davidelevi

A-List Jeweler
  • Content Count

    8336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by davidelevi

  1. davidelevi

    Bought from oldtreasures333

    None of which is a certain indication of the description being incorrect. If you are unhappy with the item return it - the seller (at least on eBay) seems to offer 30 days unconditional returns, so regardless of whether the item has been described incorrectly or only - ahem - enthusiastically marketed, use that policy to your advantage.
  2. davidelevi

    I need

    There is no way anyone can ID a stone via a photograph; I would take any such ID - no matter who offers it - with a huge pinch of salt. Take it to a gemmologist, and they should be able to confirm (or not) very quickly. As a DIY alternative, if you have a precision scale (precision depending on the size of the stone, but at least 1% of its weight, ideally 0.1%), you can rig up something like this: http://balances.com/acculab/density+determination/specific+gravity.html though much less refined, and this will give you an indication of specific gravity thus confirming/denying the hypothesis.
  3. davidelevi

    What do you think of this diamond?

    The stone was (likely) not positioned correctly within the viewer. It's a matter of fractions of a millimetre, so the jury is always out on whether this is intentional (to produce a "better" image") or accidental, but regardless of intention it makes the images far less useful. Good point. They call it an arrow view - and there is clearly a "hearts" view - but if it is such, it is definitely taken incorrectly and it ends up looking like an idealscope (without the same information being conveyed, because the viewer's construction is different). The "hearts" view seems to have been taken correctly, and it looks nice - which is generally a good sign for what the diamond actually looks like.
  4. davidelevi

    What do you think of this diamond?

    It looks and reads fine; the ASET (and IS) images have been taken incorrectly. The price is on average aligned with the US-based online market. What gives you pause?
  5. Same observations/conclusions as the above. A couple of additional points: 1. There's other (minor-ish) things going on in addition to the pavilion angle. #1 and #3 have the same angles, but there's a diameter difference of 0.1 mm; which is not huge or even visible unless the stones are next to each other, but it is there. #1 just "reads" like a stone that has been cut to hit the 2 carat mark; the other two less so. The price also reflects that. 2. Any differences in pavilion angle will be negated by a stone not kept clean. It's no more difficult to keep a 41.0° clean than a 41.4°, but what I'm trying to say is that the difference - visible as it may be between two clean, loose stones observed with care - may well disappear in normal life when they are separated, set in a ring on a moving hand, and with a smear of soap on the pavilion because she has just washed her hands. 3. If - as you seem to imply - you have seen the stones, then your observations, feelings and preferences overcome (sorry, can't quite bring myself to say t***p) whatever "expertise-based" opinions we can come up with. There is more to a diamond than just a lab report numbers, and there is more to your eye and brain than the ability to discriminate a steeper pavilion.
  6. davidelevi

    Please help to review

    Let me start from the easy question: WF is perfectly legitimate, and they have a very good reputation. Is that diamond a good choice? Well, there is nothing to reproach in terms of cut, clarity or colour; presumably the price is fine since you picked it. What I don't know is whether it's worth for you to pay the premium for a D/VVS1 or whether you'd be better off with a (say) H/VS2 that will look visually identical but could be larger or cheaper.
  7. davidelevi

    Are these diamonds?

    Let me be clearer, since British understatement doesn't seem to work: ID from photos is not possible. The rocks unfortunately neither confirm nor deny, but rock ID from photos is not any easier than crystal ID: the yellow/green stuff could be some olivine-carrying rock - which would be good - but then again it might not. The darker stuff seems bituminous and/or iron oxide rich from the photo, both of which would rule out diamond; again it might not be - having it in hand (and under a loupe) would solve the problem in a moment; via a single, context-less photo it is pointless. Take the crystals and the rocks to someone who can see them. FWIW, my bet is that you have found quartz and calcite, given the pitting, the discoloured "skin", the crystal habit and the appearance of fractures visible in some photos, but I may well be wrong.
  8. davidelevi

    Are these diamonds?

    They could be. They could be not. Identification from photographs is a thankless task and far from foolproof, especially without any context (where did you find them, what were the rocks nearby, what size are the crystals, ...). Take them to a gemologist and you'll have your answer, most likely for free.
  9. davidelevi

    GIA Ex vs HCA - Help Ease My Mind!! (or not)

    The key thing to remember is that the HCA is a subjective score, reflecting the preferences of a small group of people. Have you seen the diamond, rather than just the report? If so and you like it (and you like it more than your current diamond - larger size and everything else considered), all is well and the HCA can be forgotten. Garry Holloway isn't offering to buy your diamond, and you don't want to sell it to him anyway.
  10. davidelevi

    Help selecting a diamond, down to 2!

    It looks nice on paper and in the reflector images; the video is a bit meaningless, but I assume it's a show of goodwill from a remote merchant. It is a reasonable price. As long as you have some form of return/refund if you really don't like it, I would say that you have a winner! If it's a totally final sale, then be really sure that it's what you (she) want(s).
  11. davidelevi

    Diamond Clouds.

