research. This is your single biggest problem. VVS is a very high (and expensive) clarity grade - VS2 or SI1 inclusions still won't (usually) be seen with the naked eye, so if that's all that is required and budget isn't unlimited start looking at VS2/SI1, not at VVS. "Big enough" means nothing - see above for how variable a cushion can be in face up size. "Radiant" is equally undefined: do you mean brightness, fire or scintillation? The latter with large flashes or pin-flashes? Colour has nothing to do with clarity - you can have a W-X that is perfectly clear, and a D that is full of black inclusions. I don't mean to sound like your mom (or mother-in-law), but what I'm trying to say is that unless you understand the terms and are then precise with your requirements you will fall prey to the best salesmanship rather than getting what you actually want - never mind at a reasonable value-for-money price point. My suggestion is: 0) Accept that diamonds - and cushion cuts especially - are far less commoditised than consumer electronics, cars or IKEA furniture. Each one is reasonably different from the others and sometimes visually insignificant details mean large differences in fair prices. You can't order "one of these" unless you are largely indifferent to what you get. 1) Clarify to yourself (possibly with discreet enquiries) what is it that she wants. "Adequate size" means nothing; 1.50 is objective but it exposes you to stones going from 8 x 4 to 6 x 5, rectangles and squares. The photos you posted seem to suggest a fair amount of roundedness around the corners, a squarish aspect, and a reasonably "classical" (as opposed to H&A or "crushed ice") cutting style. But that's all I can understand - and a lot of it is guesswork! 2) Choose a vendor or two. Online or local it doesn't matter; what matters is that they need to be prepared to work with you, call stones in, take photos, videos and - if you like and require this sort of things - reflector images. 3) Start working with your chosen vendors, but keep going out to other jewellers and looking at stones. You may find that as you see a few dozens instead of 1 or 2 you discover that (e.g.) curved sides are more appealing than straight ones. Or that larger facets and higher crowns result in more fire and relatively less brightness and you like that. Or...
  10. Your budget is perfectly reasonable - but you need to decide how to use it: is 1.50 an insurmountable barrier? It doesn't seem so (the F/VVS was 1.31, IIRC). Neither is "colourless" (two H in your "liked" three). Do you prefer rounded corners (e.g. #3) or squarer ones (e.g. #1)? Is square within 5% a must? My (and Neil's) question about how you got down to these 3 is precisely this: what features attracted you to those? Here is one I like on paper, for example: https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/C157-709472597?cid=diamondreview&utm_source=diamondreview&utm_campaign=affiliate&utm_medium=feed Is it better than any of the three above? I don't know. Shopping in a shop has pros and cons: you are able to see what is there. But only what is there.
  11. 1.44c Round I color/VS1 vs. 1.40c Round I color/VVS2

    Well, whether you can or cannot see the difference between H and I online is not particularly relevant. You have a lab report for that. The interesting question is whether you can see the difference between H and I in reality - and in realistic circumstances for an engagement ring (i.e. set stone, observed from the top through the table). If you cannot do so at a a jeweller, having both stones loose and next to each other, the chances of being able to "see colour" when the stone is set and by itself is tiny. If you see a huge difference... well, it's definitely more likely. Most people in my experience see a well cut I as colourless unless it's a fairly large stone and it's observed "through the side". Crown and pavilion angles are the most critical information in a round... however providing ranges is relatively useless: to some extent you can compensate a steep pavilion with a shallow crown and vice-versa but all the proportions need to work (a large table and a steep crown are not to my taste for example). What you need to figure out is which combinations work well for you: I tend to like pavilion angles between 40.6 and 41.0 and crown angles between 33.0 and 36.0, but there are exceptions, and again that's me. Perhaps this article by GIA - although a bit long in the tooth - may be useful: http://diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/cut_fall2004.pdf
  12. 1.44c Round I color/VS1 vs. 1.40c Round I color/VVS2

    Before I even look at the links, my first recommendation is that you go out to your local (or not-so-local) jeweller and look at GIA/AGS graded diamonds in G, H, I and J colours; if you can "afford" the partial spoiling of the surprise, take your to-be-fiancée. Colour perception varies a lot from person to person, and not everybody prefers "pure white". In addition, the perception of colour through the top of a stone (which is what you normally see) will be very different from the perception of colour through the side (which is how they are graded), and you may be very surprised at the difference cut makes. Do NOT rely on colour charts or photos - certainly not on single photos taken with different methods by different people for different purposes (normally to show inclusions and symmetry of pattern). If you are shopping for VS1 and above based on charts you have seen on various sites to illustrate what a VS2 or SI1 looks like, such as this one: treat is as a joke; it bears no connection to what diamonds look like. This said, and now looking at the links: none of the three make me scream "this one! this one!", but if I were to make a choice only among these three I'd pick the 1.44; I think you'd find the combination of crown and pavilion angles on the other two relatively dark. I do think you can do better - so, my question is: how did you land on these three? There are literally hundreds of possible candidates.
  13. sad Not much to add to Laurent's and Neil's comments on the three stones, but I'll try to provide a direct answer to your explicit questions instead: 0) You can't really get a 1.50 to look like a 2.00 unless you go for a very different shape or cutting pattern - or at least one of the two is quite poorly cut (e.g. a 2 carat with a hugely thick girdle). Daussi cut very flat stones that look very large; the downside is that not everybody likes the look. Here is a photo of a 1.57 - clearly not suitable for what you want: it's coloured (fancy brownish greenish yellow), it's rectangular, it's in a ring and it's sold, but it demonstrates Daussi's cutting style pretty well: the centre stone is 8.15 x 6.26 which dwarfs many standard 2 caraters. Here's a 1.35 (equally not suitable, but a little squarer) that came in at 7.82 x 6.84 1) The first one seems to be better cut and it's squarer than the others - both attributes drive price up, but value is in the eye of the beholder: it's not the largest (l x w), the whitest or the highest clarity. People value these attributes differently, and I know some that would go for the VVS because it's a VVS: for them it's "better value". A cut snob would likely steer you towards #1 because of what they value instead. The question is: what do you value? 2) Absolutely not. Symmetry and polish are secondary factors in cut quality; while they will make a minor difference, you definitely cannot rely on them as either signalling a well cut stone or as a comparative proxy for cut quality (i.e. not all "EX/EX" look better than all "VG/VG"). Stay at "Good" or above and you'll be fine.
  14. comments on these 2 round stones?

    Hearts look significantly better on the second one, but the arrows view looks dodgy (no shafts?). ASETs are not comparable, and neither looks great (the second one seems to be taken "wrongly"). In all, I would doubt that the second set of pics represents the stone correctly (esp. in view of the angles), and the first one is OK but not great. Two conclusions: 1. In-person viewing or comparative video still dominate for comparison purposes 2. Whether any of the two are any good depends very much on what you value!!!
  15. Jaipur Gemological Lab

    Same response as above: