Input on BN Diamonds

[Mike714321]

As far as the distances for "eye clean," there's no standard.

So most stuff I'm reading says VS2 and up are "eye clean" but if there's no definition for what that is... is it just a generalization? Or is there some standard that if it's VS2 or better, it's called eye clean from X distance away?

 

[Gypsy]

No. There is no standard. Each vendor has it's own, and I daresay every person does too. You should have your own definition and make sure you tell the vendor evaluating tells you if an individual stone meets that criteria or not.

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Mike,
It's not enough to say, "Show me stones with tables between 54-57% and depths between 60-62%," because that'll capture a lot of bad stones. That's like saying, "I want to see the beautiful women. Show me the women between 5'05" and 5'09"." It doesn't really tell you anything on its own.

 

[Lorelei]

No. There is no standard. Each vendor has it's own, and I daresay every person does too. You should have your own definition and make sure you tell the vendor evaluating tells you if an individual stone meets that criteria or not.

Most definitely. You need to be very specific concerning your expectations of what an eye clean diamond is to you and make that crystal clear to the vendor you are working with.

 

[OoohShiny]

It's not enough to say, "Show me stones with tables between 54-57% and depths between 60-62%," because that'll capture a lot of bad stones. That's like saying, "I want to see the beautiful women. Show me the women between 5'05" and 5'09"." It doesn't really tell you anything on its own.

haha I like your analogy

Where can one peruse said women in an easy-to-search inventory with pictures?

 

[Lorelei]

It's not enough to say, "Show me stones with tables between 54-57% and depths between 60-62%," because that'll capture a lot of bad stones. That's like saying, "I want to see the beautiful women. Show me the women between 5'05" and 5'09"." It doesn't really tell you anything on its own.

haha I like your analogy

Where can one peruse said women in an easy-to-search inventory with pictures?

 

[OoohShiny]

I'm looking for something that's between 0.99 and 1.10ct, H or better, Ideal cut or better, VS2 or better, VG or better polish, VG or better symmetry, depth between 60 and 62%, table between 54 and 57%, and faint or less fluorescence.

I mentioned the first diamond was at the max of my price, so 6900 or less. Sorry, should have been more clear.
Thanks,
Mike

Those are some top vendors. Check out Wink at High Performance Diamonds as well. http://www.highperformancediamonds.com

Definitely check out Wink's selection, I recently purchased a stone from him and it is amazing!

How about this one?

0.94ct G VS2
http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=view-id-diamond-infinity-new&id=916
Table Size 55.7 %
Total Depth 61.5 %
FLUORESCENCE Negligible
$7644 (wire)

It's a little bit of a stretch price-wise but it hits or betters all your criteria bar size, which won't be noticeable on the hand, I am sure!

 

[OoohShiny]

It's not enough to say, "Show me stones with tables between 54-57% and depths between 60-62%," because that'll capture a lot of bad stones. That's like saying, "I want to see the beautiful women. Show me the women between 5'05" and 5'09"." It doesn't really tell you anything on its own.

haha I like your analogy

Where can one peruse said women in an easy-to-search inventory with pictures?

 

[SirGuy]

No. There is no standard. Each vendor has it's own, and I daresay every person does too. You should have your own definition and make sure you tell the vendor evaluating tells you if an individual stone meets that criteria or not.

Most definitely. You need to be very specific concerning your expectations of what an eye clean diamond is to you and make that crystal clear to the vendor you are working with.

Nice pun, Lorelei!

But yes, Mike, everyone has a different definition of "eye clean." If yours is that you have to be 2" away, from all angles and all lighting conditions and not see anything, let them know.

Of course, "mind clean" is a whole separate thing. That's the mental part of it; some folks enjoy the reassurance that no matter the lighting or distance, there's never a chance of a "trick of the light" actually being an inclusion. So some buyers go even higher on clarity because they want to know that even under intense magnification the inclusions would be difficult to see. That's peace of mind for many. In your case, it sounds like "eye clean" is plenty. A VS2 or good SI1 will allow you to push up those "sliders" for the other C's.

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

Mike,

I want to jump in here and say what a cool thing it is to watch the progression of specificity in a thread like this. You are getting fantastic advice here on PScope!

Ultimately I think you will want to find several diamonds that you like in the GIA XXX or AGS 000 range(s) and get:

1 - Verification from the vendor that the diamonds are eye-clean (to your specifications)
2 - ASET and/or IS pictures to post here and get some input from the forum.

You are learning from some of the best on Pricescope ...and already know far more about diamond performance than a lot of the professionals in the world - congrats.

I look forward to checking back to see which fantastic diamond you choose.

 

[Lorelei]

No. There is no standard. Each vendor has it's own, and I daresay every person does too. You should have your own definition and make sure you tell the vendor evaluating tells you if an individual stone meets that criteria or not.

