Would you buy this stone?

[jpinsly]

Round brilliant, AGS certified with AGS# inscribed on girdle.
1.836 cts
7.95-7.99 X 4.84 mm
AGS ideal 0
F VS2
flourescence negligible

Depth 60.8%
Table 54%
Crown 34.2%
Pavillion 40.5%
girdle 0.8 - 1.3% faceted
culet pointed
HCA 0.4

Price $19900

Upon inspection with 10x loupe, the inclusion appears to be a black spot near the edge of the table.

Questions: Is this a fair price? Is the location of the inclusion undesireable?

I took the stone for an appraisal and I was told it might be an F- and VS2-. Appraisal for stone was much more than price listed above.

What are your thoughts?

 

[strmrdr]

for a pendant id consider it for a ring no based on the cut.

didnt check the price or the rest.

 

[belle]

Date: 11/18/2005 6:28:46 PM
Author:jpinsly
Round brilliant, AGS certified with AGS# inscribed on girdle.
1.836 cts
7.95-7.99 X 4.84 mm
AGS ideal 0
F VS2
flourescence negligible

Depth 60.8%
Table 54%
Crown 34.2%
Pavillion 40.5%
girdle 0.8 - 1.3% faceted
culet pointed
HCA 0.4

Price $19900

Upon inspection with 10x loupe, the inclusion appears to be a black spot near the edge of the table.

Questions: Is this a fair price? Is the location of the inclusion undesireable?

I took the stone for an appraisal and I was told it might be an F- and VS2-. Appraisal for stone was much more than price listed above.

What are your thoughts?

the price is in line with stones of that size.
if the inclusion can be put under a prong it is no problem.
are you saying the appraisal ''might'' be the same as the grading?
i''m not loving those angles at all.

 

[jpinsly]

What''s wrong with the angles?

The inclusion would most likely not be able to be located under a prong.

THe appraisal was about 2x the price of the stone.

 

[icekid]

I agree w/ storm and belle- not for a ring!

As for the inclusion, I would not be too worried at VS2. Could you see it with your naked eye?

 

[jpinsly]

As this is all so new to me, can you please explain why this stone would be a poor choice for a ring?

 

[Demelza]

I think the reason they''re saying no is because it is a bit of a shallow cut. I''m assuming those are angles and not percentages. Some people feel that a pavilion angle at or below 40.6 is too shallow, especially since the crown angle doesn''t compensate by being a bit deeper. The thought is that this stone won''t hold up under close scrutiny and that it would be better suited for a pendant. Having said that, I have an AGS 0 H&A that has a shallower cut and some on here told me it wouldn''t work well for a ring. Well, I think it''s a beautiful diamond and very firey! It compares well against other superideal cut stones I''ve seen. I can''t comment specifically on this stone, but there are combinations of angles out there that are a bit "safer". For instance, a lot of people would like a stone with a 34.7 degree crown angle and a 40.7 pavilion angle. What did the appraiser say about the cut?

 

[jpinsly]

Yes, the crown and pavillion are angles, not %.

The appraiser liked the cut and said the stone was very nice.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/18/2005 6:43:38 PM
Author: jpinsly
What''s wrong with the angles?

The inclusion would most likely not be able to be located under a prong.

THe appraisal was about 2x the price of the stone.

Jeremy
it is very common for a stone to appraise 2x the price .

 

[strmrdr]

This page has a bit of an explaination and a chart:
http://diamonds.pricescope.com/ideal.asp

basicaly from up close they tend to look a bit darker than some other combo''s.
With good optical symmetry they can still blow the common too deep cuts out of the water but they arent worth the ideal premium if other stones with better angles are available.
If someone owns one and loves it thats kewl :}
Sometimes what is in the average can make a difference.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/18/2005 7:23:43 PM
Author: Demelza
I think the reason they''re saying no is because it is a bit of a shallow cut. I''m assuming those are angles and not percentages. Some people feel that a pavilion angle at or below 40.6 is too shallow, especially since the crown angle doesn''t compensate by being a bit deeper. The thought is that this stone won''t hold up under close scrutiny and that it would be better suited for a pendant. Having said that, I have an AGS 0 H&A that has a shallower cut and some on here told me it wouldn''t work well for a ring. Well, I think it''s a beautiful diamond and very firey! It compares well against other superideal cut stones I''ve seen. I can''t comment specifically on this stone, but there are combinations of angles out there that are a bit ''safer''. For instance, a lot of people would like a stone with a 34.7 degree crown angle and a 40.7 pavilion angle. What did the appraiser say about the cut?

there was an error in my initial findings that has since been corrected a lot of diamonds with 40.6 and even shallower are fine with the right crown.
This chart while not universaly accepted is much better than my intitial findings.

