Opinions on a 2ct round diamond

[lovedogs]

Totally interested! What are your thoughts on faint fluorescence, how does it affect performance of a diamond? And with the video available, do you think this diamond is eye clean with crystals at the centre?

Faint fluor has basically no effect on performance, just fyi!

 

[Kim N]

Totally interested! What are your thoughts on faint fluorescence, how does it affect performance of a diamond? And with the video available, do you think this diamond is eye clean with crystals at the centre?

Like lovedogs said, faint fluorescence has pretty much no impact on appearance or performance. I do think this is eye-clean as the crystals are really tiny.

 

[Dodoobro]

@lovedogs @Kim N What would you prioritize, with their cut quality being so close?
G VS1 non-fluor, or E VS2 fluor?
I've sent both options to the jeweler and awaiting reply

 

[Kim N]

@lovedogs @Kim N What would you prioritize, with their cut quality being so close?
G VS1 non-fluor, or E VS2 fluor?
I've sent both options to the jeweler and awaiting reply

E VS2 for the boost in color, as the faint fluorescence and inclusions are non-issues IMO.

 

[Dodoobro]

I must say that I’m officially obsessed with PS now! Spent the whole night going through PS’ database and found these stones with excellent HCA scores, while meeting my other criteria too! Are they good options to present to my jewler?

It’s fascinating how they don’t lie within the recommended ranges, but score so high with HCA! My observstion is that the crown angle and pavilion angle should be inversely proportional, while crown can deviate a bit more from the range, pavilion should stay as close as possible. Table % should also stay within the range. Are there other significant factors that should be considered too, while evaluating the HCA of a diamond?

And it seems to me, with these 3 stones, as the crown angles fall towards the smaller end, combined with well proportioned pavilion, we get the extra benefit of large diameter, which I love! However, I was getting the comment that “Low HCA score combined with bigger size can make the diamond appear dark when looking at a closer distance”, and that they are more suitable for earrings and pendants. Are these stones good for engagement ring then, which I expect a balanced fire and brilliance?

About diamond #3, it has an exceptional carat size and I’m very tempted. My only concern is that it could appear milky/hazy in person because clouds are the only type of inclusion, and there are many! Attaching a few photos of it so I can get some opinions. Thank you!!

 

[sugarcloud]

Hi,

Agree with friends.

I have property recommendations for Round Brilliant, not a specific diamond or vendor; as it seems you may not be able to get back the money and buy a diamond yourself.

Crown angle: 34-35
Pavillion angle: 40.7-40.8
table: 55-57% (56 the best)
lower girdle length: 76-78%
Clarity: VS+
Color: H+
Certificate: AGS/GIA
Cut: AGS 000 / GIA 3Ex


a certified diamond with the above range of quality is an amazing choice, and You can be completely sure about the light performance and beauty of it.

For sure white flash "A Cut Above" is a nice choice if you can manage one, if not go for any diamonds with the above qualities is safe.

Best of Luck for both of you

Just jumping in to to ask, when it comes to the table, are you able to elaborate why 56% is the best? I have been learning a lot about the pavillion and lower girdle but an not very clear on the table %. Is this what determines how much spread the diamond has or are there additional reasons why that would be the ideal number?

 

[Dodoobro]

It's natural to feel uncertain, about a diamond that has a HCA score and angles that may not provide light performance. Although G VVS2 is considered a grade the cut plays a role in creating sparkle. If you're not completely satisfied it's perfectly acceptable to request a diamond. I recommend exploring alternatives with a HCA score below 2.0 as this often indicates better light reflection. Remember to prioritize the cut, for achieving the brilliance and fire in your diamond.

@Thomas_Brown Thank you for being supportive and validating how I feel!
Would you mind reviewing the 3 GIA cert I posted and sharing your opinion on them? They all have a HCA score below 2.0, with unconventional angles. I would like to know if they are good options for my engagement ring

 

[tyty333]

Since they have low crowns with corresponding pavilions they will tend towards bright light return (vs fire). We usually aim for the
middle ground that is bright and also has a fair amount of fire. Some people prefer white light over fire. Some prefer fire over
white light. If you're expecting a balance between fire and white light you might want to stick with a higher crown.

Its the depth on #3 that is allowing it to have a bigger spread (59.7%) . At VS1, it should not be milky/hazy however, I'm not a fan
of the darkness around the arrows.

Do you have pictures of #1 and #2?

There is a table on this page that may help you...

Diamond Proportions

The physics of light-behavior within a diamond are reliably consistent, which means proportions measurements can be useful.

www.pricescope.com

 

[Dodoobro]

I don’t have picture of #1, asked the vendor and will post if they have it.
Here is a picture of #2, with the 59% table. I guess I can also see the darkness around the arrows that @tyty333 mentioned. Does that create what the HCA report mentioned, “darker look at a close distance”? I don’t really understand this statement on the HCA, because I though smaller crown angle and lower depth help with the spread, which creates a more brilliant look.