Most definitely. You need to be very specific concerning your expectations of what an eye clean diamond is to you and make that crystal clear to the vendor you are working with.

Nice pun, Lorelei!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Plot maps are cool, but what matters more is if the inclusions affect the light performance.If a stone is scored AGS0 and VS2 for example, then its inclusions didn't hurt the light performance in any significant way.

Didn't think of it that way. Pretty cool aspect of the AGS scale then, kind of helps calm the fears of inclusions from light performance standpoint. I really appreciate the help I've gotten here on PS so far. There's tons more to be given and much much more to read. Looking forward to searching with my new knowledge!

Thanks,
Mike

Just a quick clarification here. I don't think SG meant to suggest this but you might have inferred it. AGS light performance grading is independent of clarity grading. (As is GIA cut grading for that matter). I think the point here is that VS and above clarities generally can be assumed to have no significant impacts on light performance. Lower in the clarity range you need to consider the types and amount of inclusions and their possible impacts in scattering light and diminishing light performance, even if cut quality is top notch.

AGS light performance grading is the most sophisticated in the world. It mathematically takes into account the actual contribution of every facet to each of the aspects of light performance- brightness, dispersion, contrast and leakage. Any deficits measured by the ray tracing engine in any aspect are cumulative so stones getting 0 are proven to be the very top of the scale. The system is reliable, consistent and repeatable and can produce a variety of accurate light maps that graphically illustrate performance. However, it does not take into account any impacts of clarity, color or fluourescence on light performance.

 

[Mike714321]

Can anyone tell me if solomonbrothers has ANY images of stones? I can't seem to find any. JamesAllen seems to have the best real photos but not as many of the IS/ASET images. WhiteFlash has nice "diagnostic" pictures but wish they had a bigger/better actual image like JA.

I know there are the IS images, ASET images, what are the images shown on AGS reports? It looks like it's whatever AGS uses to map the light performance.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[Texas Leaguer]

No. There is no standard. Each vendor has it's own, and I daresay every person does too. You should have your own definition and make sure you tell the vendor evaluating tells you if an individual stone meets that criteria or not.

This advice is spot on. While many of us in the trade subscribe to a general understanding that eye clean means inclusions are not visible to the naked eye from the face up position from about 10 inches with normal overhead illumination (and assuming the observer has normal vision). But that leaves open different viewing angles, different lighting conditions and different observers!

While most people cannot focus much closer than 8-10 inches, some people can focus much closer. Many inclusions that cannot be seen face up can easily be seen face down, sometimes from the side. So much depends on where the inclusion is and what type it is. So your choice of setting comes into play as well. If you are setting it in a setting that exposes the side view, you will want to determine if the stone is eye clean from the side. If it is going to be set down into a halo or bezel on the other hand, then only the face up direction is relevant.

If you are buying remotely, accurate communication with an objective vendor is a must.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

.

I know there are the IS images, ASET images, what are the images shown on AGS reports? It looks like it's whatever AGS uses to map the light performance.

Thanks,
Mike

That's correct Mike. The ASET light maps on the AGS report are generated from the light performance software. Many people like to see actual photos for comparison. However, the computer generated maps are mathematically consistent and in line with the light performance grading standard . Actual photos can be affected by many variables.

 

[Mike714321]

Ok so the images shown on the AGS reports are ASET, but they're digital, not actual. Thanks! Still looking around various sites. I'm still not 100% sure I'm ok with an SI1. I feel like if I do get an SI1 it'll be from JA or another seller that has really good photos. And I'm still bouncing between an H and I. I think an H will drive me to an SI1 and only in an I will I get VS2 in my price range and AGS0 or GIA triple ex stones.

And just to be sure, again, cuts of "excellent" are the best of the best in GIA, but in AGS, Ideal is better than excellent, therefore, in lists of diamonds that match search criteria, avoid stones that are excellent if AGS and choose ideals, but if it's GIA, then it's worth a look, right?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Ok so the images shown on the AGS reports are ASET, but they're digital, not actual. Thanks! Still looking around various sites. I'm still not 100% sure I'm ok with an SI1. I feel like if I do get an SI1 it'll be from JA or another seller that has really good photos. And I'm still bouncing between an H and I. I think an H will drive me to an SI1 and only in an I will I get VS2 in my price range and AGS0 or GIA triple ex stones.

And just to be sure, again, cuts of "excellent" are the best of the best in GIA, but in AGS, Ideal is better than excellent, therefore, in lists of diamonds that match search criteria, avoid stones that are excellent if AGS and choose ideals, but if it's GIA, then it's worth a look, right?

It's all about the trade-offs when you come right down to it. Very few people buy D IF superideals!

