Advice on a diamond analysis

[kingo102]

Hi All,

I've been reading quite a bit on diamond selection and the various parameters that describe a diamond's performance. Would love to know everyone's thoughts on this diamond, which I've called in and has had an analysis by a jeweller here in Australia (Idealscope and OGI Firetrace).

The details of the stone:

Cost: $13400USD
Colour: G
Carat: 1.50
Cut: GIA Excellent
Clarity: SI1
Polish/Symmetry/Fluorescence: Ex / Ex / None







I'm really after a bright diamond with good light performance. Would this represent good value? All comments welcome, I'm very new to this.

Cheers

 

[04diamond<3]

Personally, I just want to grab a toothbrush and scrub that stone! If you don't think it'd bother you then get it...but that's my opinion. It's cut beautifully, but I wouldn't get a stone that looked so dirty and milky. Maybe it's just me... how about this as another option?

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/10248/

 

[kingo102]

04diamond,

Thankyou for the reply. To be honest, until you mentioned it I hadn't noticed what would appear to be a slight cloudiness on the table. I'm wondering whether or not that may be part of a bad photo rather than anything else though, because there is a video the jeweller showed me of the stone that does not reveal said cloudiness. I've added another photo of the diamond below:



Light performance wise though this does seem the goods? I've also inquired about the clarity, and the (reputable) jeweller assures me it is eyeclean.

Ideally I was looking to stay in the G colour range too.

Thanks for your comments, greatly appreciated.

 

[04diamond<3]

I guess the picture's a bit better, but not much...I'm still not a fan. If it's an SI1, you shouldn't be able to see any inclusions without 10x magnification. Here's a G:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9549/

 

[JulieN]

Gorgeous! No clouds listed as the major inclusions, so it shouldn't look hazy; probably just the photography, so ask the jeweler to double check on that.

 

[kingo102]

That's a nice rock 04, a little out of my price range though unfortunately!

 

[justginger]

It does look almost milky - like unflattering effects of fluoro. But there is no fluoro. I don't know, I don't really like it either. It just looks off.

 

[kingo102]

Hi all, thanks for your comments, they're really appreciated. The jeweller (Jogia Diamonds) has assured me it is not hazy or milky in any way. His response below:

"Please see attached for a photograph of the diamond under overhead lighting. The diamond is defintely not cloudly, hazy or milky in anyway.
In fact, visually speaking, it is better than a lot of VS2s as you can not see any inclusions from the side.
"



To me, it seems like there are quite a few twinning wisps. Would this be causing a problem? He assures me it is not visually cloudy, but I'm only going by these photos! All thoughts welcome.

Cheers,
David

 

[04diamond<3]

Again - I'd really drop this one. What was sent to you is supposed to be a glamour shot and it looks terrible in that!

 

[SMC]

It seems like it would be hazy. I think you can find a better SI1.

 

[JulieN]

I prefer many small inclusions over one big one. How is the return policy, you should check out for your self.

 

[kingo102]

Thanks guys, that was my gut feeling too. Such a shame because the cut is great. Thoughts on my second option? Have posted a pic and cert below:

Carat: 1.50
Colour: H
Cut: GIA Ex
GIA 3X
Clarity: Si1

Crown: 33.5
Pav: 41.0
Table: 57%
Depth: 61.1%

 

[04diamond<3]

Your second option looks far more promising! It's clean and scored a 1.1 on the HCA!

 

[kingo102]

04diamond thanks again for your advice, this is a very difficult process!

JulieN, unfortunately their return policy and my location does not allow for an "in-person" inspection. This is all being done by photos

 

[yssie]

Wisps are funny inclusions... they can look wretched in photos but disappear in-person, and truly have no practical, visible effects on brilliance. I didn't believe it possible until I owned one. The fact that this little guy was (reputably!) graded SI1 makes me think it's worth having shipped out to see in-person, if that's at all possible.

I don't love the second. The table inclusion isn't visible in the photo because the mains are obstructing (darken because they're reflecting what's directly in front of them - the dark camera) w/ the camera at close range, so it's black on black. Tilt the stone slightly and the mains turn silvery and I'm certain that inclusion becomes considerably more visible - it's a larger stone w/ larger facets so less busy-bee twinkle to distract you.