Jump to content

davidelevi

A-List Jeweler
  • Posts

    8937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by davidelevi

  1. Not sure that there is much that can be said with the information available. It's square, and it's relatively cheap. There are no red flags in the report, though it would have been nice to see a thinner girdle and a lower depth. I'm not a fan of the cutting style, but that's very much a personal preference. It also seems to result in optics that aren't splendid - again for my personal taste. It appears quite a 'dark' stone. Please bear in mind that - particularly on a large, non-round diamond - the only good way of assessing cut is by direct observation; as a second best, comparative videos taken by the same vendor - ideally with both stones in the same image - can provide some help. There is so much variability that is not captured by the report... Here are 5 theoretically similar cushion cuts (over 3 carats, colourless, high clarity) from another vendor that illustrate well the amount of variability: If I were to bet, I would guess that "your" diamond is going to look closest to the second one from the left. I would prefer something like the one in the middle or the first from the right. Funnily enough, all these are over $50k, with the exception of the 2nd from left, which is priced around $40k (but it's got the best "superficial reading" report of the lot: it's the only D in the bunch... with a high depth and very strong blue fluorescence).
  2. GRA seems to be a small gemmological lab based in Bangkok; I suspect that you seeing them "a lot" depends more on where you are (Thailand? Vietnam?) than on they being in any way important. Their documents have no legal value whatsoever - which doesn't mean that they are wrong, but the default position is that they are only worth however much you decide to trust them.
  3. Assuming this isn't a spam post, there is no way to tell from the website. Photos are cheap, CAD renderings even cheaper.
  4. @hermann - if it is possible, I would be happy to take on official ownership (and thus liability) of the forum. Some of the "would" depends on ongoing costs (server fees etc.), but in principle...
  5. It's very difficult to say anything definite (and sometimes anything at all) from photos, however there are some clear things here: 1. A lot of surface pitting 2. Gas bubbles (or more pitting???) 3. Dull, abraded faceting lines (and sloppy faceting and polishing, but that could happen in any stone) 4. Some chips with what seems to be conchoidal (shell-shaped) fractures 5. One facet seems "sunk" with edges sticking out over the surface (at 4 o'clock in the second photo). This could also be a photographic artefact, but the impression is quite distinct on two edges (bottom and left), and could be an indication that this facet was formed into a mould. all this would point towards the stone being glass, roughly moulded and then equally roughly polished. I may be completely wrong, and if there is 'something' behind the question (i.e. you are considering buying this, possibly for a considerable amount), I would definitely recommend not trusting anything I wrote and going to see a gemmologist or qualified jewellery appraiser with the stone. If all you want is somebody's opinion on what you found... here you have it! Welcome to DiamondReview!
  6. Um - welcome to Diamond Review. Not sure how your response is relevant at all, more so to a 7Â― year old thread that the OP hasn't visited since October 2014?
  7. You - or anyone else - will have serious difficulty in finding VVS inclusions with a loupe after the stone is set. Never mind them being visible or affecting the optics of the diamond. Inclusions in diamonds are perfectly stable over geological timescales. TL, DR: no, don't worry!
  8. Yep. Messaged Hermann about it around New Year's day, but received no reply... No idea if there's just an error in the loading script or something more serious.
  9. Well... both are within the realm of 'sensible' prices. The question is what you would be paying for in either case: overheads/brand, fabrication/construction method (some methods are significantly more expensive than others), accuracy of work and finish, materials, after sale service? And how much is each of these important for you? For example, if someone is fabricating all components out of wire vs. using castings (and possibly 3-D printing to make the casting) it will have a significant impact on the amount of labour, and thus the cost of the finished item. There isn't a single 'target' price for the two rings, although 'externally' they may end up looking quite similar. Can you see real examples of work from both jewellers? That should give you an idea of whether the level of accuracy and finish is where you would like it to be.
  10. Erm - to the cost of sounding stupid and patronizing, I feel I should explain that "How long is a piece of string?" is a British expression meaning "You can pick any number and it will be correct". 😄 I'm not sure that any of those four will make for you something exactly like the one you posted above, unless they have one in their standard designs. As to how much they will charge - way more than Blue Nile (or Blue Nile plus the 'platinum premium'), but I honestly don't know. My expectation is somewhere in the $2.5 to 5k range. Which is pretty broad. That for me would be a significant issue - in the sense that while it may ensure that the CAD rendering is close enough to what you want, it won't tell you anything about: a. The manufacturing skills and b. The actual finished product, as it may deviate from the CAD rendering for a number of reasons (including a. above, but also others) If they send you a 'real picture' (not a rendering) of the semi-mount, some of those objections go away, but it still only answers whether the design is similar enough. Well... that depends on your definition of 'amazing'. I don't find any CAD rendering 'amazing' because there is honestly nothing to be amazed about; it could be made to look like anything else with equal rendering precision... but it remains a computer simulation. That probably rules out the 'custom made' route with most people. "Standard" models from a manufacturer's catalogue should be perfectly fine within that timeframe.
