Reviews on cut and diamond

[chicho]

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.81-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-294517

What do you guys think of this diamond i have it on reserve... Woukd really appreciate all the help i may get thanks a million

 

[Lorelei]

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.81-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-294517

What do you guys think of this diamond i have it on reserve... Woukd really appreciate all the help i may get thanks a million

Hi Chico and welcome!

I think you did really well, the diamond looks to be excellent! The proportions are good and should work well together, request an Idealscope image so we can make absolutely sure, JA will supply 3 images of 3 different diamonds on one occasion only, after that a fee is involved, so you could see if there were any others you were interested in. I colour and faint fluorescence is a nice combination I believe, although some experts believe faint fluorescence won't have any appreciable effect on whitening the stone in some lights, I believe it doesn't hurt! SI clarity, check it's eye clean to your specifications, by this - if your definition of an eye clean diamond is ' no visible inclusions at any distance, at any angle, or in any lighting, make sure the vendor knows this so they can give you an accurate assessment. Also check the twinning wisp inclusions aren't negatively impacting brilliance or transparency, this is unusual in SI1 clarity but it doesn't hurt to make sure.

If the stone checks out it could be a fantastic choice, I take it the diamond is intended for an engagement ring?

 

[chicho]

Forgot to say it is for an engagement ring

Here is the idealscope

 

[chicho]

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.81-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-294517

What do you guys think of this diamond i have it on reserve... Woukd really appreciate all the help i may get thanks a million

Hi Chico and welcome!

I think you did really well, the diamond looks to be excellent! The proportions are good and should work well together, request an Idealscope image so we can make absolutely sure, JA will supply 3 images of 3 different diamonds on one occasion only, after that a fee is involved, so you could see if there were any others you were interested in. I colour and faint fluorescence is a nice combination I believe, although some experts believe faint fluorescence won't have any appreciable effect on whitening the stone in some lights, I believe it doesn't hurt! SI clarity, check it's eye clean to your specifications, by this - if your definition of an eye clean diamond is ' no visible inclusions at any distance, at any angle, or in any lighting, make sure the vendor knows this so they can give you an accurate assessment. Also check the twinning wisp inclusions aren't negatively impacting brilliance or transparency, this is unusual in SI1 clarity but it doesn't hurt to make sure.

If the stone checks out it could be a fantastic choice, I take it the diamond is intended for an engagement ring?

I was worried about the thickness of the table... What do you think thanks

Edit.. Forgot to say it is for an engagement ring

 

[Lorelei]

The image is superb Chico, it should be stunning! The table size is absolutely fine, 59% is by no means too big and the image trumps the details anyway as it shows how well everything works together. I think you hit a home run with this diamond, well done, it should make a beautiful engagement ring diamond! How do you plan to set it?

 

[chicho]

I believe someone was telling me the height of the table was too big or something like that... Is this true or is he basically strange? He also said gia excellent isn't always good...

 

[teobdl]

Everything looks amazing, and it's a great price. The crown is definitely not too steep. Table is slightly bigger than some prefer but it's fine. Ask for all discounts they can give you, and you're good to go.

 

[Lorelei]

I believe someone was telling me the height of the table was too big or something like that... Is this true or is he basically strange? He also said gia excellent isn't always good...

Ditto Teo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the table size or the crown height, they were right however saying that GIA Excellent aren't created equal as their proportion based cut grading ( and the forced rounding of those proportions) can allow less deserving performers to receive the Excellent designation. Some prefer a slightly smaller table but it's a preference thing and really not something that is going to be noticeable compared to a 57% as an example, you have a cracking stone there going by the image, far better an image like that with a 59% table than a 56% table which shows light leakage and or bad optical symmetry.

 

[chicho]

I believe someone was telling me the height of the table was too big or something like that... Is this true or is he basically strange? He also said gia excellent isn't always good...

Ditto Teo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the table size or the crown height, they were right however saying that GIA Excellent aren't created equal as their proportion based cut grading ( and the forced rounding of those proportions) can allow less deserving performers to receive the Excellent designation. Some prefer a slightly smaller table but it's a preference thing and really not something that is going to be noticeable compared to a 57% as an example, you have a cracking stone there going by the image, far better an image like that with a 59% table than a 56% table which shows light leakage and or bad optical symmetry.

Thanks for the reply as for cracking stone.. What did u mean by this thank you for your Clarification

 

[Lorelei]

I believe someone was telling me the height of the table was too big or something like that... Is this true or is he basically strange? He also said gia excellent isn't always good...

Ditto Teo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the table size or the crown height, they were right however saying that GIA Excellent aren't created equal as their proportion based cut grading ( and the forced rounding of those proportions) can allow less deserving performers to receive the Excellent designation. Some prefer a slightly smaller table but it's a preference thing and really not something that is going to be noticeable compared to a 57% as an example, you have a cracking stone there going by the image, far better an image like that with a 59% table than a 56% table which shows light leakage and or bad optical symmetry.

Thanks for the reply as for cracking stone.. What did u mean by this thank you for your Clarification

I think I might have to change this description I am using here as on second thoughts, it could be misinterpreted.... Cracking is a British term to describe something or a situation that is excellent. I think it might have developed from war time, possibly military slang, it's a word I heard various male relatives use growing up and that's where I get it from. But where diamonds are concerned, it's probably not a good idea....

