Opinion of a 1.23 G BR Loose Diamond

[greengook]

Specs are as follows:

1.23 Brilliant Round
Measurements: 6.94-6.97x4.18mm * fixed my typo of 9.67 - I was in a rush typing, sorry for the conf.
Proportions:
Depth: 60.1%
Table: 59%
Girdle: Medium,faceted
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: EX
Symmetry: EX
Clarity Grade: VS2
Fluorescence: NONE

Grading by GIA

Here is the Link

Click Here

This will be my first buy, and I just want to make sure that it would be a good diamond. Also the lowest I was quoted was $7,200, is that a pretty good price or should I look for a lower price

Thanks alot

-Kevin

Cert Below

 

[greengook]

No Opinions?

 

[quaeritur]

It's hard to tell without crown and pavilion information whether this stone would perform well. It may, it may not. You might want to take a quick look here before making your purchase.

 

[quaeritur]

Here are a few for comparison...they're not exact matches, but around what you are looking at.

1.214 F SI2
1.168 G VS2
1.13 G SI1
1.16 H VS2

 

[greengook]

Thanks for the Info, I am getting the crown and pavillion angles tomorrow. So I could probably use the HCA I saw on this site to tell how well it would perform.

-Kevin

 

[lsmathis1]

I have so kindly deleted my post so as not to offend anyone...

 

[aljdewey]

Lisa's comments above seem well-intentioned, but unfortunately they are way off the mark.

EDITED TO ADD: Since the erroneous information has been removed above, this post is obsolete.

 

[lsmathis1]

I didn't realize this was a "beat up Lisa" session. I was just trying to be helpful...


What was written as far as the measurements go is as follows:
6.94-9.67x4.18mm Looks off to me! Maybe a mistype, but this is what was written.

As far as depth and table..it's seems off compared to the charts I have studied.

 

[aljdewey]

Lisa, sorry you took my comments personally - they weren't meant to be at all. However, the information you gave Kevin wasn't correct, and I didn't want to see him pass over a stone that may very well be a winner.

It really shouldn't be construed as "beating someone up" to correct misinformation.

Yes, he did mistype the diameter, but the correct diameters were plainly displayed on the grading report. It's fairly evident that the poster simply transposed the 6.97 to 9.67.

The point of correcting the information wasn't to correct *you*; there's no harm in making a mistake. Instead, the point was to make sure Kevin has the right information to make a solid decision on, that's all.

I can't comment on what tables you may have studied, but I can assure you that a 60% depth is highly desirable. The 59% table does not fall within AGS0 range, but that one measurement alone doesn't mean this diamond is POORLY cut. Kevin really has to have "the rest of the information" in order to make any accurate or meaningful assessments of the cut.

 

[lsmathis1]

Also, for reference:

http://weddingband.com/ideal.html
http://www.bluenile.com/diamond_grading.asp

I guess my expectations are just a bit higher...

 

[aljdewey]

Lisa, the table you reference is right-on with respect to ideal cut stones.

This tables outlines the definitions of stones that achieve the AGS0 cut grade.

As I said previously, you were correct that the 59% table would disqualify the diamond from being an AGS0 stone. However, AGS0 is not the only definition of a beautiful stone, and that was my point.

If the crown/pavilion angles on a stone correspond optimally, the stone may be "just outside" of ideal, but may be a BETTER buy and perform just as well to the untrained eye as an AGS0 stone.

Just because a stone doesn't fall within this chart doesn't mean it might not be a winner!

 

[lsmathis1]

I agree. Let me go on to say MY reason for stating what I did is cause "I", having seen things that fall into this "not as perfect" range noticed a difference between ideal and almost ideal. Personally, I think the more ideal is a better way to go. That's my opinion on what I like. He asked for "opinions" and I gave him mine.

 

[aljdewey]

I think sharing your opinion is a great thing, and certainly to be encouraged. I'm really not trying to be adversarial here at all....I'm trying to help.

There are tons of folks here who've happily bought "almost ideal" stones and LOVED them. They have put them side by side and couldn't see *any* difference. In fact, many trained professionals cannot see any visual difference in performance between an AGS0 and AGS1. Seeing that some folks have that experience, I'd hate to see Kevin dismiss what could be a KILLER stone based on information that isn't correct.