    On paper, proportion-wise I'd much rather have the 1.51: I like high crowns and small tables. The 1.40 is - for me - far less attractive. (on paper!) However, if you have seen both and they seem to you very similar, I'd go with the 1.40 given the not insignificant price difference.
  12. davidelevi

    crown and pavilion misalignment?

    You are taking pretty good photos!
  13. davidelevi

    Bought Engagement Ring With Knot Help!(Si1)

    Yes. The only one that matters: (BTW: a knot graded SI1 by GIA is fine; by definition, SI inclusions are not detrimental to integrity or durability of the stone in the opinion of the GIA grading panel, otherwise they would have called it I1. The knot has gone through polishing without falling out, experiencing temperatures and pressures that will never be experienced again unless the stone is re-cut).
  14. davidelevi

    Help picking a princess diamond

    Brightest is not necessarily the same thing as sparkliest; a flat mirror is very bright, but it doesn't sparkle much: it has one single "all-white or all-black" flash. Sparkle is about contrast and "movement". All three are nice, and any one of them would be a good (size) upgrade from the 0.75 - 0.80 stones that you were looking at in your earlier posts. The brightest of the lot is the 1.318, which is also the largest; then the 1.200. The nicest contrast - and thus sparkle - pattern (for my taste) is the 1.200, next the 1.318. That eliminates the 1.238 from the race for me (although it's probably the most symmetrical in this lot). Now things get interesting, because the 1.318 is 50% more expensive. It is also going to be larger, and graded better colour and clarity (whether you can see either in these particular stones is moot). Depending on how much of an upgrade you want and can afford, the choice should be relatively easy.
  15. davidelevi

    Is this the perfect one?

    Congratulations in advance; I am sure you (and she) will be pleased!
  16. davidelevi

    Stats review :)

    Or even above... Congratulations! It looks really nice in reality too.
  17. davidelevi

    Is this the perfect one?

    Proportions on the report are good; I like tall crowns and small(er) tables; others may prefer a more "open" look. "Ideal H&A" - no. There are some clefts and some points in the hearts. Are you going to find better without going to specialist sellers? Equally no. The first stone you posted about was better at producing H&A images through a viewer. Whether it would have looked better or worse is anybody's guess. My guess is you would have had a big problem telling them apart in reality. I do go back to my question a few months ago
  18. davidelevi

    Assistance required with Fluorescence

    If GIA marks it as a cavity, it's a cavity; they occur naturally (largely because something that has crystallised naturally in the diamond is then diffused away - remember, it takes several million years and hellish temperature and pressure to make a diamond in nature). There is nothing wrong with cavities - especially those that are graded SI1. Enjoy the diamond, and congratulations!
  19. davidelevi

    crown and pavilion misalignment?

    As a round brilliant, it's definitely better. As a rectangular, it leaves something to be desired. Better at what? For what? FWIW, I like the style of the "round" ring more, but that's purely a personal preference.
  20. davidelevi

    Assistance required with Fluorescence

    You seem to have 3 concerns here: 1. The fluorescence 2. The cut proportions 3. The cavity The one on which I think you should be reassured unconditionally is the last one. Look at a cavity as a "negative" inclusion; it's an inclusion that has gone away leaving a little hole. In an SI1, it's not of the size to create any risk to integrity or durability, and you yourself said you can't see it, so it has really no impact. The other two points have to do with the appearance of the stone, and the only valid judgement on that is your opinion (and that of your fiancée). If you like it, it is a nice stone and it's all that matters. Is it the be-all and end-all of (modern, theoretical) diamond cutting? No, it isn't; it's a nice middle-of-the-road diamond, but as long as you paid a fair price for it and you like it, who cares? She is going to wear the diamond, not the report, and if anyone you know is going around with a UV light to see if the diamonds worn by other people are fluorescent or not, I think you have concerns other than the fluorescence. 😉
  21. davidelevi

    crown and pavilion misalignment?

    It's all twisted, including the prongs. Did someone wring it after cleaning, to squeeze the water out? (just kidding)
  22. davidelevi

    Assistance required with Fluorescence

    Be careful about interpreting photos - diamonds are part transparent, part mirrors, the sky is blue, those seat covers (?) seem blue (and possibly your shirt is blue too). If you don't like it, return it - there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, even if it shows as much blue as you think it does; as Furqan says, another diamond would not, but one is not better than the other.
  23. davidelevi

    Stats review :)

    The proportions look lovely on paper; hopefully the reality will match! Don't worry about the crown angle. Given the crown height, it's absolutely fine. As Furqan said, it may be a case of minimal differences in theory that in practice will be totally invisible.
  24. davidelevi

    Help selecting a diamond, down to 2!

    Comments already offered, but you deleted the thread.