Jump to content


A-List Jeweler
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About davidelevi

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

17163 profile views

davidelevi's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges



  1. You are very welcome - good luck, and let us know how you get on!
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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!!!
  6. 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... 😁
  7. 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.
  8. "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...
  9. 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?
  10. The good thing with WhiteFlash (and other premium cut vendors) is that although the diamonds aren't exactly identical they are all cut to very high standards and to very similar proportions. As such, I agree with Furqan: get the one that costs the same and has roughly the same diameter, but slightly better clarity. There are minor, minor differences - however you (or anyone else, including people posting on the forum) are not going to see them without the stone being loose and observed through a reflector viewer, be it IS/ASET/H&A or something else. This said, if you visually prefer the 1.112, go for that one!
  11. Welcome to Diamond Review, TheCarGuyFL! I'm not sure where to begin... so I'll kind-of-follow your post, except that I'm going to leave the discussion of specific items at the end. I think the only 'worrying' thing about the Leo - and other proprietary/branded cuts - is that they aren't directly comparable to others (in looks), which means prices aren't either, and reliable information about them is more scarce (e.g. GIA or AGS will not attribute a cut grade). If you like a Leo (or a whatever), Kay's or another authorised retailer is the only place you can get it - with all the attendant overheads, marketing and usually lack of knowledge from pushy salespeople. As with all other diamonds, there are good, bad and indifferent Leos, and you have no independent, reliable opinion from a good lab on what you are getting. I have no idea whether that diamond's spec is common or uncommon for them. Aside from the certified Canadian origin (which may or may not be important to you), the only thing that is uncommon about it is the "Very Good" cut grade - on which more below. There are literally hundreds advertised for sale on the Diamond Finder here https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds - most of which have 'Excellent' cut. I'm not actually sure about that... a good 0.70/0.75 round of similar colour and clarity will set you off somewhere between $3-3.5k. A good quality setting with a fairly elaborate design is easily going to cost you $2k+. On that basis, and considering that geographically certified diamonds are usually more expensive than the rest, the $6k Helzberg are asking for this don't seem to be excessive. You can certainly spend a lot less on the setting, and have something of nice quality but a plain design - which honestly would be my choice and recommendation: that ring is going to be worn 24/7 for a (hopefully) long time; with formal clothes and with jeans; on a night out to the theatre and on a walk in the countryside. A plainer, classical setting is going to accommodate all of those more easily than something very fancy- and it is going to be more robust and resistant to everyday use and abuse. This said - nothing wrong at all with preferring something else. No, it isn't "normal", but it isn't "abnormal" either. At the moment the price is competitive with "other" rings of similar specs; the original price (nearly double) was quite overblown, and that probably caused it to sit there for a while. Also, while 10 years ago the emphasis for "caring" (?!?) people was still on getting diamonds from known sources in "developed" countries like Canada and Australia, and avoiding 'blood diamonds' (whether that makes any difference - and whether the difference is actually positive in terms of overall impact - is a totally different story), nowadays synthetic diamonds are more popular for the same purpose, so I suspect that this got stuck in store as 'out of fashion, but expensive'. It depends on the 'Excellent' and on the 'Very Good' - both cover a fairly wide spectrum of looks. In the specific case of that 0.70 F/VS2 diamond, the reason why it gets the VG rather than the EX is because the girdle is too thick. This makes the diamond diameter - and thus its 'visual size' - smaller than it could be, by about 0.15 - 0.20 mm, which is easily visible side-by-side. Otherwise it's a nicely cut diamond. Ignore any and all 'estimate' or 'typical' weights; just look at actuals, and if the vendor doesn't provide you with an actual - or at least a clearly specified minimum - weight at the moment you order, skip the vendor. There isn't a common, agreed standard for what a commercial '3/4 ct' stone is; some vendors will call a 0.60 ct "3/4", and some will have a higher threshold (but pretty much anyone will call a 0.70 "3/4"). One of the issues is that the way cut diamonds are priced is not linear - or even continuous - at all, and there are jumps. One of the notable jumps is at 0.70; a 