It's one thing to offer an opinion; it's another thing to offer information that could be construed as factual and have it be incorrect. That is misleading (even if you don't mean for it to be). Saying "the sky looks beautiful today" is an opinion. Saying "the sky is green today" isn't an opinion, it's factually incorrect.

Since you're familiar enough with the AGS ideal chart, it bears pointing out that AGS cut grades run from 0 to 10. AGS0 Stones are "Ideal". Stones that fall within AGS1 are rated "Excellent"; AGS2 stones are rated "Very Good"; AGS3 and 4 are rated "Good", and so on. Stones aren't "Poor" until they reading AGS 8/9/10.

You told Kevin based solely on the table that this stone was "poorly cut", and that's why I sought to correct it. It's not "AGS Ideal" cut, but it may very well be an "AGS Excellent" cut, and frankly, an AGS1 stone isn't cut poorly.

If I were Kevin and someone told me a stone was poorly cut, I'd be very concerned. If someone told me it was "excellently" cut but not ideal, I'd be less concerned. See the difference?

I have no problem with anyone offering an opinion, but if that opinion gives factually incorrect or misleading information, it's the kind thing to do to offer the correct information.

 

[lsmathis1]

Alright - lesson learned - keep opinions to myself - as others seem to see them as "misleading" and taken as "factual".

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 8/2/2004 2:43:16 PM lsmathis1 wrote:

Alright - lesson learned - keep opinions to myself - as others seem to see them as 'misleading' and taken as 'factual'.----------------

OK....I'm done. Clearly, you want to take this sensitively and make this personal when it isn't.

No one said to keep opinions to yourself....in fact, quite the opposite was said. The nature of a forum is that many opinions are shared, sometimes opposing. If that notion is personally offensive to you, this might not be a good fit.

Kevin, the stone above bears taking a second (and maybe even third!) look at. That's *my* opinion for what it's worth.

 

[lsmathis1]

All I'm going to say is that you must not have read my statement clearly...I didn't mention anything about you (or anyone else) telling me to keep them to myself. I am choosing to do that...I'll keep them for forum's where they are better suited. This is too tiring. I'm here to share excitement about *Sparklie* things - not to get into verbal arguements. So,you are right - not a good fit for me...

 

[quaeritur]

Lisa, please don't take it that way. I appreciate your opinions, as I'm sure many others do. I don't think aljdewey meant to offend you, it's just one of those unfortunate e-mail quibbles because it's always harder to gauge intentions in this type of setting. I'm sure none of this would have become unpleasant if everyone were dealing with each other face to face.

Hopefully, we can all get back to trying to help Kevin with the stone he is considering, which is NOT and ideal cut, but MAY be a good performer, depending on the crown/pavilion angles, which he's already said he'd try to get.

 

[lsmathis1]

Thanks, I agree that it's hard to gauge based on text alone but unfortunately/fortunately that's all we have here. Nevertheless, I enjoy this site and will keep reading/posting. I appreciate your comments quaeritur.

 

[greengook]

Thanks for the info and replies everyone. I know that the table is out of the ideal range of 53%-57%. I think once i find out the crown and pavillion angles, I would be able to see if this is a good performing diamond for the money. I would have a 15 day return policy on the purchase if I feel that it is not worth the money after being appraised, I can always return it.

I know that if I was to get an ideally cut diamond around the same quality as far as color,clarity, and carat I would pay around $1,100 to $1,400 more than what I could obtain this one for.

Furthermore, I can always upgraded the stone after a few years of marriage, when my budget can allow such a thing. I have seen this stone on pricescope and the lowest I saw was $7,600 and the highest was $7,976.

I was also told that I could get a 14k WG tiffany setting for Free at that price of $7,200. If I decide to buy this I am going to propose to my girlfriend in 1 month on her birthday.

-Kevin

edit-removed some personal stuff, some may not care for it.

 

[fire&ice]

Greengook, I think this could be a very nice diamond with good spread. It's very close to a 60/60 which some people prefer. It's nice combo of stats.