 

[lovedogs]

None of the 3 new ones are stones most folks would recommend because rhe angles are outside of the "safe" ranges. Look at #2 that you posted a pic of vs the two stones we recommended before. Do you see how the #2 you found looks much "messier"? The arrows aren't clear/visible and overall it doesn't look great.

 

[Dodoobro]

None of the 3 new ones are stones most folks would recommend because rhe angles are outside of the "safe" ranges. Look at #2 that you posted a pic of vs the two stones we recommended before. Do you see how the #2 you found looks much "messier"? The arrows aren't clear/visible and overall it doesn't look great.

I do see that they look much messier than the ones friends here recommended! Which is why I’m quite confused, why the 3 new stones would get HCA score less than 2 (0.7, 1.8 and 0.8 respectively). So when I look at HCA scores, should I keep in mind that an excellent score doesn’t always translate into good light performance, and we still need to verify on pic/video to confirm the quality?

 

[0-0-0]

Yes. The HCA only takes into account the averaged and rounded numbers as stated on the reports. In the most extreme cases even the safest numbers on the reports aren’t guarantees of good looking diamonds. That’s why we always ask for images and videos.

Why Advanced Images Matter...A Bad 34.5/40.8...

I'm just as guilty as anyone. Helping someone find a stone and run across one with that 34.5/40.8 combo. You smile. You then run through the rest of the proportions.... 57 table, 61.7 depth, 75 LGF's, 50 stars and medium-slightly thick girdle....check, check, check,check and check You...

www.pricescope.com

 

[Dodoobro]

Also the good news is that my jeweler is willing to order in this diamond that I shared before, at a pretty good price! Thanks to everyone who helped and guided my decision, I now feel pretty confident in switching to this stone

 

[lovedogs]

Also the good news is that my jeweler is willing to order in this diamond that I shared before, at a pretty good price! Thanks to everyone who helped and guided my decision, I now feel pretty confident in switching to this stone

That's great news!

 

[Kim N]

Also the good news is that my jeweler is willing to order in this diamond that I shared before, at a pretty good price! Thanks to everyone who helped and guided my decision, I now feel pretty confident in switching to this stone

That's wonderful! Please come back and let us know your thoughts when it arrives.

 

[Dodoobro]

The jewler presented me one more option, based on the ranges I sent her, and it actually looks quite good IMO! It's a G VVS2, and about $2800 higher than the G VS1 I sent her. It also has a better HCA score of 1.1, compared to 1.7. Are the difference in light performance and clarity between these two enough to justify the higher price of diamond 1?

Diamond 1 (new one she sent):





Diamond 2 (the one I've shared before):

 

[lovedogs]

Note that there is no such thing as a "better" hca score. Anything under 2 is worth considering, anything above 2 usually isn't. But lower score isn't better, and all need to be jusged by eye. I don't like the one your jeweler showed. It's more like a 60/60 style, which I personally don't care for because I like defined arrows.

 

[Kim N]

The jewler presented me one more option, based on the ranges I sent her, and it actually looks quite good IMO! It's a G VVS2, and about $2800 higher than the G VS1 I sent her. It also has a better HCA score of 1.1, compared to 1.7. Are the difference in light performance and clarity between these two enough to justify the higher price of diamond 1?

Diamond 1 (new one she sent):





Diamond 2 (the one I've shared before):

Diamond 1 has an unevenly cut pavilion in a couple of areas, which may mean some leakage under the table. I also don't like the proportions as much as Diamond 2.

Is the E VS2 still an option?

 

[Dodoobro]

Note that there is no such thing as a "better" hca score. Anything under 2 is worth considering, anything above 2 usually isn't. But lower score isn't better, and all need to be jusged by eye. I don't like the one your jeweler showed. It's more like a 60/60 style, which I personally don't care for because I like defined arrows.

So short answer is, I can save $2800 towards our wedding bands

I didn't realize that lower number isn't better under 2, thank you for clarifying this concept! What does a "60/60 style" entail, and what are some characteristics of a 60/60 stone?

 

[Dodoobro]

Diamond 1 has an unevenly cut pavilion in a couple of areas, which may mean some leakage under the table. I also don't like the proportions as much as Diamond 2.

Is the E VS2 still an option?

Just for learning purpose, do you mind circling out where I can see the unevenly cut pavilion?
I did ask her about the E VS2 too. She never mentioned anything about it though, only told me that Diamond 2 is available for ordering

 

[Kim N]

Just for learning purpose, do you mind circling out where I can see the unevenly cut pavilion?
I did email her about the E VS2 too. She never mentioned anything about it though, only told me that Diamond 2 is available for ordering

Sure, here you go.