0.70 ct is commercially worth quite a bit more than a 0.69. The problem is that all of those aren't 'specific enough' to comment on; I don't trust the specifications provided by Kay's or Zales unless they are backed up by a good lab report - which most often they aren't - and what you could get as a centre diamond when they choose it, is pot luck. With Blue Nile you can control what you get, and clearly you can spend (quite) a bit less than $6k, getting a nicer stone - but there is a trade off in terms of the plainer setting. Incidentally - be very wary of CAD renderings. All the images on the sites you linked are NOT images of the real ring you would get; they are computer-generated renderings which may or may not (usually will not!) look like the real item. Workmanship, symmetry and finish are perfect in a rendering; not so in real life. Even worse with the diamonds, where there is a huge amount of variability especially in SI / I clarity grades, and - as you noted - an I2 diamond doesn't usually look like the one in the image. It is not a bad diamond at all. The price is fairly reasonable, and the side stones are decently sized and seem pleasantly proportioned in the photo you posted. The negatives in my opinion are the relatively small visual size of the centre - which is noticeable - and the bad design of the setting: apart from aesthetic considerations, the centre diamond sticks out so much that it begs to catch into clothes, bang into furniture and generally get into trouble - including, but not limited to, losing or breaking the diamond. Depending on how active and careful your girlfriend is - and on how much she (not you!) likes this setting - this may be a non-issue or a total deal killer.
  12. Hi Hermann, I like the new site - especially if it makes mobile use easier! The new Diamond Finder, however, could do with a bit of polishing (!): 1. Losing the text boxes to input weight and price limits is quite annoying for someone working on a non-touch screen, and the granularity of the sliders is way too coarse (at least for me!). Any chance the weight sliders could be brought back to the 0.01 ct steps, and price sliders to $100 (and/or text boxes enabled), please? 2. The loss of the explicit .php code in the address bar makes it impossible to provide a list of "comparable" stones through a link in a forum post. I realise that you may have changed technology, and reproducing the query string may not be easy, but ultimately this goes to the benefit of the advertisers too... Thanks for considering the above!
  13. So, there are a couple of issues here: 1. The cost of a report. Which for a 1 carat stone is of the order of $100 or less - larger differences in price that you see are not due to the cost of the report; they are due to the objective differences in the stones... be they colour, clarity or cut quality. The IGI G/SI2 may even be fairly graded - but the inclusions may be more visible/aesthetically damaging, the colour may be 'closer to H' than 'closer to F', the cut proportions may not be as nice, fluorescence may be an issue or finish may not be as good. However, considering that IGI is usually a bit more lenient than GIA on colour and clarity (and significantly more lenient on cut), I would think it highly likely that the "IGI" stone would likely have been graded I1 by GIA and/or the GIA cut grade would have been lower. Having a reliable lab report does not make a stone 'better quality'; it simply makes transparent/evident whatever 'quality' the stone has. Note that the same does not apply to a non-reliable lab report; what that does (in my opinion) is to make transparent the commercial interest of the vendor... 2. The fair price of a stone. It is possible that the 'no cert' stone is fairly graded, but since a 0.98 H/I1/VG cut can be - to an untrained eye and/or without a loupe and scales - visually very difficult to tell from a 1.00 G/SI2/EX cut, but has a fair price 30-60% lower, the absence of a reliable, independent opinion (i.e. a lab report) isn't trivial. If you have good reason to trust the vendor with their judgement, then by any means do so.
  14. If you have a single 33 ct gem-quality diamond - even if irradiated - I would definitely advise you to find a competent appraiser. If the "33 ct" actually is a typo for 0.33 ct (33 points), then the cost of the appraisal is going to be about as much as the diamond's retail price.
  15. If they genuinely are "slightly under a carat", say 0.85, and genuinely G/VS1, $1,000 sounds like a fairly low assessment (similar stones would retail for $2-3,000 each - which is far from what you could sell them for, but you should be able to do better than 20% of retail). If the stones are good, a jeweller may think it's not worthwhile removing them as they can do that themselves quickly and easily; a consumer may be taken aback (and undervalue/baulk) if the setting really looks strange. I think you should first of all get a precise assessment of what you've got. It's great that a jeweller took a brief look, but this sounds like something worth clarifying with an appraisal (for resale, not for insurance!) The appraiser can then also advise you on whether taking the stones out is worth the effort or not.
  • Create New...