SI1 diamonds, surface graining and cloud comments

[Tomdiamond 0]

Dndn

Edited June 19, 2020 by Tomdiamond
Change

[davidelevi 599]

Both the H are nicely cut, at least as nicely as the J; I prefer the 1.15, which has more contrast (which I like); the 1.09 and the J are more uniformly bright. Other people may prefer that.

The 1.15 is also the one that has more potential to be not eye-clean. However this is not something that can be determined reliably via a video or photo: you (and ideally it has to be you, not someone else) have to see the diamond.

Sometimes GIA does not plot all internal characteristics because they are so diffused (or there are so many) that they would mess up the plot - the purpose of the plot is to allow identification of the stone, not that of providing indications on transparency or visibility of inclusions to the naked eye. Neither H seem to have cloudiness or haziness issues in as far as it can be seen in a video - again not the ideal way of looking for these things. My guess is that either H will be just on the border of OK for clarity and transparency.

The J is cleaner, but it's definitely going to look a bit more tinted when compared. Again, whether you see it and in which conditions is very much an individual thing. Of the 3, given a good return policy (which BN has), I would bet on the 1.15 being the nicest overall stone. YMMV.

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by davidelevi

[Tomdiamond 0]

13 minutes ago, davidelevi said:

Both the H are nicely cut, at least as nicely as the J; I prefer the 1.15, which has more contrast (which I like); the 1.09 and the J are more uniformly bright. Other people may prefer that.

The 1.15 is also the one that has more potential to be not eye-clean. However this is not something that can be determined reliably via a video or photo: you (and ideally it has to be you, not someone else) have to see the diamond.

Sometimes GIA does not plot all internal characteristics because they are so diffused (or there are so many) that they would mess up the plot - the purpose of the plot is to allow identification of the stone, not that of providing indications on transparency or visibility of inclusions to the naked eye. Neither H seem to have cloudiness or haziness issues in as far as it can be seen in a video - again not the ideal way of looking for these things. My guess is that either H will be just on the border of OK for clarity and transparency.

The J is cleaner, but it's definitely going to look a bit more tinted when compared. Again, whether you see it and in which conditions is very much an individual thing. Of the 3, given a good return policy (which BN has), I would bet on the 1.15 being the nicest overall stone. YMMV.

 

Thanks. For eye clean, what in particular concerns you about the 1.15?

[davidelevi 599]

The general amount of "stuff". Twinning wisps are wispy, but when there's a lot of them there is potential to see something from an angle or another.

In particular, I thought the wisp that ends on the facet at 10 o'clock (or its reflection at 4 o'clock - or is it the original? This is why a video is not good...) was quite visible - then again, it's 20-25x and the stone is loose. Once set, everything will be less visible (usually).

[davidelevi 599]

40 minutes ago, Love Wedding Bands said:

Engagement rings are a mark of your proposal and most of us want to make the promise of a lifetime in style. While choosing a ring for your lover [spam link removed], you need to be careful about whether your partner would love the ring enough to wear it for a lifetime or not.

Well, the first things first. Choose the best diamond that looks stunning and befits your budget. Apart from the selection of diamond you need to go through the types of ring settings and overall styling of it. By choosing a certain style or setting, you can actually accentuate the look of the entire ring, making it extra special for your partner.

Apart from the fact that the OP has actually removed his post because his question had been answered - 6 months ago - but how is that even barely relevant to a discussion on clarity? Your post has been reported for spamming