Jump to content

Advice needed to purchase a SI2 diamond


ylmhwd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have found a 1.86 ct, F color, excellent cut, SI2 diamond. Grading report is from IGI which I know some people don't prefer but I'm okay as long as the diamond looks brilliant and eye clean. It is listed for $9610 which fits well in my budget.

Here's the link for diamond (on hold) and attached is the idealscope image -

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.86-carat-f-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3366891

 

Thanks so much!

3366891.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all likelihood, the imperfection will be eye visible, especially once the stone gets a little dirty.  If eye clean is something you are striving for, you might be better served by dropping a color to G or H and increasing the quality to SI1.  You may have to drop the overall size a bit to get back to that number. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the reply from their in-house gemologist after looking at the diamond images/videos. The diamond is currently overseas -

"I am not seeing any extra inclusions on 3366891, but the inclusions do reflect and show on the opposite side. I had a supervisor review the diamond as well and it is eye clean."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Sorry that's an excerpt from our chat. I asked about if there is any other inclusion detected from attached idealscope image and he said no other inclusion other than what's on report.)

They will inspect it in-house before shipping. The expert was in NY office, not overseas. Since the diamond is currently overseas they can't examine it in-person right now. They examined using images and 360 degree video of diamond.

3366891.jpg

Edited by ylmhwd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that their return policy is pretty agreeable, but I would encourage you to read it carefully, just in case.  The issue is the grading.  The difference between a F/SI2 and a G/I-1 is more than a third.  That’s a fair amount to bet on a lab that you admit you don’t trust, and a gemologist who is both working for the seller and isn’t even looking at the stone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! This makes sense, I checked the prices for G/I-1 diamonds graded by GIA and they fall in the same range as this diamond although they were clearly nowhere near eye clean. I guess I don't want to take any chances. I'll buy the one on which I've 100% confident.

Thanks all for your incredible advice! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi poster (and hi to everyone else :)...sorry for the long absence...hope I can get back into contributing to all of your wonderful posts...:()

For what it's worth, I like this stone - it's got allot going for it.

Its got a great cut / colour is top end / inclusion is a colourless crystal and off to the side / it's a hard carat size to come by / IGI cert makes it a bit cheaper / I'm thinking that you'd have to look pretty hard to see anything once you had it in a ring / etc.

I'd take a chance. And as denverappraiser said...you can always hold them to their return policy if you get it and you're not happy.

Hope this helps - good luck

Edited by ADN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aret2010 I did ask them and they define eye clean as no visible inclusion 8-10 inches away when facing the diamond from top.

@ADN Thanks for your advice. It helped gain my confidence in this diamond. For now, I have ordered it with a 6 prong setting (all other nice colors were way too expensive at this size with not so excellent cut). I'm okay with minor inclusions, good brilliance but not the yellow tint in color.

I will post pictures once I receive it. If it turns out to be bad buy, we always have the 30-day return policy ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just wanted to thank all of you for helping me make this decision! I’m glad I ordered this diamond, it’s beautiful and sparkly. Here are some pictures. It’s completely eye clean from top even when closest to my eyes, i can see one crystal from a side when 1 feet away from my face but it’s tiny, smaller than a pencil’s dot. Pictures are max zoom on my phone hence blurry. Anyway these pictures don’t do justice to the diamond :)1F2D7D35-926A-4808-AD2D-98107AB63A47.jpeg.a2907acac848b202358bb1b16c1a8141.jpeg

CC410504-7AFE-4846-93AB-358642E7C587.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I need help with one more thing, probably it’s just me nit picking but I’d like to know the impact of prong placement on light performance. I had asked to place prongs to cover maximum impact of inclusions but the octagonal facet on top of diamond looks tilted when facing from top. I have noticed on other ring images that 12’ and 6’o clock prongs are placed in the middle of octagon’s edges but mine are more towards corners. 

Hope I’m making some sense  

Does this impact the look and performance of diamond? 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light performance won't be affected. Looks might - in the sense that nature is rarely kind enough to place inclusions neatly symmetrically with respect to facets where they may most conveniently be hidden by a prong (and the cutter has other priorities).

Unfortunately, the dilemma has no solution: you may choose a more symmetrical point where to set the diamond, but that may not be the best way of hiding the inclusions, and your (fiancée's) personal preferences are the only things that should drive that decision.

All this said, there is no reason that the table should be tilted in the vertical sense. It may be rotated so that the prongs end up where the inclusions are, but if it is not flat then something is awry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Davide! I guess inclusions are so tiny that you need to know where to look in order to find them. Sorry the table is not tilted but rotated to hide inclusions, although I'm not sure if it is hiding anything.

I guess I'd like symmetrically placed prongs as those are more visible than inclusions. Is there an industry standard on placement of 6 prongs like in the attached pic? Is it preferable to put the prongs in this same way? Why or why not?

Snip20171022_1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an "industry standard", and it is what you have (and in the picture above): two pairs of prongs either side of the shank, and a pair at 90 degrees to the shank with a pair of star facets aligned to the shank and a pair aligned to the pair of prongs at 90 degrees to the shank. I have seen the prong arrangement rotated by 30 degrees (a pair of prongs "on" the shank and two pairs either side of the stone) precisely to hide inclusions, but the way your ring has been fabricated doing this would mean re-building the whole ring; rotating the stone is much easier (though of course if you rotate it by anything other than 45 degrees multiples then the table symmetry axes are no longer aligned to the shank).

The placement is very slightly asymmetrical on your ring, possibly to place one prong (or rather, its underside) right under the big dark crystal, which will reduce its visibility somewhat. Not as much as if you could cover it, but seeing its position that would mean a very very long prong tip... Also it's difficult to see in the photos, but it looks as if there is a feather or twinning wisp that is hidden by another prong. To get both inclusions aligned to a prong, it seems as if the setter had to rotate the stone a bit.

Could it have been done better? Probably not with this ring construction... but a real answer would require seeing the stone and the ring.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Davide. There’s no dark crystal but close to 6’o clock prong there are clear crystal which reflect on the opposite side as well. Another picture added. I guess what I wanted to say was the 12’o clock prong is not in between 2 arrows as in previous sample image rather it’s on top of one of the arrows. Does this badly impact the look? This is my very first purchase and I have 25 days to get any service done on this. I really appreciate your inputs. 55AFCD2E-4536-474F-8DBA-50C4B41C2EC2.jpeg.eb9ad544091efcb3ed40c520e22c900e.jpeg

B7F696AA-B9EE-43E5-A691-68C9C83E1655.jpeg

F98801A9-323E-4EF4-BC64-98B8616402C1.jpeg

Edited by ylmhwd
Loupe photo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In these photos it's clear that the stone is "misaligned" when considering symmetry - however, the extent to which this covers the inclusions can only be determined (if at all) by having the ring and the diamond for direct inspection. In terms of looks, only you can decide if it bothers you - I suspect anyone who doesn't know won't even notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guestimating, I would say upwards of 90% of diamonds are set with no regards to the symmetry of the stones lining up with the setting.  The only time this comes into play is when internet vendors, who sell stones where the arrows are apparent, take pictures for their customers to post online.  It makes for a prettier picture but does not affect the look of the ring unless that is what you are looking for.  Bear in mind that the vast majority of people don't.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with Laurent here and I would probably keep that percentage at 98%. One thing however that is certainly considered is to try and put inclusions under the prong and keep the laser inscription from coming under the prongs.

Also most people don't even know about arrows in diamonds and their alignment with the prongs and most don't even notice it for their entire lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...