Friday''s the day! Need advise on Princess cut!!!

[fhuici]

OK, I''m running out of time. I''ll need to buy the stone no later than by Tuesday. I haven''t seen these stone so which one do you think look better on paper. I guess I''d like to get the most for the money. I''m personally partial to the bigger stones. By the way, I plan on setting the stone on a Tiffany like Platinum band. All opinions are welcomed!. Thanks

1st, $9272
Measurement: 6.16 - 6.01 x 4.42
Carat weight: 1.32
Cut: Signature Ideal
Color: E
Clarity: VVS2
L/W Ratio: 1.02
Crown Height: 10%
Depth%: 73.5%
Table%: 71%
Symmetry: Very Good
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
2nd, $9776
Measurement: 6.45 - 6.35 x 4.56
Carat weight: 1.53
Cut: Signature Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
L/W Ratio: 1.02
Crown Height: 9.3%
Depth%: 71.8%
Table%: 70%
Symmetry: Very Good
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Very Thin to Slightly Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
3rd, $9156
Measurement: 6.35 - 6.22 x 4.52
Carat weight: 1.51
Cut: Signature Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
L/W Ratio: 1.02
Crown Height: 8.9%
Depth%: 72.7%
Table%: 74%
Symmetry: Very Good
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Thin to Very Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None

And finally,

4th, $7305
Measurement: 5.92 - 5.74 x 4.27
Carat weight: 1.21
Cut: Signature Ideal
Color: D
Clarity: VS2
L/W Ratio: 1.03
Crown Height: 12.1%
Depth%: 74.4%
Table%: 68%
Symmetry: Good
Polish: Very Good
Girdle: Slightly Thick to Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None

 

[Hest88]

Hm. What about this one? I like the crown height better:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_623ct_h_vs2_pr_ags_ideal.htm

 

[Bman143]

I agree with Hest about the Crown. Also, having the table percentage larger than the depth can do some funky things in some stones. Also, having just dealt with GOG, I would highly recommend them.

 

[Garysax]

Too bad you''re not going w/rounds with the short timeframe/sight unseen. Fancies are more unpredictable in their qualities than rounds... I''m sure most of those stones will look nice--any difference will likely be tiny in their performance. Personally, I''d go VS range in clarity--since you''re spending that much money you want to know for sure they''re eyeclean but no need to spend money on things you''ll never see since you''ve already said weight/size are very desirable.

 

[valeria101]

IMO, it isn't fair comparison without some account of brilliance and... seeing the darn things! If you only get to see one and there is no way to compare it with anything in a meaningful way, anything looks 'good'.

If you did see them, you should have the winner by now. I wouldn't know what to do with these numbers scattered on the screen.

Well, the numbers at least show size, weight and price. And it seems that getting over that 1.5 cts mark doesn't make the stones as much larger as more expensive. From this point of view, the first (E color) seems the most attractive bit of the lot.

But anyway, all these have rather high grades and ideally I would have picked the most brilliant. Only... there's no way to tell

My 2c


Btw. following a bit along with what Garysax says... I would guess his advice relies on more established cut grading for rounds. Given the time constraint and such, the logic sounds pretty straight forward. And so does choosing a princess cut with proper cut grading (i.e. based on optics). There aren't as many options for that as there are for rounds, but anyway - this doesn't mean (to me) that the random cut quality labels based on the same table & depth numbers I get to see on these virtual lists, suddenly make sense.

True enough, there one more number there (crown height) which would allow to look for cut grades on the AGA tables. But those grades never claimed to guarantee brilliance, or tell you what stones look like. And now even AGA has started grading light return (by other means).

Hope this doesn't make things worse. Everything is just one more opinion and I am not an expert (try badly obsessed hobbyist

). To sum it up: some different sort of info would mean lots more to me than what you've got listed about these stones and I don't feel good about making any choice w/o that.

 

[Hansel]

This is what I wrote on your other post.

This stone (1st) has the best particulars out of everything you put up there. Supposing that I have inferred correctly that we are talking about princess cuts. That being said I think in a matter of 2 days you can find a comparable stone for at least a $1000 less, and I could be wrong about that I don''t know anything. Try www.diamondsright.com, they had a deal on a stone that was comparable to mine (1A cut (AGS tables), VS2, G, 1.2ct for $6000 from a dealer I know in NY). Also, it appears to me that these stone are most likely EGL certified? I have heard that EGL is not a good lab, and that they have standards which favor the vendor. (But I have no personal experience to confirm that). The fourth stone is actually the second best in my opinion, however, it is far too expensive for the carat weight and % Perfect Square (~3% Perfect square). For reference, I recieved an offer on a superior stone (EGL cert, 1.23, 12% crown height, 74%depth, 71%table, 3% Perfect Square, GVG, G, VS2, no flourescence, M gridle for $5966) which seems to be the right ball park if this is what we are talking about. In general, the reasons I chose what I chose is based on the fact that the % crown height should be <10% (based on the AGS), and the %depth should be larger than the %table (based on multiple websites, and articles). I personally pefer stones with a table size that is larger than 68%, say 70-72%, but with a table like that the depth should be about 75%, so I have read. What''s not great about your 1st choice, in my opinion:

1) the price, looking on DiamondsRight.com I found better diamonds for $1000 less. You may even be able to find a better diamond on pricescope, for a better price.
2)It is slightly shallow and the crown height might be a little low (but I think these things might be very minor), and once again I am just going on what I''ve read.