Good luck in your search. I'm sure you will end up with a great diamond.

 

[Gypsy]

Can anyone tell me if solomonbrothers has ANY images of stones? I can't seem to find any. JamesAllen seems to have the best real photos but not as many of the IS/ASET images.

Mike

Solomon brothers does not have the ability to give IS and ASET.

James Allen will happily get you an IS on any of their stones, and you get up to three per purchase. So choose carefully then contact them and ask for an IS of your top there contenders.

B2C can also get you images for ASET and idealscope, and pictures of the stone and will do so upon request.

ERD can get you everything as well. Just ask.

BGD has everythign posted up front, so does GOG... just like WF. GOG will be happy to make you a video as well.

 

[Mike714321]

Thanks Gypsy for the rundown. I actually just called GoG, very helpful. If anyone is interested, some SI stones have their "eye clean" certified logo on their site, others don't, but that doesn't mean they're NOT eye clean, it may also be they haven't looked. They put me on hold and check one out for me that is "eye clean" but isn't listed as so on their site.

Terrifyingly, I also just read on GoG about the comparisons, where they have all the technological pictures, dims, etc, of an GIA and AGS. Specs show the AGS being superior, but then out come the actual images and the GIA stone looks better. Nooooo! I'm an engineer, data is supposed to always win! Anyway, definitely learning more as I go! Just read about painting and digging girdles, interesting.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[Gypsy]

This might help you understand a bit more (or confuse you, which I don't want, but you said you are engineer):

The HCA does not take the 40 minor facets into consideration (of 57 total on the diamond). It does not account for cut-consistency. It does not account for 3D optical precision. It does not account for indexing. None of that information is present. The HCA is imagining a "chalk outline" of averaged (sometimes rounded) Table, Crown and Pavilion data, and predicting whether the presumed angles are "safe" or not. That's its intended use, and it's useful in that context; to reject some diamonds - and ID others worth further consideration. It should not be used for selection.

When using GIA reports the output becomes a bit more uncertain: Because of rounding, GIA 57T 34.5C 40.8P could actually be 57T 34.3 40.7 or 57T 34.7C 40.9P. That toggles between HCA 1.3 to 1.8. So a single diamond can vary on the HCA, simply based on how the lab reports the information.

In Context (from a prior thread)

Just imagine that you're trying to get to know someone's looks and personality...

An HCA score is merely like having a chalk outline of the person.
Grading report numbers are like having the person's height, weight and clothing measurements.
An ASET or Ideal-Scope (for RB) image is like having a still photo of the person.
An AGS Platinum "0" in performance is like a panel of judges confirming that the person's personality and looks are solid.
A 3D scan in sophisticated cut-calculation software is like having a video interview with the person.

Eventually, it's a lot of great information. All told it's enough for an experienced cut-specialist to make very detailed performance predictions. But in the end, a live date (dinner & a movie?) will be how you finally judge total personality and looks as you, individually, perceive them.

 

[Mike714321]

Okay, I've gotten a lot of great input in this thread as well as all the other PS threads and I think I have a better list now than what I started with. Any comments, things that may be a little off? Maybe rearrange the order (this order is as I found them). I hope I've improved my selecting abilities!

1. Good old Gold - GIA TripleEx - SI1 - I - 1.09ct - medium fluoro - "eye clean" per GoG - GoG's Lifetime Guarantee
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/10583/
HCA is 3.7 (G,VG,G,VG)

2. Good old Gold - AGS Triple0 - SI1 - H - 1.03ct - neg fluoro - "eye clean" per GoG (had to call) - GoG's Lifetime Guarantee
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/10986/
HCA is 1.5 (E,E,VG,VG)

3. BrianGavin - AGS Triple0 - SI1 - I - 1.078 - neg fluoro - "eye clean" per BG - BG Signature Hearts & Arrows stone
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/d...ls/1.078-i-si1-round-diamond-ags-104064814006
HCA is 1.4 (E,E,E,VG)

4. WhiteFlash - GIA TripleEx - VS1 - I - 1.00 - none fluoro - "eye clean" per WF - Expert Selection stone
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3100976.htm
HCA is 1.4 (E,E,E,VG)

5. WhiteFlash - AGS Triple0 - SI1 - I - 1.105 - neg fluoro - not sure on "eye clean" - A Cut Above stone
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2982221.htm
A note on the eye clean. #4 above is listed as eye clean, this stone is not. Tried to find out if it's NOT eye clean
or if it just hadn't been inspected and added to the site, but being A Cut Above, surely it's been looked at, so I'm
guessing it's NOT eye clean. Chat help wasn't much help, but I could definitely request them to check it.
HCA is 1.8 (E,VG,VG,VG)

6. JamesAllen - AGS Triple0 - SI1 - H - 1.03 - neg fluoro - need to ask about "eye clean"
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-dia...arat-h-color-si1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-330269
HCA is 1.9 (E,VG,VG,VG)

Here's a comparison picture of the 6, ASET is the only common picture all of them had.
http://s16.postimg.org/b742qdo3p/aset.jpg

How'd I do?
Thanks,
Mike


EDIT: Thanks for that info Gypsy. I feel like I've read that back when I first started researching. Good refresher! Also, wish I could change the name of my thread as now none of these are BN stones!