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/ideal.asp

 

[Demelza]

Based on that chart, jpinsly's stone is in the red "older people's rings" zone. That would suggest that perhaps it wouldn't be best suited for a pendant or earring??

 

[strmrdr]

There are 2 ovals on the chart with an overlaping zone.
The overlapping zone is what Garry chose to call old peoples rings.
That due to poor eyesight the owner wouldnt be looking at them from up close.
The darkness is not as bad as combo''s that are out of the ring catagory all together.

Its far enough into the pendant catagory (in the second oval) that "I" wouldnt buy it for a ring which was the question.

My opinion is that there are better combo''s out there for use in a ring which the chart shows.

 

[jpinsly]

Hey all,
The table that was posted was for a diamond that has a 57% table.

The table on my suggested diamond is 54%. I''m sure it makes a difference, but I don''t know how.

Obviously when you input parameters for calulating the HCA, it asks for table and depth %. I am guessing that there are difference maps for each set of parameters.

So I wouldn''t put too much credence into the particular map that was potsted.

 

[jpinsly]

Attached is an HCA chart with the appropriate dimensions inputted to generate the chart.

The stone gets a 0.4 HCA score.

Any thoughts?

 

[strmrdr]

here is the DC double check:
this combo:

 

[jpinsly]

Stormrider,
What are you showing me?

 

[strmrdr]

better combo same lighting:
There is a bigger difference in other lighting and conditions but this is the office lighting which shows it but doesnt over show it.
My opinion of course :}

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/19/2005 8:04:59 AM
Author: jpinsly
Stormrider,

What are you showing me?

They are diamcalc generated images in a simulated office invirement with a roughy med. level of head shadow.

 

[jpinsly]

What parameters does that diamond have? Same dimensions as what I have posted in my original msg?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/19/2005 8:09:11 AM
Author: jpinsly
What parameters does that diamond have? Same dimensions as what I have posted in my original msg?

the first one has the specs you posted 34.2/40.5/54 , the second 34.2/41/54

Its not perfect because shorter lgf% and different stars can make the effect a lot worse where longer lgf% slightly better but the lgf% in the images is on the long side so the same or shorter is more likely than longer for the lgf%.
Without getting into a full blown cut tutorial its tough to explain.
Thats why the chart was made.

They can be kicken diamonds and can blow deep/steep combos with table leakage away (that is a lot of diamonds out there) but on the other hand there are better combos out there.
If you have seen the diamond and love it then dont worry about it and enjoy it.

edit: just be sure and check it in multiple lighting envirements.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Jeremy,

I thought I would elaborate on the ‘Older People Rings’ concept, and comment a bit more on the thing no one will be able to nail down for you (your taste).

With eyesight there is a term called the near point of accommodation which is the distance at which focus is attained without strain. For a majority of humans this point is around 25cm (appx 10 inches). In young people, and in those with nearsightedness, the distance is less. The near point recedes with age, reaching that 25cm mark at around age 40 for most, and moving even farther away for some - possibly causing farsighted condition. The prevailing thought with ''Older People Rings'' is that those approaching or over 40 will not view the diamond closer than 25cm because they could not focus on it well. They will naturally keep their heads farther away, causing less obscuration and allowing the diamond to draw more light overall. The oval in the HCA map describing ''Young People Rings'' indicates diamonds predicted to perform well even in conditions where closer observation (more obscuration) comes into play.

That said, you really must see the diamond in question to know if this is going to be an issue. Actual performance depends on the particular diamond’s minor configurations and patterning, and even more of it relies on your specific taste. Not long ago I worked with a client who has a ring with an older AGS ideal diamond acquired elsewhere. It has a much shallower pavilion than I am accustomed to recommending (40.2). My preferences may differ but she loves the look, so it is right for her. We’re working to help her select earrings that compliment her taste and are considering shallower combos for her to view, though we don''t stock rounds with pavilions that low. Hearing her ring diamond’s proportions without knowing her taste, my inclination would be that the PA is too shallow, but that inclination would have been wrong for the look she prefers.

