Princess Stone - This could be it.... Please advise

[akisan]

I have been searching for the right princess cut for a while and after much diligence, I think I have found a stone that works. I have seen the stone in person and it looks great. But before I went ahead with the purchase, I wanted to get advise from the forum which hosts a multitude of knowledgeable members.

here are the stats:

Princess - 1.72ct
Clarity: VS1
Color: H
Depth: 77.3%
Table: 74%
Measurements: 6.42*6.38*4.93
Girdle: Thin-Medium
Cutlet: None
Polish: VG
Symmetry: VG
Flourenscence: None

I would really appreciate any feedback on the stone.

Thanks in advance.

-Akira

 

[XChick03]

It looks a little deep and its not a perfect square, but other than that, it looks pretty good to me.

 

[squarediamondlove]

Its hard to say since you said that the stone looks great in person. I would probably not want to go that deep but it may work with this particuar stone b/c the table is larger. Do you know the crown height on it or can you get an idealscope shot?

Also the spread on the diamond is acceptable, but its not great, if that is something that you want to consider. The dimensions are good enough where it will look square so I wouldn't worry about that.

number wise its not perfect but that doesn't mean it doesn't look great in person.

 

[ChargerGrrl]

Ditto with everyone''s comments here. It''s a tad too deep for my taste, but it is paired up with that larger table so it could make a difference in your favor.

If you saw it in person and it "spoke" to you, then that''s what really matters!

What kind of setting are you looking into?

 

[ChargerGrrl]

Date: 4/14/2006 2:34:02 PM
Author: XChick03
It looks a little deep and its not a perfect square, but other than that, it looks pretty good to me.

True, it''s not a perfect square- but at 1:1.01, it comes pretty darn close!
It''s purely a question of personal perference, but the "rule" I''ve heard is that anything at/below 1:1.05 is considered "square".

 

[XChick03]

Date: 4/14/2006 2:50:13 PM
Author: ChargerGrrl

Date: 4/14/2006 2:34:02 PM

Author: XChick03

It looks a little deep and its not a perfect square, but other than that, it looks pretty good to me.

True, it''s not a perfect square- but at 1:1.01, it comes pretty darn close!

It''s purely a question of personal perference, but the ''rule'' I''ve heard is that anything at/below 1:1.05 is considered ''square''.

Yeah, that''s why I said "perfect."

I just personally prefer it to be completely square, but with those measurements, you wouldn''t be able to tell, its just kind of a pet peeve of mine.

 

[ChargerGrrl]

Date: 4/14/2006 3:07:13 PM
Author: XChick03

Date: 4/14/2006 2:50:13 PM
Author: ChargerGrrl

Date: 4/14/2006 2:34:02 PM

Author: XChick03

It looks a little deep and its not a perfect square, but other than that, it looks pretty good to me.

True, it''s not a perfect square- but at 1:1.01, it comes pretty darn close!

It''s purely a question of personal perference, but the ''rule'' I''ve heard is that anything at/below 1:1.05 is considered ''square''.

Yeah, that''s why I said ''perfect.''

I just personally prefer it to be completely square, but with those measurements, you wouldn''t be able to tell, its just kind of a pet peeve of mine.

GOTCHA!

Believe it or not, it was a pet peeve of mine too. UNTIL we found my stone. At 1:1.05 I can tell it''s a teeny bit "off", but it doesn''t bug me at all. The "sparkles" fixed that issue!

Akisan- sorry to hijack!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

As such, the depth may be OK, but it should be in combination with a much smaller table. Definitely not the opposite, like other posters here said.

Other than that, there is little one can say without more info on the crown and pavilion angles.

Live long,

 

[belle]

i would not discount this stone on depth alone by any means. this depth *could* work well depending on the crown/pavilion angles. really, all that matters is that you have compared it to other stones and you like it.

 

[akisan]

I dont have the crown/pavilion angles but the crown height is 8mm and the girdle is 1.2mm. I don''t know how helpful that information is

 

[belle]

Date: 4/14/2006 4:44:29 PM
Author: akisan
I dont have the crown/pavilion angles but the crown height is 8mm and the girdle is 1.2mm. I don''t know how helpful that information is

maaaaaaybe it''s 8% and 1.2% but it isn''t 8mm and 1.2mm

thanks for trying to get the info though!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/14/2006 4:52:20 PM
Author: belle

Date: 4/14/2006 4:44:29 PM
Author: akisan
I dont have the crown/pavilion angles but the crown height is 8mm and the girdle is 1.2mm. I don't know how helpful that information is

maaaaaaybe it's 8% and 1.2% but it isn't 8mm and 1.2mm

thanks for trying to get the info though!

LOL... I was thinking ... 8mm?

8% crown height with that depth ...

 

[akisan]

I understood the question to be that the crown height, so I asked for it in mm. So that is not a % as you guys might be looking for.

 

[Rhino]

I don''t think it could be mm akisan. The side by side measurements of the stone are no greater than 6.42mm with a depth of 4.93mm so an 8mm crown height doesn''t compute.

 

[akisan]

I may have misunderstood what the appraiser stated. I do remember the appraiser stating that to get the angles requested a Sarin scan would be needed and that they could have the performed.

 

[Rhino]

By all means GET THE SARIN. Ask if the appraiser can also generate a 3d model. If you can forward us (me, Garry, Rich Sherwood, or anyone here with DiamCalc) a 3d model we can tell you a whole lot more about the stone.

 

[akisan]

Here''s a stone that just came into the jewelry store. Do the stats here look good to you guys?

Princess stone - 1.61ct
AGS - Ideal Cut
6.46x6.46 ( i forget the third number)
T: 64%
D: 73%

I don''t have other stats at this time, but I''m curious to see the reaction to this stone.

Thanks.

-Akira

 

[akisan]

I forgot two key stats that I do have... Color I and Clarity VS2

 

[Rhino]

Hi Akisan,

I feel more comfortable with this one just knowing its an AGS ideal princess.

Not for anything but for years I've been stating the greater odds of finding a killer princess wherein table is less than total depth. With the release of AGS cut grading system for princess cuts their research had confirmed our own with the majority of AGS ideals having tables less than total depth.

What would be interesting for you to see akisan is if you could view the 2 stone mentioned in this thread side by side. I have posted a video which is in the gallery of this same type of comparison. A common princess cut alongside an AGS ideal princess. Here's a link.

 

[goldlion]

I too looked at princess cuts in about the exact same size. Check out my previous posts...I chose the 1.71 ct. The 1.69 is still available and in my posts it gives all of the numbers...sarin, idealscope, etc...it will at least give you an idea...

If you want any other info, I can e-mail more specifics to you...

 

[Gypsy]

I don''t want to go against anyone... and I''m in no way intending to do so with this post.

I just want to state our experiences.

When we were looking we asked our jeweler to find us 6 diamonds... and I gave him specs we were looking for. He found three princesses and three aschers and brought them in for us to see.

One of each were ''perfect'' in terms of numbers... but when we went to see them the ones we liked best in terms brighness and sparkle were a a bit ''off'' in terms numbers. So... And I''ve been wearing mine for a WHILE... and now I can''t remember what the numbers were... but the shine and sparkle-- that I see every day. If you love it, it''s perfect. That''s all that matters.

 

[RockDoc]

Paul Antwerp is very correct here about crown height becoming more shallow as the table is larger..

But there are two criteria.....not just the table size, "dictating" the crown height, but it also has to reconcile with the crown angle.

On some princesses if you cut the bigger table, and maintain a crown angle the crown height become shallower.
However, if you have a large table and want to maintain more crown height you steepen the crown angle, so without knowing all the facts, you can get a little "fooled" about assuming whether the crown height is really proper.

As an experiment hold both hands about 6 inches apart with the right hand fingertips pointing at 10 oclock and the left hand pointing at 2 o''clock. then move your finger tips - while holding hand same distance apart to 1 30 and 1 30 - notice the "table" ( the space between your hands ) gets larger.

Hope this helps for those to visualize, although this is sort of elementry and not as precise as Sarin.

Another very important factor is that the culet be center almost perfectly in princess cut. If it isn''t the pavilion will be lopsided.

Rockdoc

 

[akisan]

I apologize, I have not been able to respond earlier since I am currently traveling for business.

Rhino, your post on the ideal vs non-ideal cut princess stones was incredibly helpful. It is very obvious the difference in shine between the two stones. I will be looking at the stone in person later this week. I believe that the stone also has the sarin report so if possible I will post for advise.

Goldlion, the prices shown in your threat are very comparable to the ones that I have been getting.

I agree with the comments that the princess stones are just difficult to find via numbers/stats alone. I have compared numerous stones and there are certainly many that dont have the best stats, but yet are much more attractive to the eye.

Thanks for all the help, I really appreciate it. I will be posting more info as soon as I see the stone this week.

-Akira