Need help deciding on a 1.8 ct round ideal diamond

[auphex]

Hello all,
I am trying to decide if the price/quality is right on a diamond with the following specs(I am missing some which I should have on Monday:
Round Ideal
weight: 1.85ct
color: G
clarity: SI1 (eye clean, a very small feather and a small indented natural near the girdle but not on it)
dimensions: 7.9?x7.9?x?(what I remember and have so far)
depth: 61.7%
table: 55.4%
Polish: EX
Symmetry: EX
both GIA and AGS reports surprisingly
AGS0 and GIA Very Good which by using the chart Garry posted(and I linked to below) I could figure the smallish range of possible crown and pavillion angles

$15,100
This price seems a little high to me but I know high quality diamonds just below 2 carats are tough to come by. Please let me know what your opinion of the diamond price/quality is? I will hopefully post crown/pavillion angles and full dimensions on Monday. Thank you very much,
Sam

https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/files/57%20GIA%20AGS%20HCA%20small.jpg

 

[XChick03]

Looks like a great diamond and the price really isn''t that high for a 1.8 G color ideal.

 

[Lorelei]

Ther price looks good to me, this is a very desirable type of diamond. It looks promising, post the rest of the specs when you can, then we can go from there.

 

[belle]

auphex,
the stone can''t be ags0 if the polish and symmetry are excellent. have you seen both of the grading reports?

 

[XChick03]

I thought it can be an AGS0 with just "very good" polish and symmetry, it just won't be a triple ideal AGS000.

ETA or maybe I am thinking of an ideal cut by GIA standards and not an AGS0.

 

[Lorelei]

Good info Belle and Xchick.

 

[belle]

Date: 2/26/2006 11:04:22 AM
Author: XChick03
I thought it can be an AGS0 with just ''very good'' polish and symmetry, it just won''t be a triple ideal AGS000.

ETA or maybe I am thinking of an ideal cut by GIA standards and not an AGS0.

it can''t be ags0 or ags000 with less than ideal polish/symmetry.

gia doesn''t classify any stones as ideal, the highest grade they give is excellent.

 

[XChick03]

Oh okay, I am still learning. But it could be an AGS ideal cut without being an AGS0? Maybe that''s what I was thinking of...

This is why I was thinking GIA gave ideal cuts, I guess WF labels them as "ideal."

 

[belle]

Date: 2/26/2006 11:39:12 AM
Author: XChick03
Oh okay, I am still learning. But it could be an AGS ideal cut without being an AGS0? Maybe that''s what I was thinking of...

This is why I was thinking GIA gave ideal cuts, I guess WF labels them as ''ideal.''

we''re all learning, everyday. that''s why ps is so great!

if you consider getting an ''0'' in light performance from ags an ideal cut, then yes, you can still get an ags graded ideal without it being an ags0. when not graded by ags (the only lab to grade ''ideal'') the term ''ideal'' itself is used mainly to describe well cut stones. in the case of the example you posted, the stone is not graded ideal but it is generally considered ideal because of the cut. using the term ''ideal'' is a way to define a group of well cut stones that are superior to the pedestrian cuts you see everyday.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/26/2006 12:05:04 PM
Author: belle

Date: 2/26/2006 11:39:12 AM
Author: XChick03
Oh okay, I am still learning. But it could be an AGS ideal cut without being an AGS0? Maybe that''s what I was thinking of...

This is why I was thinking GIA gave ideal cuts, I guess WF labels them as ''ideal.''

we''re all learning, everyday. that''s why ps is so great!

if you consider getting an ''0'' in light performance from ags an ideal cut, then yes, you can still get an ags graded ideal without it being an ags0. when not graded by ags (the only lab to grade ''ideal'') the term ''ideal'' itself is used mainly to describe well cut stones. in the case of the example you posted, the stone is not graded ideal but it is generally considered ideal because of the cut. using the term ''ideal'' is a way to define a group of well cut stones that are superior to the pedestrian cuts you see everyday.

Right. Ideal is a loosely used term with varying definitions. Many refer to diamonds with proportions falling into AGS'' old parameters (pre July 2005) ''Ideal.'' But Belle is right: To earn the current 0 grade in light performance requires that the diamond actually be graded by the AGS.

