Found a 3 carat round super ideal cut I IF diamond for ~$37k

[Diamond_Enthusiast]

Hey all. I want to say I am so pleasantly overwhelmed and I have so much gratitude for everyone that had helped me out in this thread. I have learned so much and I am so glad I came here! I spoke to my GF and and she would prefer an H over an I.
The two
Choices were
1.

3.22 Carat I VVS2 Round Brilliant Natural Diamond GIA Certified Affinity Cut - D47130964

3.22 carat, Round, I Color, VVS2 clarity, GIA Certified Diamond, Affinity Cut Natural Diamond, D47130964

www.adiamor.com

2.

3.02 Carat H VVS2 Round Brilliant Natural Diamond GIA Certified Affinity Cut - D48357475

www.adiamor.com

I personally like the I better. But she would prefer an H diamond. So do you think that’s a good decision to go with the H even though the cut is not as good and it has SBF?

Have you tried requesting advanced images for these? Is so, please post it so we can help you. I think it'll help your decision and given Adiamor had a page on reading ASET images, they might able to provide one.

How To Read ASET Images for Loose Diamonds | Adiamor

Previously on the Adiamor blog, we spent some time breaking down the ASET image as a tool. However, one important topic we did not cover.

www.adiamor.com

I would try to get all the info I can to understand before spending nearly 40K on a stone.

With those two stones, I wouldn't say the I is a better cut than the H. From the photo, I actually see potentially quite a bit of obstruction on the I stone (see that circle of black between the arrows in the table).

The SBF on the H stone may or may not be a problem but this one is hard to call online. You need to see the stone in direct sunlight and various lighting (incl indoor lighting with UV) to know if overblue or any haziness. It is a VVS2 with pinpoint inclusions so it could potentially be ok. If it is SI with clouds, twinning wisps or internal graining, I would tell you no for sure especially if it also has SBF. Those inclusions I just mentioned are ones that can make a stone hazy with or without any fluorescence but fluor seem to make them show up more in UV. SBF doesn't automatically mean over blue or hazy.

If you do go with the H and it does have transparency issues, you might want to double check the returns policy. I think Adiamor says it is 30 days.

 

[nickdee]

Have you tried requesting advanced images for these? Is so, please post it so we can help you. I think it'll help your decision and given Adiamor had a page on reading ASET images, they might able to provide one.

How To Read ASET Images for Loose Diamonds | Adiamor

Previously on the Adiamor blog, we spent some time breaking down the ASET image as a tool. However, one important topic we did not cover.

www.adiamor.com

I would try to get all the info I can to understand before spending nearly 40K on a stone.

With those two stones, I wouldn't say the I is a better cut than the H. From the photo, I actually see potentially quite a bit of obstruction on the I stone (see that circle of black between the arrows in the table).

The SBF on the H stone may or may not be a problem but this one is hard to call online. You need to see the stone in direct sunlight and various lighting (incl indoor lighting with UV) to know if overblue or any haziness. It is a VVS2 with pinpoint inclusions so it could potentially be ok. If it is SI with clouds, twinning wisps or internal graining, I would tell you no for sure especially if it also has SBF. Those inclusions I just mentioned are ones that can make a stone hazy with or without any fluorescence but fluor seem to make them show up more in UV. SBF doesn't automatically mean over blue or hazy.

If you do go with the H and it does have transparency issues, you might want to double check the returns policy. I think Adiamor says it is 30 days.

From looking at the photos and video. The H’s lines within the diamond don’t look as crisp as the I. Is that why you suspect it might be hazy?

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

From looking at the photos and video. The H’s lines within the diamond don’t look as crisp as the I. Is that why you suspect it might be hazy?

3.02 Carat round diamond

This 3.02 carat round diamond H color vvs2 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

I think this is the same stone as the Adiamor. Doesn't look cloudy or hazy here! Could be an artefact of the photography. JA does have a 30 days no questions asked return policy, so you could just purchase it from here.

At the very least I would put a hold on it, because there's no better stone that I can find that is H+ VS2+ and still 3ct+, <40k. The other options are all SI1, which I gather is not mind clean for you.

 

[DejaWiz]

3.02 Carat round diamond

This 3.02 carat round diamond H color vvs2 clarity has Excellent proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

I think this is the same stone as the Adiamor. Doesn't look cloudy or hazy here! Could be an artefact of the photography. JA does have a 30 days no questions asked return policy, so you could just purchase it from here.

At the very least I would put a hold on it, because there's no better stone that I can find that is H+ VS2+ and still 3ct+, <40k. The other options are all SI1, which I gather is not mind clean for you.

Yep, same diamond!
I agree...at least put it on hold.

 

[Diamond_Enthusiast]

From looking at the photos and video. The H’s lines within the diamond don’t look as crisp as the I. Is that why you suspect it might be hazy?

The stigma people have against fluorescence at stronger levels in particular is around possibility of over-blue stones and potential to look hazy. The analysis around the H stone is to address this issue because you mentioned it has SBF. I think this H has strong fluor but is less likely to be hazy because it doesn't have the type of inclusions typically associated with transparency issues.

You might find this video on fluorescence interesting:

 

[Diamond_Enthusiast]

Doesn't look cloudy or hazy here! Could be an artefact of the photography.

The lighting for the video isn't necessarily going to be enough UV to activate the fluorescence (as opposed to direct sunlight) and its effects. Of course if it is just a cloudy stone regardless, it would probably show.

Either way, I actually think this stone might be fine even though it has strong fluorescence. So agree that OP shouldn't rule it out or count that as a negative.