 

[diamondgezer]

I believe someone was telling me the height of the table was too big or something like that... Is this true or is he basically strange? He also said gia excellent isn't always good...

Ditto Teo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the table size or the crown height, they were right however saying that GIA Excellent aren't created equal as their proportion based cut grading ( and the forced rounding of those proportions) can allow less deserving performers to receive the Excellent designation. Some prefer a slightly smaller table but it's a preference thing and really not something that is going to be noticeable compared to a 57% as an example, you have a cracking stone there going by the image, far better an image like that with a 59% table than a 56% table which shows light leakage and or bad optical symmetry.

Thanks for the reply as for cracking stone.. What did u mean by this thank you for your Clarification

I think I might have to change this description I am using here as on second thoughts, it could be misinterpreted.... Cracking is a British term to describe something or a situation that is excellent. I think it might have developed from war time, possibly military slang, it's a word I heard various male relatives use growing up and that's where I get it from. But where diamonds are concerned, it's probably not a good idea....

Lorelei

Definitely pre war British upper middle class. Down here in Peckham we use cracking to describe what twinning wisps breaking through at the girdle might do to our diamonds!!!!!


'Geezer

 

[Lorelei]

[quote="Lorelei|


I think I might have to change this description I am using here as on second thoughts, it could be misinterpreted.... Cracking is a British term to describe something or a situation that is excellent. I think it might have developed from war time, possibly military slang, it's a word I heard various male relatives use growing up and that's where I get it from. But where diamonds are concerned, it's probably not a good idea....

''Lorelei

Definitely pre war British upper middle class. Down here in Peckham we use cracking to describe what twinning wisps breaking through at the girdle might do to our diamonds!!!!!


'Geezer[/quote]''

 

[chicho]

lol thanks for the clarification hahaha

compared to the diamond above...

as for this diamond what do you guys think?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.81-carat-g-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-312293

what do you find is better. Thanks for price its same range really

or this one too
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.80-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-303621

 

[teobdl]

Of those two I like the second one better. But the very first diamond you linked is best.

 

[chicho]

Of those two I like the second one better. But the very first diamond you linked is best.

are you referring to 294517 ? and if so just curious why you say this?

 

[proto]

amazing idealscope.

 

[Lorelei]

amazing idealscope.

Number 1 is still my favourite too, as Proto says, the Idealscope is excellent, the other 2 are good but not as good as the first in my opinion.

 

[teobdl]

Of those two I like the second one better. But the very first diamond you linked is best.

are you referring to 294517 ? and if so just curious why you say this?

Best to worst:
294517 > 303621 > 312293

 

[chicho]

Of those two I like the second one better. But the very first diamond you linked is best.

are you referring to 294517 ? and if so just curious why you say this?

Best to worst:
294517 > 303621 > 312293

294517 = hca 2.0
303621 = hca 1.0
312293 = G colour

still with a hca score of 2 vs 1 you find it better? Thanks

 

[Lorelei]

Of those two I like the second one better. But the very first diamond you linked is best.

are you referring to 294517 ? and if so just curious why you say this?

Best to worst:
294517 > 303621 > 312293

294517 = hca 2.0
303621 = hca 1.0
312293 = G colour

still with a hca score of 2 vs 1 you find it better? Thanks

Hi Chico,

I would not be so presumptuous as to speak for Teo and his preferences, but I would just like to address the remark made concerning the HCA scores. The HCA was designed for rejection, not selection, if this is what you mean by a HCA 2 being preferable to HCA 1, forgive me if you aren't alluding to that but I would like to take the opportunity just to reiterate the use of the HCA to anyone reading. The aim of the HCA is to determine which stones score below 2, those that do score <2 are then considered to be worth further evaluation, this is done with images such as Idealscope, trusted vendor/ appraiser advice and your own preferences in making the final choice. A lower HCA score is not considered better than another scoring below 2, this of course does not allow for individual preferences but when used as intended all scores below 2 are considered equal pending further evaluation. In fact, diamonds scoring below 1 might have contrast and obstruction issues in some cases of shallow angle combos, the HCA will alert the user to this, so this is something to consider with <1 results.

Images always trump HCA results, the HCA is used as a first round rejection tool and it does that job extremely well!

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

The aim of the HCA is to determine which stones score below 2, those that do score <2 are then considered to be worth further evaluation, this is done with images such as Idealscope, trusted vendor/ appraiser advice and your own preferences in making the final choice. A lower HCA score is not considered better than another scoring below 2, this of course does not allow for individual preferences but when used as intended all scores below 2 are considered equal pending further evaluation. In fact, diamonds scoring below 1 might have contrast and obstruction issues in some cases of shallow angle combos, the HCA will alert the user to this, so this is something to consider with <1 results.

Images always trump HCA results, the HCA is used as a first round rejection tool and it does that job extremely well!

Terrific Description of this tool! +1

 

[chicho]

So what do you guys think

 

[teobdl]

Did you buy 294517? Because someone just did. If it wasn't you, then get this http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.80-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-328360 or this http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.80-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-303620

 

[chicho]

no i didnt buy it its on reserve

 

[tyty333]

Buy it already! Its a beautiful stone. Whats your hesitation?

 

[chicho]

Lol ok done thanks a million guys