Jump to content

What do you think of this diamond?


Recommended Posts

I'm looking for a diamond with the following specs:

CARAT: 1 minimum
COLOR: H minimum
CLARITY: SI2 minimum
BUDGET: $3,300 (does not include setting)

I've been researching online and so far this is the one I like (it says "Not Available" because I placed a hold on it):

What do you think? I see there's a white/light grey mark near the middle. Would that be visible to the naked eye?
Also, do you think this diamond would have a good sparkle? What concerns me is the fact that the depth is 66.90%. Is that a problem in terms of sparkle?

This is the setting I'd like to get:https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...-edge-pave-diamond-engagement-ring-item-49620

Please let me know what you think. Oh, and feel free to suggest other options if you think I can find something better.

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depth is not a good guidance to anything much, and it is mostly useless to determine sparkle or any other cut-related attributes. The videos are your best guide in this respect, but they are not super-easy to use for comparisons across stones (and especially across vendors because they will use different methods/techniques for filming.)

Personal opinion - I think the cloud (gray mark near the middle) will be visible to careful naked-eye inspection, but it won't be disturbing at a casual glance. However the only reliable way of assessing these things is through in-person viewing.

Edited by davidelevi
Added "not" to second sentence: videos are not super-easy to use for comparisons...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey mate - I think it's a pretty nice stone overall.

The main clarity grade setting inclusion is that one you mentioned - even though it's under the table, it's fairly soft - I wouldn't be too stressed about it - as Davide mentioned, I think you'll struggle to see it in real life. As far as SI2s go, in my opinion this one's pretty schmick.

It's a bit deep for my personal taste - I tend to like a stone sitting around 60% for depth. You want to look for a nice table/depth combination - but I look at many other aspects first and never eliminate stones based just on table/depth combos.  

That's the beauty of fancy shapes...there is no one 'best' cut - it's all about personal aesthetic preference. So if you like the way it looks in the video, and you can live with the colour/clarity/make & price, go for it.

Hope this helps


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall the proportions are nice.  Ovals tend to be a little deeper than rounds so the 66.9% depth is not an issue.  My only hesitation is the position of the imperfection.  Every oval has a bow tie; an area in the center of the stone where the scintillation is reduced because of the geometry of the stone.  Ideally we would want the imperfection to be in the more brilliant parts of the stone but in this case it is in the bow tie area and could potentially be more likely visible because of it.

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.

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.


  • Create New...