Princess Cut ~ Would love your opinion

[hm214]

Hello,

I'm new here and I am sort of at a crossing point with the center stone of my engagement ring, which I've had for a cuple of years (we're married now). Here are the specs of the Princess Cut center stone:

3.00 ct
H SI2
7.82 x 7.62 x 5.59 mm
Depth: 73.3%
Table: 74%
Crown: 8.7%
Pavillion: 57.8%
Girdle: Very Thin to Very Thick
Polished
Culet: None
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good to Very Good
Flourescence: Faint

The stone was EGL certified in Sept, 2003. I am very green about diamonds - I am not educated when it comes to cut, whatsoever.

I am really at the point where I can no longer stand to look at the ONE carbon spot in the lower corner of this ring. It is visible to the naked eye - but I'm the only one who knows it's there. None of my friends, family, etc. ever noticed it, but then again, I'm not letting them stare at it up close! The stone is very sparkly, but I wanted to get your opinion on this stone here. Is this even a good cut? How are the proportions? What is your opinion of it?

I decided that, regardless, I have to upgrade the clarity when we can afford to (hopefully in the next year) b/c I cannot stand the carbon spot anymore. It probably sounds bizarre...but I feel like I only see the carbon spot now when I look at the diamond! Of course, there is certain lighting that makes it very difficult to see the inclusion - but I know it's there! So - what should I be looking for when I go to upgrade? I don't want to go below 3ct but I would be open to other suggestions.

Any help or opinions would be welcomed!

Thank you in advance!

 

[Garysax]

Wow, too bad the clarity is bugging you! But remember you're probably the only one seeing it so don't stress too much. Somebody's sig around here says something like "it's harder to find a mind clean stone than an eye clean" and it sounds like that's what you're going through right now.

Number one thing with cut on fancies--any time you talk about "This or that measurement is good" is only general. Light performance on fancies varies quite a bit more than it does for rounds. So sometimes fancies that on paper don't look five star deal cut perform incredibly and vice versa.

That said, looking at the numbers you've provided here... It looks like a decent cut but not ideal.

Most people would like to have a smaller table than 74% (60s are good, I think the new ideal AGS princess says upper 50s are better? I don't remember) and it also seems like a rule of thumb is you'd like to see a smaller table than depth as wonky stuff can happen when they're really different (apparently...). I usually see people recommend a 10-12% crown as ideal as well.

That said, I'm an amateur and on top of that you may just have one of those stones that sparkles like crazy and performs great regardless of measurements! Also EGL is known as a "liberal" grading system. Which means you'll often find out that your actualy diamond color is 1 or 2 colors lower than the cert tells you. Clarity could be worse too.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/7/2006 2:42:46 AM
Author:hm214

Is this even a good cut? How are the proportions? What is your opinion of it?

Good cut... probably so. There is no 'red flag' in those numbers, but then... this is little info (not quite enough to picture the stone in front of me that is) and I am not an expert.

The 'Ideal cut' story with metrics based on 'performance' and proportions is more recent than your stone. And chances are these stones will never a large fraction of all princess diamonds being sold - meaning, if your stones doesn't cut it, that is nothing dramatic about that. For an interpretation of the parameters at hand, you may want to take a look at the 'Fancy Shapes' topic under 'Knowledge' on top of this page. The AGA tables presented there make short work of a rough guess of what is considered 'better' for princess cuts out there. Your set of stats comes out with a high score.


So - what should I be looking for when I go to upgrade? I don't want to go below 3ct but I would be open to other suggestions.

Sounds like SI1 should do, and H or I (chances are this is already 'I' by stricter standards). You may want to look into the AGS0 princess cuts and also consider size rather than weight as a 'benchmark'. Because of the thick girdle, this isn't all that large for a 3 carat princess cut. Chances are the same size could be found at about 2.5-2.7 weight. And since over 3 cts the price per carat makes a tidy jump, this may be worth noting.

Btw. I think Garry thought you were talking about round diamonds when listing those numbers for table size. No way AGS0 standards for princess cuts advise 50% table size. The standard has a hairy description taking a dozen more parameters than table and depth for benchmark, but those table and size are still 'business as usual' - 70-ish or so. Perhaps AGS Ideal combinations of proportions with smaller tables exist, but 50-ish... is very extreme.

2nd BTW - at least one brand of princess cut is cut with such small tables, but that is a good excuse to produce princess cuts with small spread (=size for weight) and sell them at a premium. To each his own.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/7/2006 3:00:14 AM
Author: Garysax


Most people would like to have a smaller table than 74% (60s are good, I think the new ideal AGS princess says upper 50s are better? I don''t remember)

No. AGS0 princess cuts come with larger tables. I don''t know if there is an upper limit - just hope they stay below 80% or so - otherwise, why bother have a table cut at all?

and it also seems like a rule of thumb is you''d like to see a smaller table than depth as wonky stuff can happen when they''re really different (apparently...).

I think this comes from the tutorial on Princess cuts at GoodOldGold (worth reading, IMO).



I usually see people recommend a 10-12% crown as ideal as well.

Taken from the AGA cut charts! (see ''Fancy shapes'' under ''Knowledge'' on top of this page).

Gary, I should probably apologize for ''hunting down'' your post. Obviously I spend too much time on this stuff to know where those lines come from

I find it quite frustrating that the AGS princess standards didn''t come with comparable backing of public information as those for rounds. Dreaming of a HCA-type thing, obviously.

 

[researcher]

I''m not an expert either, but I don''t love this stone. There is WAY too much variation in the girdle and the crown is too low IMHO (as Gary mentioned a girdle of 10% or higher is often considered optimal (it provides greater fire)). As for the table, I agree with Ana (Valeria101). For me an ideal table is dependant on its pairing with the crown and pavilion, but generally I prefer them in the 67%-72% range. I would not buy a princess cut stone with a table smaller than 64%, nor one with a table greater than 75%. But, that''s just my particular sweet spot when considering stones. As for the depth, I prefer stones in the high 60''s to mid 70''s. There are some spectacular stones now being cut that are a bit deeper (high 70''s), but you can tell from their measurements that their depth is not due to hidden weight in the pavilion (sorry I can''t explain this better at the moment--I haven''t slept much and it''s 2 a.m. right now). I would therefore consider those stones as well.

The best advice I can give you is to look around and determine for yourself what makes for a good princess cut. If you don''t trust yourself, the AGS graded stones Ana mentioned are the best way to go. They are more expensive but they take the guesswork out of the equation. Oh, and I would not buy an EGL graded princess cut. When I first started my search I thought that was a great way to go, but very few people with a well cut princess would send it there when AGS is considered the best. In fact, I don''t know if I would bother with GIA graded stones UNLESS they were graded PRIOR to the implementation of the AGS grading system. Then again, the AGS grading system is not universally accepted, so I would not discount a stone I thought to be spectacular if it was graded by the GIA.

Changing subjects, please post a photo of your ring! I would LOVE to see what your stone looks like!!!

 

[Garysax]

It's no problem in regards to the hunting. I don't mind Valeria--a lot of information from the non-pros on this board (like me) comes from a big mish mash of all the tutorials and recommendations they've heard on other parts of the web and from people they've dealt with, and I'm no different since I'm no real pro other than having to get as well versed as I could in princesses before I bought my stone.

I did get confused in regards to the AGS recommendation in the 50s--you're right, that would be just odd on a princess. But upper 60s lowish 70s was what I was reading in the various tutorials (that you just mentioned in your reply to me as well). And as you said there are many other supposedly important parts of the cut that we just never get information on in a post like this or on the internet before it's called in. The other pavilion angle, for example.