Princess opinions please...

[fuentes]

First off I want to thank everyone on here for being so informative with regards to all aspects of diamonds. I spend a lot of time sifting through all your posts and I think I have learned a lot in the past month. So here''s my potential diamond:
GIA
Carat weight: .88
Color:F
Clarity: VS2
Depth %: 68.2%
Table %: 62%
Symmetry: Very good
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Faint
Measurements: 5.33x5.34x3.64 mm
Length/width ratio: 1.00

I should have an IS image by Tuesday evening from WF.

 

[Garysax]

Nothing in the numbers to scare anybody off but you''ll know a lot better on monday if you have a winner on your hands. Everything else looks pretty good, though the depth and table are a little lower than princesses I typically see in the search engines. I don''t think it''s a huge issue though, the stone is probably very nice.

Let us know how the stone is when WF gets ahold of it, I bought a similar size a few weeks ago.

 

[fuentes]

I can''t wait to see the images...I''m not looking for spectacular, just not terrible as far as they go. I''m also considering these settings:
http://www.signedpieces.com/item.cfm?item_id=2359
http://www.signedpieces.com/img/items/15470.jpg
http://www.signedpieces.com/item.cfm?item_id=3658

http://www.signedpieces.com/item.cfm?item_id=2362

Anyone here familiar with these settings? I''m wondering if the diamonds on the first one are too small.

 

[researcher]

This could be a winner. If nothing else, it will DEFINITELY face up BIG for its size! Did Brian cut this stone? Just curious

Although I would normally want to see a stone with a 69-70% minimum depth paired with your table, it could still be a great stone.

 

[fuentes]

Actually no, it''s a stone that they called in...I don''t know how those usually go but all I know is that it''s from NYC and way graded in Jan by GIA. I hope it looks great because I need to have everything set by the end of this month

 

[E B]

Date: 2/14/2006 12:35:07 AM
Author: fuentes

Anyone here familiar with these settings? I''m wondering if the diamonds on the first one are too small.

Fuentes,

I remember earlier you talking about wanting the band to be thin so the center diamond would take center stage. If this is still the case, I''d opt for setting #1. The diamonds will add sparkle to the band without taking away from the Princess.

 

[fuentes]

That is true, but I also would like to be able to see some distinct diamonds on the band. If I went with the second setting would it look like a half eternity from the top like #1? It is only .2mm wider but it is .7mm thicker, does that make a big difference?
Thanks for keeping me in mind

 

[E B]

Date: 2/14/2006 2:02:27 AM
Author: fuentes
That is true, but I also would like to be able to see some distinct diamonds on the band. If I went with the second setting would it look like a half eternity from the top like #1?

I think it would. Looking down at my band (with 7 diamonds on each side) I can only see 4 per side with fingers partially closed. No matter what, though, with either, you'll be able to see distinct diamonds on the band.

 

[fuentes]

You''re right, I need to figure out what I want ...err, I mean what my girlfriend would want

I can be soooo indecisive, it''s like self torture, I go back and forth and back...kinda like that squirrel on the road as you''re driving up to it at 45mph.

 

[fuentes]

Thanks so much by the way...I just need someone to coax me one way or the other

 

[E B]

Date: 2/14/2006 2:11:27 AM
Author: fuentes
Thanks so much by the way...I just need someone to coax me one way or the other

No problem! I'm sure she'd adore either, but I still vote for #1. The diamonds won't be that much smaller but there'll be more of them. You know, just in case the ring slips a little bit to the left, or to the right. Sparkle coverage! It's what I'd prefer, if given the choice. They're both gorgeous though, and it really is a toss-up. Good luck, and let us know what you decide!

 

[researcher]

I also vote for #1. You want the gorgeous princess to be the center of attention, right? If so, #1 is your best bet

The diamonds will be big enough to have an impact, but not so big as to take away from the stone. Oh, and this is coming from someone with a 5-stone 1.4 ctw wedding band! I actually chose not to get side diamonds with my princess because I wanted to keep the center stone (3.22cts) as the focus. My wedding band just accentuates my ring. I think that, if your GF will want a matching diamond band you will want to keep the diamonds in the #1 size or the bling from the two bands will compete with the center stone.

 

[fuentes]

yeah...I think the both of you are right. It is so thin that it should really make the center stone stand out and that''s what I think would look best.
So if I purchase the diamond today, do I send it to signed pieces for the setting or do I get WF to send it to them?

 

[ChargerGrrl]

I''m certainly not an expert, but the specs look good to this princess-fan!

Please post images when you get them. THANKS!

 

[Garysax]

Date: 2/14/2006 10:19:26 AM
Author: fuentes
yeah...I think the both of you are right. It is so thin that it should really make the center stone stand out and that''s what I think would look best.

So if I purchase the diamond today, do I send it to signed pieces for the setting or do I get WF to send it to them?

Either way. If you''re not going to have it sent to an appraiser I''d probably have them send it to me so I could at least look at the stone before the refund period is out. Optimally you''d have it sent to you and then you could have it appraised and send it on to signed pieces or you could have it sent straight to an appraiser just to double check everything.

 

[squarediamondlove]

I also vote for setting #1! The specs look good to me so far so its really about what the other info and pics will show.

 

[fuentes]

does WF do appraisals? or do I have to send it to someone else? Is appraisal for the purpose of insurance like one I hope is covered by my homeowners insurance? I just want to make sure that there is enough time to get everything done by the end of this month...I really need the ring ready by March 1

 

[belle]

they send a letter of verification with the diamond/ring. most insurance companies will accept this for issuing coverage and there is no need to have a full appraisal done unless you want one for personal piece of mind.

 

[fuentes]

So finally I get the email sent to me with the IS, Sarin and 40X view of my "princess" and what do I see...an Asscher cut stone. I can''t tell you how dissapointed I was and surprised...I didn''t expect that. The GIA report says Square Modified Brilliant...everything else shows asscher. Somehow everything matches up, it isn''t my princess

. I''m kinda surprised that they still sent me the information without them looking at it and realizing that this is not what I wanted. I sent an email...I just wonder what will happen now? Will I have to foot the bill to ship a diamond that was incorrectly identified? I know there was probably just an honest mistake somewhere along the way...I just hate to be back at square one again.

 

[Garysax]

Date: 2/14/2006 11:48:09 PM
Author: fuentes
So finally I get the email sent to me with the IS, Sarin and 40X view of my ''princess'' and what do I see...an Asscher cut stone. I can''t tell you how dissapointed I was and surprised...I didn''t expect that. The GIA report says Square Modified Brilliant...everything else shows asscher. Somehow everything matches up, it isn''t my princess

. I''m kinda surprised that they still sent me the information without them looking at it and realizing that this is not what I wanted. I sent an email...I just wonder what will happen now? Will I have to foot the bill to ship a diamond that was incorrectly identified? I know there was probably just an honest mistake somewhere along the way...I just hate to be back at square one again.

If the stone was just called in, you shouldn''t have to pay anyway. Even if they sent the stone to you, it''s highly unlikely you''d have to pay for that kind of mistake. That said, sorry to hear about that. I am shocked that they didn''t catch it before they sent you an e-mail with the information! Somebody else was probably doing the pictures and IS than who you are working with, but still, you''d think they''d have looked...?

 

[fuentes]

Yeah, I''m not going to bad mouth them...we all make mistakes, this was just a little one anyway. I know how things can sometimes slip through. I just hope that they will work that much harder to still get my business, I know they will. From what I have read on here, they are that kind of company. It''s really crazy though, the GIA # on the cert matches what is said on the diamond, even though it clearly says square mod Brilliant, not step cut like an asscher. The sarin confirms that it really is the asscher that matches the cert because the measurements are the same

 

[fuentes]

Well, I''ve been in contact with WF and they are not the ones that made the mistake...it was just a misprint from the supplier. But I am back at square one kinda....I know what I want, I just need to find it. I still intend to purchase a stone through WF and I know, I think, that most any stone on the pricescope search can be purchased through them. So I''m looking for....

.8-.9ct
ideal dimentions ie:
Table 62-68%
Depth 64-75%
L/W 1.00-1.03
F-G
VS2-SI1
Oh yeah....<$3500

Also...how important is it to have Excellent Polish and Symmetry? Which one can I compromise on?

 

[researcher]

Date: 2/15/2006 7:17:01 PM
Author: fuentes
Well, I''ve been in contact with WF and they are not the ones that made the mistake...it was just a misprint from the supplier. But I am back at square one kinda....I know what I want, I just need to find it. I still intend to purchase a stone through WF and I know, I think, that most any stone on the pricescope search can be purchased through them. So I''m looking for....


.8-.9ct

ideal dimentions ie:

Table 62-68%

Depth 64-75%

L/W 1.00-1.03

F-G

VS2-SI1

Oh yeah....<$3500


Also...how important is it to have Excellent Polish and Symmetry? Which one can I compromise on?

I have to say, with your parameters you''re going to miss out on some SPECTACULAR stones! In fact, I don''t like stones with tables in the low 60''s. Did you come up with your numbers by seeing lots of stones in person? The reason I ask is it''s the combination of table and depth that need to work together, not the numbers separately. IMO, I would change your search to:

.8-.9ct
Table: 64-74%
Depth: 68-76%
Crown: 10-13%
L/W: 1.00-1.04

But, that''s just me. My criteria used to be different, but PS and my own observations have led to the above numbers as being better. Just something to consider!

Also, here''s a link to a great article on depth.

 

[fuentes]

Well, I was just going by the parameters that were on the fancy cuts guide on pricescopes home page. You guys know much more than I do, so therefore I replace my numbers with your numbers!

My NEW numbers are:
8-.9ct
Table: 64-74%
Depth: 68-76%
Crown: 10-13%
L/W: 1.00-1.04
F-G
VS2-SI1
and hopefully under....$3500

Thanks Researcher!

 

[researcher]

No problem

My numbers aren''t set in stone (see the examples below), but they will at least give you a little more flexibility.

Here are a few to consider:

.82 G VS2
.8 F VS1
.92 G SI1
.81 E VS2
.8 F VS2
.81 D VS2

And remember, WF will give you a PS discount

 

[fuentes]

so what do you think of this stone:
Carat: .84
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 73.7%
Table: 67%
Girdle: M-STK
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 5.31-5.09X3.75
Length/Width: 1.04

I was kinda worried about the 1.04, but I don''t think it will be that noticable on a stone this small. Also, I thought there would be a good chance that this stone would have a table >10%.