Furthering Demelza''s point - we have clients who come in and see diamonds with 40.5/40.6 PAs through all of the paces and ‘taste-test’ comparisons. Some of these clients are experienced enthusiasts. They have no problem using the diamonds they''ve seen for rings, pendants, earrings or anything else. In these cases I believe it’s a matter of good angle combos, minor facet configurations and good patterning.

I think we would all agree with this consensus: As professionals and enthusiasts we can give advice based on experience and observations. Some of the pros have seen thousands of examples and some of the enthusiasts know several of their own examples quite intimately. The bottom line is that what you see ‘live,’ with no other eyes but yours, is most important. If you have seen this diamond yourself at arms length and up close in several lighting conditions (direct, diffuse and soft) and it speaks to you in all of those conditions you should not let a number on a paper stop you from taking delight in it.

 

[Demelza]

Thanks, John, for your very reasoned approach to this. Frankly, the whole notion that some diamonds are better for older people vs. younger people is a bit bizarre to me and not particularly helpful. I am fairly young and have excellent eyesight (I can sometimes see inclusions in VS stones) and yet I can still appreciate the beauty in a stone that has a 40.5/40.6 degree pav angle. My diamond looks just as good close up as it does from a distance whether my head is in the way or not. I'm not saying that the original poster's diamond is a great stone as I haven't seen it or any other information other than the pav/crown angle combos, but I don't think it should be eliminated simply because it's a bit shallower. With all the other factors that contribute to a gorgeous stone, it might be a real winner despite the fact that the pav angle is one or two tenths of a degree "off". If I recall correctly, in a diamond taste test while at WF, Mara and Alj picked a stone wtih a 40.6 PA over stones that had more "acceptable" angles. I just think it's important to keep in mind that there are no absolutes answers here and that even though some people wouldn't touch a shallower stone with a ten foot pole, others might find it simply beautiful.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

good explanation Sir John

Demelza maybe you look more like this http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-20,GGLG:en&q=swedish+blonde

and not so much like this http://www.theretropostershop.com/Images/450x320/HendrixCloseUp.jpg

These differences, and the color of your top also make a huge difference - I try to wear a white shirt when i am buying.

Has anyone with a shallower stone ever bothered to compare it when it is dirty to a deeper stone that is equally dirty? (one day people will do this and eat their words)

Finally - apart from the actual purchase time - what % of the time are you all actually looking at your diamonds from less than 10 inches away?

 

[Mara]

Date: 11/18/2005 7:23:43 PM
Author: Demelza
I think the reason they're saying no is because it is a bit of a shallow cut. I'm assuming those are angles and not percentages. Some people feel that a pavilion angle at or below 40.6 is too shallow, especially since the crown angle doesn't compensate by being a bit deeper. The thought is that this stone won't hold up under close scrutiny and that it would be better suited for a pendant. Having said that, I have an AGS 0 H&A that has a shallower cut and some on here told me it wouldn't work well for a ring. Well, I think it's a beautiful diamond and very firey! It compares well against other superideal cut stones I've seen. I can't comment specifically on this stone, but there are combinations of angles out there that are a bit 'safer'. For instance, a lot of people would like a stone with a 34.7 degree crown angle and a 40.7 pavilion angle. What did the appraiser say about the cut?

Have you seen this stone in person jeremy?

As Dem noted...when she was looking at buying her stone, a few people who don't like shallower stones said no way and that it would not be as great looking as it is. The pictures of her ring are just STUNNING, that stone is ALIVE. And she raves bout it. I have to say that when she posted the images of her ring I was blown away. Not because the angles were questionable but just because it seemed like one of the prettiest diamoonds I have ever seen on here.

I would totally not throw this baby out with the bathwater at all...if you have seen it and love it and the appraiser, who has also seen it in person thinks it's great...I would be inclined to think that there was more than meets the eye than just angles or numbers. These kind of stones need to be seen in person and if you have...well then!

That said, I do think there are shallower stones where I'd be a little more worried, but this stone doesn't seem like it'd be a dog. When we were in TX, Alj and I did see 40.6 pav angle stones which some say are not to be considered for rings...and we chose one as being better looking to us as a similarly ideal cut stone with more acceptable angles. Kind of interesting. I also suggest comparing it in a bunch of lighting conditions as well as close to your eye and farther away.

I may prefer not quite as shallow of a stone while considering something VIRTUALLY and not being able to see it in person before buying, preferring to maybe stick with 'safer' angles and numbers, but if it was in person and I chose it out of the lineup compared to other stones, that's a nice little test to make you feel validated right?