Should i be concerned with this inclusion on the idealscope?

[Weslaw11]

 

[Weslaw11]

There's an inclusion right in the center of the diamond it looks like, but doesn't seem to be leaking light.

Should i be concerned the report is from 2007? Or any concerns with the depth, angles etc? New to buying a diamond so i appreciate the help.

 

[Tourmaline]

That’s not an inclusion. It’s a culet (bottom facet).

 

[Weslaw11]

Thanks. Does it seem like a good stone? Any thoughts on it?

 

[Karl_K]

Needs a new report a lot of things can happen to a stone since 2007.
There is some deviation in the pavilion mains but not enough to be a train wreck.

 

[lovedogs]

I dont love the thinner arrows and what I think might be issues due to the 36 crown.

 

[lovedogs]

Needs a new report a lot of things can happen to a stone since 2007.
There is some deviation in the pavilion mains but not enough to be a train wreck.

@Karl_K Are the thin arrows due to 85% lowers? and black reflection where the arrow "shafts" meet in the middle due to the steep crown? Trying to make sure I'm understanding *why* I'm not drawn to it

 

[Weslaw11]

Really appreciate everyone's input. Looks like the search continues. I'm learning... guessing this one is one to avoid too?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You are getting good advice.

The last stone cut is not as good as the first.

Please everyone - no one should use Ideal-scope images to assess clarity as some inclusions disappear and some look 5 times bigger.

 

[Karl_K]

@Karl_K Are the thin arrows due to 85% lowers? and black reflection where the arrow "shafts" meet in the middle due to the steep crown? Trying to make sure I'm understanding *why* I'm not drawn to it

Yes thin arrows are from the messed up gia numbers 85% lowers.
They are likely in reality more like 82 to 85 with variation.
The dark areas at the start of the arrow shafts, a combination of factors, some deviation in angles and lgf% and a bit of twist in the long lowers and the table and size and ca all mixed together.

 

[Karl_K]

Trying to make sure I'm understanding *why* I'm not drawn to it

Different contrast ratio than what your used to looking at as best??

 

[lovedogs]

Really appreciate everyone's input. Looks like the search continues. I'm learning... guessing this one is one to avoid too?

Try to stick in the ranges below:

Depth: 60.5-62.4
Table: 54-57 or 58
Crown angle: 34-35 (up to 35.5 if pavillion is 40.6)
Pavillion: 40.6-40.8 (potentially up to 41 if crown is 34)

 

[lovedogs]

Different contrast ratio than what your used to looking at as best??

Probably that plus my personal preference for thick/fat arrows

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Try to stick in the ranges below:

Depth: 60.5-62.4
Table: 54-57 or 58
Crown angle: 34-35 (up to 35.5 if pavillion is 40.6)
Pavillion: 40.6-40.8 (potentially up to 41 if crown is 34)