  11. How long is a piece of string? You can find very similar settings e.g. on Blue Nile https://www.bluenile.com/uk/build-your-own-ring/petite-twisted-halo-diamond-ring-in-14k-white-gold_69635 (although in WG) for about $1,500/; add ~30% for platinum and you get somewhere around the $2k mark for a mass-produced setting. If you were to commission a similar ring as a custom-made object by a really good platinum smith you could spend twice as much (and in my opinion get a much better object, but I'm a finishing sucker snob as well as a cut snob). Go to someone with a seriously important name, such as Cartier (although they no longer mount customer-owned stones), and you could spend 10 times as much. And everything else in between. Bear in mind that in addition to the cost there are other variables at play. Some important ones: 1. How close can the design be to your example, and how important are small deviations for e.g. durability or ease of fabrication - or simply availability in your desired materials? 2. How important is the finish and attention to detail vs. the price? An 'industrial scale' semi-mount can be a lot cheaper, but it won't be made with the same care or to the same standard as something from a top platinum smith. 3. Then again, it will be made consistently to a commercially acceptable quality... whereas individual artisans vary enormously in their skill and experience at making jewellery. Going 'cheap' is often a very expensive road to remaking the object. 4. How much time do you have? Good craftsmen(women) are typically busy, and it could take a few months before your ring is ready, vs. a couple of weeks to order and set a standard design.
  12. And you! Let us know how you get on, and congratulations in advance!
  13. On the H&A images: yeah, somewhat. There is no accepted standard for what "is" and "is not" H&A - this one is not bad, but there are a couple of "faults" that some would consider disqualify it: minor cleaving of a few of the hearts, and an arrow shaft misaligned with its tip. Does it matter? Not to me - my comment re: "not seeing hearts or arrows" was intended in this sense. You won't see the 'hearts' or the 'arrows' without the viewer, and neither will anyone else without one; I really don't know many people that go around with an H&A viewer, and even fewer that will dismantle a ring to check someone else's diamond... ðŸĪŠ On the price - I would start at 10k; if they bite, you got yourself an extra $250. If they don't, ask them what's the absolute best they can do; they may go for 10,500 - at that point close at 10,250 or thereabouts. You are eating into their (likely) margin in a fairly significant way, but there is some space there. Frankly, there isn't an exact pricing point - diamonds are relatively commoditised, but not perfectly. You have a fairly good example in these two: "commercially" they are very much the same; JA is asking a bit of a premium because they (or their supplier) spent some time selecting a particularly good set of proportions and they took a couple of extra images using a reflector viewer. At another vendor, these two may be exactly the same price. ETA: the price is reasonable for internet-based vendors. It could be significantly more if you were shopping on the high street.
  14. I cannot see any hearts or arrows... and neither can anyone else without an H&A viewer 😉 H&A is a very specific cutting symmetry pattern, but it doesn't always make a diamond displaying H&A a great diamond. It's possible that both A and B display it, and it's possible that neither does. What I mean by contrast is the pattern of very bright and very dark areas alternating within a diamond. The video of diamond B displays a nice contrast 'black star' - which may be an indication that it has H&A symmetry, but it's not necessarily the case. In the video of diamond A there is no such display of contrast, but it's not clear whether that is because of the lighting or because of the stone proportions. Having to choose between the two, I'd rather pick the one that shows something, although in reality (or under different lighting) the other one may be just as nice. I don't find list of criteria like the one you posted above very useful; it's not that any are 'wrong' by themselves (although the table range is unnecessarily restrictive - perfectly nice diamonds with tables of 52-54% and 58-60%, for example), but it's how the proportions work together that makes a nice diamond nice. Yes, the reason why I (slightly) prefer B is because A's crown is a little steeper and the table is a little larger, but if (say) the table % had been reversed I would still have recommended B, so it's not the 36 or the 58 by themselves; it's how they play with the rest. On prices - unless the $500 are a big impact on your budget, I'd spend the extra money, but I'm well known for being a cut sucker snob. You can also try to negotiate with JA saying that you are very uncertain between two diamonds, and theirs is more expensive by $500...
  15. I like the crown proportions better (slightly smaller table and slightly shallower angle), but it's marginal. Also the contrast pattern in the video seems very nice; difficult to compare it to the other one, as the lighting is very different, but I'm pretty confident that B is a very nicely cut stone (so is A, but with less evidence to support it, and proportions that are less appealing to me)
  16. Both look very nice. Assuming they are the same price, I would pick B, but it's not a strong preference.
  17. Only to a VERY limited and uninfluential degree unless one is a diamond cutter - and that limited degree is in no way detectable from a lab report: "flawless" for clarity purposes does not at all imply that the atomic lattice is perfectly structured - plenty of 'flawless' Type IaA diamonds that contain significant amounts of nitrogen and contain grain boundaries. None of that is measurable through a 'hardness chart' (whatever that may be). Which begs the other question: how is this in any way relevant to the OP's question?
  18. What exactly does this mean? I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to me. By and large, hardness in a crystalline diamond is nothing to do with clarity or glare.
  19. There are 3 potential issues with the stone: 1. The clarity - there is a huge feather going right through the table, which is why IGI has graded it I2. The issue here isn't just the visibility of the inclusion, but the risk to integrity, especially when setting the stone (if you intend to put into a piece of jewellery).# 2. The colour - in two sub-aspects: a. Its distribution - it seems to be quite unevenly distributed (not just in the large photo - look at the top part of the stone in the smaller photo) b. The actual hue. I think IGI have been quite benign by not calling it brown-something-or-other, which of course would depress the price 3. The cut. Which we know little about, other than a fair amount of weight is hidden in the girdle, and it's nicely square. No idea if it is lively or not... At $450, it may be a good price if you like it and you don't mind any of the risks above. I could see some "appraiser" or other telling you it's worth $3,000, but I don't see it selling at that price, considering the I2 and the brownish tint.
  20. And this is relevant to the OP's question in which way?
  21. Some. It's not by chance that white gold and platinum became popular in the early 20th century, as diamonds became more widespread (and before then many diamonds were set in silver anyway). On the other hand, if the diamond is well cut - which is far more common today than it was 100 years ago - it should reflect most light internally, and the colour of the prongs should be irrelevant. Personally, I don't see that much of a difference in the colour of the stone - visually, the yellow gold tips are definitely more contrasting and they do make a (usually small) difference to the look. That is a question that only you/your girlfriend can answer. I can only point out that the person wearing the ring is generally the one with the biggest share of the vote... 😉
  22. Yes, there is a difference. Very likely the Tiffany setting is fabricated (built from wire soldered together) rather than cast - and matched to the stone more carefully, and finished better. Plenty of people other than Tiffany that can build something to that standard. Or in between. Or better.
  23. I think you are mixing up two things - one is the design of the setting: a 'pure' martini setting with a large stone will tend to be uncomfortable because the pointed base of the setting will have to be pulled into your ear with some force to counteract its own weight and the weight of the stone (and conversely, whatever you put on the other side to hold the post will have to be pushed with some force into the back of your earlobe). So people modify the design, giving it a more stable, wider base. Which makes it no longer look like a martini setting, but it's comfortable. I've also seen people use transparent plastic discs that sit between the bottom of the setting and the earlobe, but in my opinion they look a bit naff. The second is 'who' can provide it, and the answer is that if you are spending several tens of thousands in stones, people will source you the setting you want, or have it made. The real 'conflict', in my opinion, is that the 'martini' design, with a pointed base and using light gauge wires, often with only 3 prongs, was invented to hold small stones... and over 2 ct is definitely not small. The only recommendations I would give you are: 1) to pay as much attention to the back of the earrings as to the front; a larger back will be more effective at supporting/stiffening the earlobe and spreading the load - not to mention making the earring safer/less difficult to lose; and 2) to privilege - at least a bit - comfort vs. appearance. My wife has plenty of earrings she liked 'in the box' that she doesn't wear much as she finds them uncomfortable after a couple of hours.
  24. I think the problem may be to find more 1.50 ovals in your chosen jeweller's inventory... there are a lot of upsides in using a small local boutique, but there are also downsides. Would they be prepared to call in a couple more stones to show you? If so, and time isn't pressing, I would ask them to do that - then you can make a more informed decision. BTW - be prepared for a better cut 1.50 to be more expensive - but also consider the proportions with the side stones and your GF's finger/hand.
×
×
  • Create New...