Got Diamond Questions?
Our community of diamond experts are here to provide answers
KW318

What are your thoughts on the cut proportions, light return, and IdealScope?

Recommended Posts

2.054 carat, round, triple Ex, $18k

Depth: 60.6%

Table: 57%

Crown angle: 34%

Pavillion angle: 40.6%

Diameter: 8.21 to 8.24mm

Girdle: Thin to Medium 3%

HCA: 0.6

1) Are the proportions any good for light return? I hear ideal CA is 34.3 to 34.9%, PA is 40.6 to 40.9%, Depth is 59-61.8%, and table is 54-57%. This is the closest I could find.

2) How are the IdealScopes? 

Thank you! Let me know if you need further details.

IMG_9939.jpg.8fc8ceb499a7196a434b5db3f6463a8b.jpgIMG_9938.jpg.729772115fe9d9d1c36e89d09117442f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proportions on paper are fine (and please ignore any list of "numbers" that you may find; at best they reflect personal preferences). The reflector images are not IdealScope but H&A viewer and say quite clearly that the stone is not H&A. Does it matter? You decide.

Can you see the diamond in person? Or is this a remote sale?


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies, Furqan Shafi and davidelevi.

Here is a photo of the inclusions. Do you think it will be noticeable with the naked eye?

Image.png.8289bb2ebd8160c4b22cc7981538b2d9.png

image2.png.c39da28dbffd077678f3880a464fc8a8.pngGIA.png.e8c7d8fc62292cf86610366f912846ad.png

It is a remote sale. I wish I could see the diamond in person because I am worried about the inclusion not being eye-clean. Would you recommend that I request for an actual IdealScope or other types of images?

Thanks again.

Edited by KW318

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be eye clean - but I don't put stones with centre table inclusion above because they have good ideal scope images and some arbitrary light return criteria. 

If you're paying a considerable premium for a stone with these proportions but with a centre inclusion like that - I would reconsider.


Swanstar Diamonds.
http://www.swanstar.com.au
Melbourne, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I'm very relieved that it will be eye clean! I am new to purchasing a diamond, but what detriments will I have if there is an inclusion in the center table? Is it because the re-sale value will be significantly affected?

The 4Cs are 2.05c, Round triple Ex, G, and SI1 for $18000 US dollars. Also, the diameter is 0.1-0.2mm larger than the average 2ct seen online through my search; I am hoping that the diameter could bump up the value.

Overall, is this diamond a good value despite the center inclusion? In comparison, other 2 carat diamonds with similar proportions and G or better color are about $2000-$3000 more in cost. That is why I am considering this stone. Thanks again for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cons:

Strong blue. Difficult to resell. 

Centre table inclusions.

These are the main cons according to people who work in the industry

Pros:

Better proportions and potential light return according to some people on an internet forum.

 

Good luck. 


Swanstar Diamonds.
http://www.swanstar.com.au
Melbourne, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for your expertise and breaking it down for my understanding. 

I haven't really considered re-selling. However, that is actually something important to consider since this is basically a commodity investment. Do you know how much the industry would buy this back for if the diamond is in original condition? I'm guessing if I lose more than half of its value... I may consider looking for a better stone.

Again, thank you for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that's a comparative bargain to other similar stones is the fluorescence and possibly the market where you're shopping. The diameter has nothing to do with it. You'll take a hit for the fluoro, but you're getting a discount too.  If you're decently skilled at selling you probably could get half of it back on resale but that has as much to do with you as it does the stone. No, it's not a commodity investment. It's a consumer purchase. That's true of 'better' stones as well. Buying diamonds is easy. Selling diamonds is hard. 


Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

 

There's never a crowd when you go that extra mile.

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2018 at 7:42 AM, davidelevi said:

Proportions on paper are fine (and please ignore any list of "numbers" that you may find; at best they reflect personal preferences). The reflector images are not IdealScope but H&A viewer and say quite clearly that the stone is not H&A. Does it matter? You decide.

Can you see the diamond in person? Or is this a remote sale?

How is the H&A image? Is it excellent? Decent? Poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just tilt - the hearts are misshapen/cloven all over.

8 hours ago, KW318 said:

What will a strong blue fluorescence do to the diamond?

It may give it a blue tinge in UV-rich environments (daylight) and/or it may give a hazy/smoky/oily appearance to the stone (rare, but it does happen). Commercially, as Neil said, it may be a wash (you get a discount now, but it is more difficult to resell later).


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still trying to decide if this is worth the $18k. I can live with the inclusion on the table since it will eye-clean.

My main concern is:

1) light return - the message is clear in this forum about the "ideal" but arbitrary proportions may not mean anything. What would define excellent light return? Only through images of IdealScope or ASET? If so, I should purchase a scope for this diamond and return it if the light return is poor. What are your thoughts?

2) blue fluorescence in daylight - I love the discount... but I've watched some videos of strong and very strong blue fluorescence and not sure if she'd like the blue fluorescence. From your experience, do fiances-to-be mind?

Thanks again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can live with centre table inclusion and strong fluorescence you should, quite frankly, be able to live with anything. you are asking wrong questions about light return when there are other serious concerns like inclusion pattern and strong fluorescence which are discounting this diamond. The diamond appears blue under the sun. That impacts fire and brilliance. You should go out and have a strong blue fluorescent diamond out in the sun and see if you still like it. If you do then that's fine. 

