davidelevi 590 Report post Posted November 13 Well, the reason why the plot looks clean is precisely the note: it means that there are too many clouds to be a useful identifying characteristic, or that the clouds are so large and diffused that again their location is not going to help to identify the stone - see the illustrative plots below: This said, it is not necessarily the case that the clouds have a detrimental effect on the appearance - in a VS2 I have never seen that happ en, but the proof of the pudding is in the seeing... FWIW, #4 is still my favourite. This last one is (marginally) less attractive in terms of cut, and is a bit more expensive for colour which I think you'd never see once set. 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
FLGIRL 0 Report post Posted November 13 My concern with #4 is the flourescence, even though its faint. Thanks for your valuable input! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidelevi 590 Report post Posted November 13 What concerns you with fluorescence? You may find this GIA article on the topic interesting... https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/winter-1997-fluorescence-diamonds-moses 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
FLGIRL 0 Report post Posted November 14 I was advised that fluorescence is a negative on a 2 ct, G stone. That it would be okay for a smaller stone. Do you disagree? Thank you! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidelevi 590 Report post Posted November 15 Yes, I heartily disagree! 🙂 First of all, if there is any negative effect from fluorescence, it will not be dependent on the size of the stone - it will be an observable issue (haziness/oiliness; colour difference), so I'm afraid that whoever gave you that advice didn't know their backside from their elbow. Secondly, bear in mind that "faint" fluorescence is exactly that: it's so faint that GIA is not able to say what colour the fluorescence is. (Thirdly - do read the article I linked above; the two main conclusions are: 1) finding a stone where fluorescence impacts transparency is quite difficult, and it doesn't happen unless the fluorescence is Strong or Very Strong. 2) most people preferred the look of fluorescent stones to that of equivalent non-fluorescent ones) 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
FLGIRL 0 Report post Posted November 15 Very intersting, thank you! So flourescence is just getting a bad rep.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidelevi 590 Report post Posted November 15 (edited) Yep. In many ways. There are reasons to "trust but verify" with Strong and Very Strong (of all colours), and yellow or green fluorescence in anything but a yellow or green stone can have unpleasant effects. But "faint" is... faint! Edited 18 hours ago by davidelevi Typo ("of" instead of "or") 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
FLGIRL 0 Report post Posted November 18 How does this one look (on paper)? I don't have pictures yet. Are there any red flags, reasons I should not consider it? $22,500 https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=6351456268 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidelevi 590 Report post Posted November 18 No red flags. In this company you have better cut ones on paper... (#4, #1, #2 - at least for me). "Real life" can be different, and there's price to be considered. 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
FLGIRL 0 Report post Posted November 18 I thought this seemed like a good price, no? This is from a "real person" about 2 hours away. Did you say the other ones (4,1, and 2) are better cut? These diamonds go so fast, by the time I want to see them, they're sold! Must be a lot of people looking for similar diamonds! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidelevi 590 Report post Posted November 18 (edited) Sorry, my comment was not clear - what I meant is that the price of the other stones may be higher or lower and I think you only posted the price of some. This is perfectly reasonable, especially if it comes from a high street jeweller. Yes, on paper I would rather have #4. This one and #2 are quite similar, I'd say; a small personal preference for the narrower table and higher crown of #2. And #1 is slightly different but still very well cut. None of them is even marginally close to "poorly cut"! A well cut, colourless, eye-clean round around 2 carats with Christmas a month away (and people locked in their homes) is bound to be relatively popular... Edited November 18 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
FLGIRL 0 Report post Posted November 19 Thank you, I think this is the one! I'm going to see it Saturday, hoping to get some pictures today.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidelevi 590 Report post Posted November 19 Keeping my fingers crossed... 🙂 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
FLGIRL 0 Report post Posted Tuesday at 01:50 AM (edited) That stone is no longer available. This one is, and it's in stock. I think it may be the one. $20,500. Thoughts? Thank you! https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=5176263304 Edited Tuesday at 01:55 AM by FLGIRL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidelevi 590 Report post Posted Tuesday at 08:45 AM Proportions look good on paper. Twinning wisps are usually quite benign - as in: invisible to the naked eye - but the proof of this pudding is in the seeing. Price is reasonable for an eye-clean SI1 I hope this is "the one"! 1 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