I wonder if that means the E VS2 can't be ordered or she overlooked it. It's just nice if you have more options to choose from.

 

[Dodoobro]

Sure, here you go.

I wonder if that means the E VS2 can't be ordered or she overlooked it. It's just nice if you have more options to choose from.

I wouldn’t be surprised if she just overlooked it. At this point, I’m just happy to switch a diamond. I hope my post reminds people to be an educated buyer before putting down a deposit

What about those green triangles that indicate an unevenly cut pavilion, is it the uneven sizes and distances from the center?

So for diamond 2, is pavilion cut more evenly, because these red triangles are similar in shape and location? Why would the bottom half of this stone show no triangles?

 

[Kim N]

I wouldn’t be surprised if she just overlooked it. At this point, I’m just happy to switch a diamond. I hope my post reminds people to be an educated buyer before putting down a deposit

What about those green triangles that indicate an unevenly cut pavilion, is it the uneven sizes and distances from the center?

So for diamond 2, is pavilion cut more evenly, because these red triangles are similar in shape and location? Why would the bottom half of this stone show no triangles?

I think Diamond 2 was photographed slightly tilted. What I'm seeing isn't really concerning to my eyes.

Here is an ideal stone next to a more poorly cut one.



If you really want to geek out, you can buy an ASET scope to verify the light return for yourself once the stone comes in. It's the surest way of checking for leakage and problem areas.

ASET Scope

www.datlas.com

 

[Kim N]

You might have read up on this already, but a 60/60 style stone is one where the depth and table are both close to 60%. They tend to favor brightness over fire. They're a different "flavor" of cut than the Tolkowsky ideal cut that we typically recommend. I personally prefer the more balanced performance of a Tolkowsky ideal cut.

 

[Dodoobro]

I think Diamond 2 was photographed slightly tilted. What I'm seeing isn't really concerning to my eyes.

Here is an ideal stone next to a more poorly cut one.



If you really want to geek out, you can buy an ASET scope to verify the light return for yourself once the stone comes in. It's the surest way of checking for leakage and problem areas.

ASET Scope

www.datlas.com

Yes I can see the difference! Two days ago they'd look the same to me! I love this forum and have been learning a lot from everyone!

To check my learning, is the following a well cut stone? How come the same stone can look defined at one angle, but messy at another?




At VS1 clarity, should I be worried that "additional clouds not shown" can compromise the transparency of the diamond? I can seem to see some floating substance from the side view, but I don't know enough to tell whether they are clouds, and whether they will have an impact on the overall transparency of the stone.



Are these lines internal graining? But why aren't they marked or noted on the clarity section?

 

[Kim N]

Yes I can see the difference! Two days ago they'd look the same to me! I love this forum and have been learning a lot from everyone!

To check my learning, is the following a well cut stone? How come the same stone can look defined at one angle, but messy at another?




At VS1 clarity, should I be worried that "additional clouds not shown" can compromise the transparency of the diamond? I can seem to see some floating substance from the side view, but I don't know enough to tell whether they are clouds, and whether they will have an impact on the overall transparency of the stone.



Are these lines internal graining? But why aren't they marked or noted on the clarity section?

This stone is very nicely cut. I wouldn't usually be worried about clouds in a VS1, but the combination of the clouds and what looks like internal graining may have a small impact on transparency. I wonder why GIA didn't show the internal graining on the report.

 

[Dodoobro]

This stone is very nicely cut. I wouldn't usually be worried about clouds in a VS1, but the combination of the clouds and what looks like internal graining may have a small impact on transparency. I wonder why GIA didn't show the internal graining on the report.

Thank you for confirming my thoughts!

If you were to pick one between this stone versus the Diamond 2 I posted previously (56% table, 36% crown, 40.6% pavilion, and some feathers on the girdle), what would be a better performer? Carat, clarity and colour are the same for these two.

 

[0-0-0]

Can your vendor bring in both so you can compare side by side in person?

 

[Kim N]

Can your vendor bring in both so you can compare side by side in person?

That's a great idea.

I don't know which I'd choose. I think the second one is better cut, but the first one's clarity is a little better. The clarity may be a non-issue in real-life viewing, though.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don’t think I have ever heard of any issues with inclusions in a VS1 stone. That’s a pretty wildly stringent rating! I owned a couple Vs1s over the years. They were so clean I couldn’t find anything with my loupe and even wondered if the old cut VS1 was fake! In other words, you are paying a lot of money for the VS1 designation so you don’t have to think about inclusions. If no one has mentioned you can save a lot of money on a VS2 or often even and SI1 and still never see inclusions with your eyes.

I like the fat arrows on that stone. That cut has lots of nice lively contrast which makes for an active sparkly stone.