 

[SirGuy]

Nice fishing, Mike. None of them are terrible. Some of the differences are nitpicking. If the inclusion in #3 in the table isn't too bothersome, I like that one.

 

[Mike714321]

There, updated with the HCA's. All are TIC except number one, the first one at 3.7, which if the price is good is ok, but I'm not learned yet on what a "good" price is!

 

[Mike714321]

Nice fishing, Mike. None of them are terrible. Some of the differences are nitpicking. If the inclusion in #3 in the table isn't too bothersome, I like that one.

Yeah, that inclusion looks a little dark, but they claim it's eye clean. It kinda looks like ink pen on it a little?

 

[Gypsy]

You did great.

Top 3 order of preference for me:

1. http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.03-carat-h-color-si1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-330269
Pros: H color. Small table, high crown. Great spread. $320 less than max budget of 7k. JA's return policy is 60 days!!
Cons: Is probably eyeclean, but that grade setting cloud may affect brilliance, make sure to ask about that inclusion in particular, not just whether or not it is eyeclean. JA's upgrade policy is 2x which is not as good as WF or GOG.
Notes: Ask for idealscope due to HCA score. Not hearts and arrows.

2. http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3100976.htm
Pros: LOVE that TINY table. Great idealscope. High clarity. $280 under max budget. Fantastic IS. WF's Upgrade Policy.
Cons: Not H color.
Notes: Return policy is 2 weeks (from memory, check website).

3. http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.078-i-si1-round-diamond-ags-104064814006
Pros: Most perfect hearts and arrows. Excellent spread. Small table. Fantastic IS (all BGD's top lines are. $355 under budget. BGD's upgrade policy.
Cons: Not H color. Black crystal right on table. May be eyeclean to BGD's definition, but if someone has fantastic eyesite, it may not be for them.
Notes: Return policy is 2 weeks (again from memory, check vendors actual website).


Not on your list, but for me these are contenders. With I color I personally would want Fluorescence and BGD's Blue line is all guaranteed to have no negative effects : http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.001-i-vs2-round-diamond-ags-bl-104070945005 and http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.023-i-si1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104070945011


Is there a vendor that has a setting you prefer over the others?

 

[Mike714321]

Is there a vendor that has a setting you prefer over the others?

Thanks for the input Gypsy! I'll have to check out the other two you recommended. I assume you're alluring to the fact that the fluoro should "negate" the I color some and BG will "certify" this effect?

Regarding settings, I was going to purchase the setting locally and have the loose stone set by them. Her and I have found some she really likes, art-deco style with rounded square (cushion?) shaped halo. Here's one that I'm definitely leaning towards.
http://s8.postimg.org/uwsuxb35w/20140527_103744.jpg

 

[SirGuy]

Regarding that fluorescence, we mean that it could help the color in some lighting and shouldn't go hazy or cloudy because of it.

 

[Gypsy]

OK. That works. If you guys are setting shopping together I think that's great.

BGD guarantees that there are no negative effects from the fluorescence of the stones on the BGD Blue Line stones.

There is no one that will guarantee that the fluorescence will improve the face up color appearance of a stone. But it is an effect many have noticed.

And I personally like fluorescence and those are both 'medium.'

 

[Mike714321]

Thanks SirGuy and Gypsy. The first one you linked Gypsy is out of my range, I've already experienced price creep, starting at $6,500 and now I'm finding myself bumping those sliders up to $6,900 and hoping the bank wire price is below the $6,900. The second one though looks good.

I'm not sure if I like the fluorescence, I don't think I would be against it, but when I explained that some stones have it, she tended to not be comfortable with it. Then again, we never saw any in person, just the GIA's picture comparing the levels really.

Again, really appreciate the input on my 2nd round selection. Quite honestly I'm getting to the point where I just need to pick and buy because with my personality I could be searching forever, always worrying, trying to pick just the right one and driving the lady nuts because in all reality I'm nitpicking over something she'll probably never notice...

Regarding the setting, anyone think I'll have concerns with an I or an H with a halo around it like I pictured?

Thanks,
Mike

 

[Mike714321]

Bummer, my #5 stone, 1.105ct from WF is reserved right now. Bob at WF did email me a similar stone though, I'll have to look at that.