davidelevi

A-List Jeweler
  • Content Count

    8097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

510 Excellent

1 Follower

About davidelevi

  • Rank
    Ideal Diamond

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

6312 profile views
  1. davidelevi

    Advice please - Round Brilliant VS2 1.12 Carat

    Looks good. Perhaps not the absolute best I have ever seen from WF or other top-tier cutters, but absolutely nothing substantive to reproach (and you wouldn't see the difference from the theoretical "best" anyway in any realistic circumstances).
  2. davidelevi

    Fake Diamond?

    It looks very glassy and not particularly like a diamond in the photo, but a single photo (or any number of photos, generally) is not an accurate way to identify or even rule out any particular gem species. FWIW, if I were to place a bet, I would say sapphire, possibly synthetic. But it could be many many other things. Bring it to a gemmologist if you really are curious!
  3. Sleeping on it and looking at it in different lighting environments are definitely the right things to do! Also, if you can get a temporary setting (one of those clip things), it may help you figure out the extent to which the inclusion will be visible in real life: light very seldom comes through the pavilion "in real life"... unless you are Pepper Potts on Extremis!
  4. davidelevi

    Help me on the Certificate

    Not sure if this is a subtle spamming attempt, but I'll bite. I think this is the wrong forum for you to ask advice on - the crowd here deals primarily with diamonds, which are very much a different market from that of the site you linked.
  5. davidelevi

    3 round cut options, which one?

    On paper all are nice. The two with the H&A-scope images are not H&A, but number 1 is better than 3 under the scope (more symmetrical) and the ASET is OK but not particularly good. There are two issues here: 1. We don't know how #2 stacks up against the other 2. The single photo suggests that it is not H&A either, but it is not adequate evidence for or against anything. 2. We don't know what is important for you (and we miss any info on size: what's the diameter of the three?) Of the three, I fear that #1 is the best cut (without being exceptionally well cut), but also the most expensive. I suspect #3 would come last - but I doubt you'd see much difference from #1 in real life (set in a ring, a little dirty, and flitting about with someone's hand movements).
  6. davidelevi

    Leo Diamond

    I'm not sure I agree with your statement (for a number of reasons), but the two numbers are Centre stone 0.43 ct Side stones 1.02 ct total over 8 stones Good luck with your sale!
  7. davidelevi

    Oval Diamond

    The whole point of a lab report is to get an independent third party to express their unbiased view on several parameters; in-house reports cannot do that. I haven't seen enough "Vashi" in house stones (I haven't seen any, as far as I know) and their associated reports to say whether they are reliable or not; Tiffany's in-house grades are quite good, but other jewellers aren't, and by default the answer is "don't trust unless you have a reason to do so". Grading colour from photos is an impossible task, more so when the photos are taken with an unknown camera in an unknown environment, but a correctly graded G should not show colour face up; that one looks from the photo more like a K. The other stone might be a better choice, but with ovals it's very difficult to say anything about cut without seeing them (or at the very least getting several good photos and preferably video). At the very least here you are guaranteed colour and clarity are graded to a high and consistent standard. What are their return conditions? Most internet-based vendors will allow generous return windows with no penalty.
  8. davidelevi

    Oval Diamond

    At those prices I would expect there to be an independent lab report... not least because you have really very little information otherwise. What do they mean by "super ideal cut"? (And for that matter, what do they mean with F or G and SI1 or VS1?) Prices are at the high end for an internet retailer if the descriptions are right (i.e. matching GIA standards for colour and clarity, and top quality cut - which is a bit of a can of worms in and of itself on ovals) - I am assuming the prices quoted above include 20% VAT. Vashi has expensive retail premises in the centre of London, which makes me think their descriptions aren't exactly spot on, since I would expect significantly higher prices to cover their overheads. And if that oval is a G either your camera's white balance is off by miles or I'm Spongebob Squarepants. Unless you have reason to trust the retailer, don't.
  9. "Additional clouds not shown" are typically not a problem, especially as an SI1. "Clarity grade based on clouds not shown" may be more of an issue. Yes, inclusions will be more easily visible in a larger stone - however any assessment of "eye-cleanness" requires seeing the stone; it's perfectly possible for a 2 carat SI1 to be eye clean.
  10. davidelevi

    Certification

    😖??? Could you please explain what you meant by "breeding"? Or what was your intended question? I suspect iMistakes...
  11. davidelevi

    Need advice on a strong florescent diamond.

    I wouldn't say it's a roll of the dice. As you point out, "overblues" (hazy/oily look in UV-rich lighting) are rare, and vendors should be able to help by asking whoever holds the stone to report on it - second hand information isn't always 100% reliable, but it's not in their interest to lie to you since detection is easy and would only result in cost for them! Also, since this is a JA exclusive diamond ("True Hearts"), they may have more information on it or even hold the stone directly.
  12. davidelevi

    Engagement Ring Selection Help

    There is only one person that can answer that... and you know her better than any of us. I understand you don't want to spoil the surprise; try asking her friends/relatives or maybe go through some magazines and ads together and see how she reacts? BTW - the link to the second ring does not work.
  13. davidelevi

    1.41 ct/ E / Si1/ 3xEx

    "Smaller than usual" generally is about diameter, and no, this is not smaller than average; if anything it's probably very slightly larger than average. I don't particularly like the proportions with a flattish crown and a steepish pavilion, but it won't look bad either.
  14. See photos I linked above for what I think is a couple of fairly realistic representation of what happens in "good" fluorescent stones. (Sorry; I was editing and adding info to my previous very curt post as you were answering). My view is that while it is theoretically true, in practice even very strongly coloured diamonds (and I mean fancy vivid and deep) show significant light return. A strong blue fluorescent at most is equivalent to a light/fancy light blue and attenuates any light return very marginally if at all. Whether one likes the effect (which I agree is different from a "pure white") is a completely different question.
  15. Furqan - I have to disagree on this. The fact of having a blue tinge does not necessarily make the diamond any less bright or brilliant even in natural light - unless it's an overblue and turns hazy (in which case all bets are off, but the discount offered does not seem to bear this out). I do agree with you that the focus here seems to be on different attributes than what you or I would consider important "commercially", and that there is a risk of KW318 being "stuck" on this stone when he should probably let go. Some photos of a strong blue in different lighting conditions - YMMV: