Opinion Needed 1.5

[Halp 0]

Dear all,

 

Can you please provide your opinion on this diamond?

 

1.5 ct, g color, vs1

Cut excellent

Symmetry excellent

Polish excellent

Fluorescent none

 

No other comments

 

Measurements. 7.41 -7.42 x 4.46 mm

 

Buying locally Diamond is around $13500 usd

 

Gia certificate

 

Online Holloway cut advisor score is 1.0

 

Think for an engagement ring the score should be between 1-2?

 

Is this a good cut? Is this diamond good? Will it sparkle and not be dull in natural light?

 

Please and thank you in advance for your thoughts!

[davidelevi 588]

Online Holloway cut advisor score is 1.0

 

Think for an engagement ring the score should be between 1-2?

The HCA is irrelevant when it comes to choosing (it was developed as a reject tool), and in any case its creator very clearly says that all scores below 2 are to be considered equal. There is no special consideration for "engagement ring" in terms of cut.

 

Is this a good cut? Is this diamond good? Will it sparkle and not be dull in natural light?

 

Please and thank you in advance for your thoughts!

It looks like a truly well cut diamond. The H&A images are not perfect, but it's difficult to understand whether it's an effect of the photo or something in the diamond - in any case, it's nothing that you will see without an H&A viewer. It's likely to be very bright.

[Halp 0]

Thank you for your reply!

 

I was at first concerned with the proportions that too much light would seep through the diamond. I've read so the brightest diamond cuts are in an extremely narrow range. And my table % and depth % do not fall between 54-57% and depth doesn't fall between 61-62.5%.

[davidelevi 588]

Table and depth have very little to do with light return/leakage. It's (mostly) all in the angles, and they are fine.

 

Table % will influence the looks and I personally would prefer a diamond with a smaller table, but this one looks (on paper) as a very very nice stone. Bear in mind that a smaller depth % translates in a larger-looking diamond, so it's not a bad thing (provided it's within reason, which this one is, absolutely).

[Halp 0]

Thank you Davidelevi for your quickly reply. I'll make arrangements to see the diamond in person to make sure it is a bright looking diamond. I read Gia certificates do not mention milky hazes / bgm? Is that easy to spot for the average diamond shopper or will it rely on the vendors experience and credibility to let me know there is no milky haze?

 

Anything else to specifically look for when I sight this? Thank you once again!

[Halp 0]

Table and depth have very little to do with light return/leakage. It's (mostly) all in the angles, and they are fine.

 

Table % will influence the looks and I personally would prefer a diamond with a smaller table, but this one looks (on paper) as a very very nice stone. Bear in mind that a smaller depth % translates in a larger-looking diamond, so it's not a bad thing (provided it's within reason, which this one is, absolutely).

Dear David,

 

After reading your comments, I went to ask for another diamond. I only have the Gia certificate for this diamond. Between these two, which one would you pick as a starter to go inspect? Thank you once again!

 

The 1.5 g vs1 $ 13500 usd

 

Or

 

The below 1.53 h vs1. $12600 usd

 

ROUND BRILLIANT

 

Measurements

7.36 - 7.38 x 4.58 mm

1.53 carat

Color H

Clarity: VS1

Cut Grade: Excellent

 

Depth: 62.1 %

Table: 57 %

Crown Angle: 35.0°

Crown Height: 15.5%

Pavilion Angle: 40.8°

Pavilion Depth: 43.0%

Star Length: 50%

Lower Half: 80%

Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 4.0%

Culet: None

 

Polish:Excellent

Symmetry: Excellent

Fluorescence: None

 

Clarity Characteristics

Feather, Cloud, Needle

 

COMMENTS

 

Additional clouds are not shown. Pinpoints are not shown.

[davidelevi 588]

I would go and see them both. If they are from the same vendor, tell them that you expect to see more than one stone, in fact, more than two... those two plus at least another one.

 

FWIW, I would prefer the first one on paper, but the other one is not bad at all.

 

FWIW2, macroscopic haze due to inclusions or graining is very apparent, and I would say impossible in a VS1. Whether the diamond has GOOD transparency or not is something you really can only judge by seeing it. My reference is a piece of really clear water ice - does the diamond remind you of that, or it's murkier?

[LaurentGeorge 112]

Interestingly I would probably opt for the second stone, but would love to see them side by side.  I thing the slightly increased depth and smaller table will give the stone a hair more brilliance which should easily compensate for the slight difference in color.  If you can, see them both.  As Davide says, it is impossible to have haze due to inclusions in a VS1.  The only other possible cause for a haze might be strong blue fluorescence, but neither of these stones has fluo, so it is a non-issue.

I'm curious to see which of the two you prefer.

[Halp 0]

Thx davidelevi and Laurentgeorge for your feedback. I have made arrangements to see the diamond. However my seller doesn't have an idealscope for me to use. Only a lupe. Would a newbie to diamonds like me be even able to benefit from using an idealscope? Or just using a lupe to make sure the diamond is clean would be sufficient?

[davidelevi 588]

It depends on how important an idealscope image is to you... frankly, I would politely ask - no, request - actually, positively demand! - that the vendor has more than one comparable stone to show you, rather than worrying about tools. There is such a thing as personal taste, and I for one sometimes prefer stones that wouldn't show perfect reflector images but have other charms.

 

At the end of the day, neither of you is going to wear an idealscope or a loupe fixed to your eye, so I would focus on how good the thing looks with the naked eye and on whether you can see the differences with other stones. A loupe is good to have - but again with a VS1 any concern on clarity is groundless.

 

FWIW, you can buy an ASET (which IMHO is more useful and easier to "read" than the idealscope) for the princely sum of $25 via AGS: https://www.americangemsociety.org/en/newhandheldaset

[denverappraiser 488]

Thx davidelevi and Laurentgeorge for your feedback. I have made arrangements to see the diamond. However my seller doesn't have an idealscope for me to use. Only a lupe. Would a newbie to diamonds like me be even able to benefit from using an idealscope? Or just using a lupe to make sure the diamond is clean would be sufficient?

It's a  GIA-VS1. It will be 'clean'.  Based on your above questions, that isn't even one of your concerns.  

[LaurentGeorge 112]

As mentioned above, the clarity is not a concern as the stones are VS1.  Reflector based images and tools (ASET and IS) are great tools used by internet vendors to show how well (or poorly) stones perform when you cannot see them or compare them live.  The ASET is also included on AGSL reports but the reality is that only a small fraction of the stones you might see will have AGS grading reports.  The other reality is that brick and mortar store owners rarely even know what these tools are, let alone have them or know how to use them.  There are of course exceptions but I am talking about the overwhelming majority. 

[Halp 0]

Thank you all for your feedback. From the sounds of it, both diamonds will be decent and I should just see which one appeals to me more in person.

 

I don't think my vendor will have any of those tools mentioned above for me to use. It would be nice though.

 

I guess I'm comparing a tad better cut vs a tad better color.

 

Thank you all for your tips. Hopefully I pick the better diamond.

 

I also ran a test on a website. Do these mean anything much or no since the variables should be looked at together?

 

First image is 1.53 h vs1

 

2nd image is 1.5 g vs1

Edited June 12, 2017 by Halp

[davidelevi 588]

Personal opinion: any and all rules of thumb - whether they have validity or not (and very few have any, IMHO) - are totally irrelevant against physical observation and comparison.

[LaurentGeorge 112]

This is my opinion, 100% mine, in order to take expert advice you should contact expert specialized in this field.

 

One my question, is this a place with experts?

Before posting another completely nonsensical post, please spend a few minutes browsing the forum.  You may learn a thing or two about the people who post and the advice that is given.

[ronk15a 23]

FWIW: Out of the two I would go with the first one. The 59% over 60.1% - Will be bright (I love brightness) only second to transparency. (ice cold water)! Davide’s analogy!!  Nice one Davide…

The 60.1% TD will allow for a nice spread without sacrificing any optics/performance.

FWIW2: It’s also very close to a 60/60 (one of my fav’s) in regards to T&D – IMHO  *The angles work well here!

[ronk15a 23]

nothing wrong with a simple: (below) that's cool too!

 

 

57/34.5

15

40.6/61.5

none

thin to medium

50/80

[davidelevi 588]

22 minutes ago, eloise.lily said:

I am thinking, this is a place to share an expert with you a to get review, [redacted] is a place to get opinion, I am sure they will give you one of the best opinions and they are reliable and experienced ones.

eloise.lily - why don't you read the forum rules regarding advertising and posting about other diamond information sites?

That aside, would you like to explain what is your connection to the site you mention, and why you think that any advice obtained there would be more reliable or experienced than what can be gotten here?

Edited July 7, 2017 by davidelevi