In summary, I think you are doing well and I thing you are on the right track. I think you can find the right stone in your time limit, but I am not sure you should buy the ones you proposed on this post. I hope that doesn''t upset you, and I don''t know anything if it does. Consider coming down to G in color or F to boost your carat size. You also do not want to undercut the, well, cut. Go for the better cut if it means sacrificing clarity. VS1, VS2, and even SI1 is perfectly acceptable for a stone as large as yours.


I wish you the best of luck. Please let me know if this helps.

Nathan

 

[Rockingout]

I would check out the GOG stone listed above and also check out Inifinity crafted diamonds. Paul has been cutting AGS-0 princess diamonds for a while now and are pretty much going to look awsome! Here is a diamond that falls in your area of size, color, clarity. I would say that this stone will 95% of the time going to be a better visual performer than the stones listed you listed.

http://www.infinitydiamonds.be/diamond.php?ID=70

the stone is at Icemine in Virginia with a gentleman named Bill. Give him a call up and see how much the diamond is. You can see what the diamond looks like here:

http://www.elmyrservices.com/stone.asp?id=907BDD07681BD0072ECDEBEF6794EF91

or clicking on from the inifinity website.

Goodluck,

 

[Garysax]

Oh, yeah, good point. We really need to know who is certifying these stones. Personally, if I''ve only got 2 days and I have to buy, I''m not going to get an EGL cert which I know could be off by a bit from an independent appraiser''s rating(see the post by the EGL-Israel guy a little while ago). Even with the extra cost I''d go with GIA because of your timeframe.

 

[Hansel]

I could not get the Icemine.com website to let me search for diamonds, so you are better off calling them. Oh, yeah I meant to tell you: you can avoid sales tax by buying out of your state. So if you are in Maryland you do not want to buy a stone in Maryland.

 

[fhuici]

First, let me thank everyone for their opinions. Choosing diamonds is definitely not my thing and your opinions have been invaluable!

OK, so after reading, and more reading and your opinions, I finally decided on a stone. I went with WhiteFlash based on their reputation but I noticed that everyone pulls from the same inventory. My local jeweler told me that he would get me the same stone. In fact, I found out that he had inquired on it. Anyhow, I think I made the right choice. The stone will arrive at WhiteFlash at which time they will provide me with a picture, Sarin & Ideal Scope report. Based on the measurements, what do you folks think.

GIA certified
Cut: Ideal
Princess Cut
1.51
VS1
G
Depth 68.8
Table 68
Girdle: Slightly Thick to Thick
Culet: None
Polish: VG
Symmetry: G
Measurements: 6:34 x 6:34 x 4.36 mm
Fl: None
$10,100.00

I don''t have the crown height yet (I will tomorrow) but based on the cut, I think it should be OK.

Whew!!! Choosing a diamond has not been easy and it has definitely been very stressfull. Let''s hope she like it.

 

[Hansel]

This one is better. The depth is still a little shallow in my opinion, but I very well could be wrong. The girdle is also a slightly too thick (that means that some of the weight will be burried in the girdle so this stone might seem a touch smaller that than something with say a medium girdle). However, I think on a 1.51ct stone it shouldn''t matter too much. And to be completely honest I really couldn''t tell the difference between medium and thick when I looked at them. All this being said I think this sounds like an AWESOME stone, and I am certain she will be very happy.

And I think you are paying a fair price! Check out DiamondsRight.com for a setting, out of everyone they were the cheapest for their exceptional quality!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/23/2006 5:24:40 PM
Author: fhuici

I think I made the right choice.

Sounds good, let''s see how it looks

The stone will arrive at WhiteFlash at which time they will provide me with a picture, Sarin & Ideal Scope report.

Don''t know what to do with Sarin for princess cuts (basically, lazy about guesswork), but pictures and IS would be great

Based on the measurements, what do you folks think.

GIA certified
Cut: Ideal b]
Depth 68.8
Table 68
Girdle: Slightly Thick to Thick
Measurements: 6:34 x 6:34 x 4.36 mm

I wouldn''t know to call this ''too deep'' or ''too shallow'' before knowing what those numbers ''look''. I.e. they don''t seem extreme in any way and if the stone is a bright one, it just means the stats ''work'' - for what reason.... others worry about it enough (e.g. AGS with their stats-based grades etc.).

If either the depth or the girdle or anything has some (good or bad) effect on size is easy to see because the size is right there (the diameter). And this one seems reasonably large relative to a couple'' hundred 1.5 cts princess cuts listed here.

Hope the 0.2 worth helps.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/23/2006 12:49:28 PM
Author: Hansel

This is what I wrote on your other post.
... a stone that was comparable to mine (1A cut AGS tables), VS2, G,

[...] I chose what I chose is based on the fact that the % crown height should be <10% (based on the AGS),

In the post about could it be that it was ''AGA'' (Acredited Gem Appraisers) instead of ''AGS'' (American Gem Society Laboratories)?

 

[fhuici]

Ana,

Thanks for your comments. I hope, I mean, I really, really hope it will turn out to be a very pretty stone. I''ve been shopping for over 2 months now and I''ve just about had it. Sorry, it''s just been very frustrating. Anyhow, I really appreciate your opinions. I''ve read through past post and it seems you are resident princess cut expert.

Anyhow, I''ll let you know how the IS turns out tomorrow. I should also be able to post some pictures. Thanks again!

PS. all the diamonds that I posted earlier were GIA.

 

[Hansel]

You are right. It should be AGA.

I am sure it will be an awesome stone.