I speak in terms of ''traditional ideal proportions'' versus ''current ideal proportions'' (proportions parameters upgraded July 2005) versus AGS0 - which is the 0 grade in light performance. If you have a sarin/helium you can tell whether a diamond has traditional or current ideal proportions, but only a grading document from the AGS can award the 0 in light performance.

Of course, diamonds with an old DQD are kind of ''grandfathered'' in as AGS0, but that''s a traditional, proportions-based 0, not the current light-performance based 0.

 

[XChick03]

Thank you belle and John, I understand now. I just love this place, I learn more and more every day. Before, I didn''t even know what an "ideal" cut or AGS0 was, and now I have one.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/26/2006 12:37:52 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 2/26/2006 12:05:04 PM
Author: belle

Date: 2/26/2006 11:39:12 AM
Author: XChick03
Oh okay, I am still learning. But it could be an AGS ideal cut without being an AGS0? Maybe that''s what I was thinking of...

This is why I was thinking GIA gave ideal cuts, I guess WF labels them as ''ideal.''

we''re all learning, everyday. that''s why ps is so great!

if you consider getting an ''0'' in light performance from ags an ideal cut, then yes, you can still get an ags graded ideal without it being an ags0. when not graded by ags (the only lab to grade ''ideal'') the term ''ideal'' itself is used mainly to describe well cut stones. in the case of the example you posted, the stone is not graded ideal but it is generally considered ideal because of the cut. using the term ''ideal'' is a way to define a group of well cut stones that are superior to the pedestrian cuts you see everyday.

Right. Ideal is a loosely used term with varying definitions. Many refer to diamonds with proportions falling into AGS'' old parameters (pre July 2005) ''Ideal.'' But Belle is right: To earn the current 0 grade in light performance requires that the diamond actually be graded by the AGS.

I speak in terms of ''traditional ideal proportions'' versus ''current ideal proportions'' (proportions parameters upgraded July 2005) versus AGS0 - which is the 0 grade in light performance. If you have a sarin/helium you can tell whether a diamond has traditional or current ideal proportions, but only a grading document from the AGS can award the 0 in light performance.

Of course, diamonds with an old DQD are kind of ''grandfathered'' in as AGS0, but that''s a traditional, proportions-based 0, not the current light-performance based 0.

John, just pick out a diamond for me.

I honestly don''t have time to get a PhD in gemology to be able to choose the "right" diamond!

 

[Lorelei]

Thanks guys for clarifying these points. It can get confusing and this makes it much clearer.

 

[auphex]

Thank you all for your comments thus far. All are much appreciated.

I think it is an AGS000 in the current definition(not the original color D, clarity IF definition)

I did see what I assumed was the newest AGS report(but I''m not very familiar with them visually) and every spec was rated AGS0(within the ags0 specs). The cut and symmetry were the highest GIA rates them EXC and this was a new GIA report that actually has more dimensions and angles listed on it.

I look forward to getting the rest of the specs, hearing more feedback, and hopefully buying it

Sam

 

[auphex]

I found out the crown and pavillion angles.
Culet: 0
Crown Angle: 35
Pavillion Angle: 40.9
Unfortunately what I thought was an AGS report stapled to the new GIA report copy was actually a comparison of all angles and dimensions showing that they are individually within the bounds of AGS 0.
I ran these stats through HCA and got the following image with 1.9 Total Visual Performance
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=2/5716451785.jpg&s=x402

The other details of the diamond are repeated below:
Round Ideal
weight: 1.85ct
color: G
clarity: SI1 (eye clean, a very small feather and a small indented natural near the girdle but not on it)
dimensions: 7.9?x7.9?x?(what I remember and have so far)
depth: 61.7%
table: 55.4%
Polish: EX
Symmetry: EX

$15,100

 

[ChooChoo]

It looks like a great stone for a fair price.

 

[auphex]

Thanks Choochoo,
Assuming most(including me) agree with this assessment of all the specs I am going to buy the diamond! My question now is how to best do this logistically but I will post that in a new topic. Thanks all,
Sam