One would be curious to get the crown & pav. angles though. But, in the end the eye will tell.

BTW, my large stone has a table of 59% & I like it just as well as some "Ideals" I have purchased. One thing to keep in mind though. The HCA does not favor stones w/ this large of a table. So, by default the stone may rate in the 2-3 ish range. Don't dismiss it just because of that.

Good luck!

 

[greengook]

fire&ice,

Thanks for the advice and opinion. I think this is a pretty good diamond for the money so far.

-Kevin

 

[Mara]

I think you should not knock this stone out of the running but for $7200, you have a very healthy budget and can continue to look as well. I'd focus on getting something with a slightly smaller table if you go for the 'ideal' look of the stones. Otherwise, if this is a slightly more brilliant vs fiery stone, it will dazzle you with it's white light.




Definitely get crown and pav angles, I wouldn't buy a stone without them...use the HCA to determine more about the stone, but the relation of the angles to the table and depth can tell you alot too so post them here for people to comment as the HCA is not going to be the definitive answer.




Lastly, you didn't note whether you saw this stone in person, what it looked like etc. Since it's a virtual stone, I would definitely continue to look. There are many options out there, some of them were posted above, so in my humble opinion, IF I could afford it and had additional options, I would opt for a more 'ideal' numbered/reported stone for that same $$.




My two cents!

Good luck!

 

[Mara]

Here are some others to consider. They are from WF's Expert Selection, and all have excellent IS images and very nice numbers. WhiteFlash also gives a Pscope discount, so you may be able to knock some $$ off these prices. Good luck.






http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-586234.htm#


1.23 G VS1 $7700




http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-586225.htm#


1.22 H VS1 $6400




http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-720070.htm#


1.28 G SI1 $6900

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Looks good so far, Green. Could be a heckuva stone at a great price.

See what you can find out about the crown/pavilion height-depth/angles and we'll fine tune the observations.

 

[greengook]

Thanks for the info mara. I like that 1.23 G vs1 at WF. I hopefully can get the pavillion and crown angles today so that this community can comment more on the stone that I picked. If I can get the 1.23 G VS1 at WF at $7,000-$7,200 I am sure that it would be a very good purchase as well.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

-Kevin

 

[greengook]

What do you guys/gals think of this stone. I could probably save some money by maybe going to an eye clean SI1 stone. I may be able to get this for around $6,700-$7,000.

Thanks for looking.
-Kevin

 

[Mara]

This one needs more information just like the first one did. The numbers look nice so far, but crown and pav angles? Can you get scope images?

If you are now considering SI's..definitely check out that 1.28 G SI from WhiteFlash. It's $6900, so if you are going to pay the same amount for a 1.24...check out all the possibilities.

The one other thing to mention is that the virtual wholesale stones alot of times do not come with sarins or idealscope images. Push for this information and if they cannot give it to you, think about going with someone who can (aka WF, NiceIce, GOG, SuperbCert, DCD's Signature line etc). When you are shopping virtually, the more information the better to make that decision. Table and depth is not enough.

Good luck!

 

[greengook]

I just got the phone call with the info.

Here it is:
60.1% depth
59% table
33.3° crown angle
13 crown Depth
41° pavilion angle
43.2 Pavillion Depth

I plugged the info in to the HCA and this is what I got.

Holloway Cut Adviser

Selected:

60.1% depth
59% table
33.3° crown angle
41° pavilion angle

The result is for a symmetrical diamond with a medium girdle and very good polish
HCA scores were adjusted Dec. 15, 2001 and Feb. 6, 2003.


Factor Grade
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Very Good
Spread
or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.3 - Excellent
within TIC range

Comments?

Thanks a lot in advance.

-Kevin

 

[quaeritur]

Hi Kevin-

That looks like a pretty good combo! The stone will look very large because it has that excellent spread, and it will probably give you lots of white light return (look very bright and white). You may not see as many colored flashes as you would with a slightly steeper crown and smaller table, but if that isn't something you're specifically looking for, I'd say it looks like a very good option

 

[greengook]

quaeritur,

Thanks for the thoughts. I am sure that my special lady friend will enjoy the stone, if I get it.

-Kevin