Imagine sun - it's bright and brilliant and firey because it's white - now make it light blue - is it the same?


Swanstar Diamonds.
http://www.swanstar.com.au
Melbourne, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furqan - I have to disagree on this. The fact of having a blue tinge does not necessarily make the diamond any less bright or brilliant even in natural light - unless it's an overblue and turns hazy (in which case all bets are off, but the discount offered does not seem to bear this out).

I do agree with you that the focus here seems to be on different attributes than what you or I would consider important "commercially", and that there is a risk of KW318 being "stuck" on this stone when he should probably let go.

Some photos of a strong blue in different lighting conditions - YMMV:

 

 

Edited by davidelevi

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David - under UV when the stone turns blue - same phenomenon as a comparable M colored stone (especially non yellow hues) will be less bright than a colour less or near color less stone. Light coming out from a colorless surface is purer than a colored surface, no?


Swanstar Diamonds.
http://www.swanstar.com.au
Melbourne, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See photos I linked above for what I think is a couple of fairly realistic representation of what happens in "good" fluorescent stones. (Sorry; I was editing and adding info to my previous very curt post as you were answering).

My view is that while it is theoretically true, in practice even very strongly coloured diamonds (and I mean fancy vivid and deep) show significant light return. A strong blue fluorescent at most is equivalent to a light/fancy light blue and attenuates any light return very marginally if at all. Whether one likes the effect (which I agree is different from a "pure white") is a completely different question.


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for the insight and the photos!! I genuinely appreciate all of your help. I prefer steering away from strong blue fluorescence now. Looking at diamonds have become an interesting hobby after work lately. There's something about it that keeps me wanting to know more about it.

Also, these replies have really got me searching for one without table inclusions and cannot find any within this price range. It seems I may have to increase my budget...

Question 1) Any tips for how to shop for a diamond online if the cut proportions are arbitrary? 

 

I stumbled on this one: 2ct, G, SI2, Triple Ex, and no fluorescence for $17k. What do you think?

Compiled.png.db99737533ed748c404467d1019a2de9.png

Even though there is no fluorescence, I am guessing this one is cheaper (by $1k) because of having more inclusions than the first diamond in the forum posted above.

Question 2: Are the inclusions on this second diamond affecting structural integrity in any way? It is an SI1 and it looks like some of the feathers may span from the crown to the pavilion.

Question 3: Are these inclusions considered eye-clean? The brown inclusions circled at 2 o'clock and 5 o'clock look like it can be seen with the naked eye. The 2 areas circled within the table may look eye-clean... not sure.

Question 4: How is the IdealScope? I see some slight white areas in the bottom of the table, but otherwise pretty good.

Question 5: If on a budget, do you prefer the first diamond or second one in this form?

I will continue my search for a diamond around $20k to see if I can find one without table inclusions. Crossing my fingers.

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diamonds are priced per carat. And that's a good way of comparing prices of similarly sized diamonds (not including premium sizes)

Your original diamond is a 8780 dollars per carat. Your other diamond is a 8500 dollar per carat. You go one clarity down - that also Si1 to SI2, that is a significant downgrade but you go few places up in flourescence that is an upgrade. 

For a stone with significant table inclusions I am not sure if it's a great price. But the cut is no doubt superior. Idealscope is also A one. But I can't be sure if it's eye clean. Once again you're asking questions that revolve around internet forums to people who work in the industry. Would I buy this stone for my stock? No. Would it be easy to sell to someone whose primary preference is idealscope, HCA <2 and tolkowsky ideal proportions and charge a premium for it? Yes.


Swanstar Diamonds.
http://www.swanstar.com.au
Melbourne, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Furqan. I'm getting a better understanding of the way you think. How much would you price each of these diamonds per carat? I want to know how much I may be overpaying since one with a better quality is jumping up about $7k so far from online retailers. 

I've been to a few jewelry stores and the quality they carry does not meet these two for the same price. For example, a few different ones I've visited in the Jewelry District of Downtown Los Angeles use Rapaport pricing matrix. They use a multiplier (E.g., 75%) and tell you they're discounting 25% (cash price) from the Rapaport and call it a day. Also, they never talk about cut proportions. They lump all diamonds as one ideal cut. I feel like it's such a gimmick. 

Ex: F, SI2, 2.01 ct, Triple Ex. The price was around $17k cash out the door (originally ~$22-24k) with many inclusions on the table. In comparison

Ex: G, SI1, 2.05 ct, Triple Ex - $20.5k out the door

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rapaport pricing is a legitimate way of pricing goods. It used to be used for only wholesalers and Business to Business transactions but when recession hit and businesses would do about anything to win a customer started giving out trade secrets and methods and started disclosing rapaport discounts. 

A 25% discount on Triple Ex-None diamond for diamonds upto SI1 (below that varies ALOT with inclusions patterns, milkiness, black inclusions etc) in a retail shop is a good price. 

You will not see the industry emphasizing on your/internet forum criteria of cut in the same way. However tolkowsky ideal proportions will not come cheap. It's not that they cost more for the cutters to produce, only rough diamonds which can luckily attain those ideals without sacrificing too much rough are cut that way - but they bring in more profits. However you will not get those profit back on a resell. 


Swanstar Diamonds.
http://www.swanstar.com.au
Melbourne, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now