is this a bad table ?

[chilmaz]

I''m thinking of buying a diamond that''s GIA certified, but I''m a little leary after reading some things on the net. The size is 1.66 carat, with a depth of 58.5% and a table of 69%. It''s a round brilliant cut with a medium fluorescence color. The measurments are 7.66-7.77x4.51mm.

Any help would be great!!

 

[Jennifer5973]

Are you sure it's 69% table? that sounds REALLY out of whack. I'd keep looking.

 

[chilmaz]

yes, it's a 69% table. It looks good, but barely cloudy. Not really even enough for a person to notice, but I've been looking at a lot of diamonds and noticed it. If a person has a 1.66 carat diamond, if the table isn't a little big, how does it look it's size?

 

[Brian Knox]

Hi,

Welcome to Pricescope.

If those numbers are correct, it is a poorly cut diamond.

 

[Rank Amateur]

What a strange animal. I wonder what it was about the rough that dictated those proportions?

R/A

BTW, a diamond's fluorescence and its color are two totally separate things. Don't confuse them when you discard this stone and look for another! Also, don't be too fixated on carat weight.

 

[Jennifer5973]

Yes. As Brian has noted, this is a very poorly cut diamond. Maybe it has some appeal but a 69% table on an RB is way out of any scope for getting a diamond with the best visual performance.

And as others have mentioned, the cut quality (the table, depth, crown, pavillion, culet, etc) is one aspect of the diamond's beauty and often the most influential on its performance. Color, clarity, and size (carat) are the other three main areas of evaluation/focus.

Your budget and your own eyes are also driving forces. But you can do a lot better than a 69% table. And don't worry about how big it will look--a well cut diamond will spread to its appropriate size within 0.1 mm either way.

Good luck. AND read the tutorial ont the forum.

 

[valeria101]

Most diamonds look "good" even if the cut is not great... but the difference between an oddity like this and a diamodn with good proportions is quite a sight. You should be offered the opportunity to see it for yourself before deciding. This particular stone should be nicely discounted both for fluorescence and that cut, even if you do end up preffering it to a H&A.

I bet the "cloudiness" here is not due to fluorescence or inclusions but just a bad, bad case of 'Fish eye'

 

[denverappraiser]

GIA medium fluorescence shouldn't be enough to give the cloudy effect you are mentioning but, in any case, I would count 'cloudy' as a really really bad sign. The whole point is get a stone that is bright and beautiful! I think what you are seeing is a cut that just isn't returning the light. In any case, keep on shopping. You didn't mention the clarity and color of this stone but you might consider bring down the size a little bit so that you can get a better cut for the same price. Play with the diamond search engine on www.pricescope.com to get a feel for how weight/cut/clarity/color/cert relate to one another. And to repeat everyone above, read the tutorial.

Neil Beaty, GG ISA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[yowahking]

Most internet sites and most jewelers will get you away from those type stones. 10 years ago this was not such an odd cut. Now, that is very off from what is considered normal. Many stones can be cloesr to what it called 60/60 (table and depth) and have great fire without being up in the ideal range. I see stones that deep discounted about 20% extra for the off cut and often seen them around for a few months before someone takes it. The biggger problem with a stone cut that way is if you ever want to sell it. Second hand market or trade in market for it is real low. Finer cuts will always find a trade or selling home if you ever upgrade or need to sell it.

 

[headlight]

Wow -- 69% depth sounds crazy! My RB is a 61/61 which is considered pretty out of wack for this board (although I think it is gorgeous and rivals every branded cut I've compared it to, but that is another story...). Its
shape's "appearance" looks a little "different" to that of a branded cut because of its differing table and crown angle to where some have asked me if it was a cushion cut (!) -- not sure where they came up with that one, but I do like it's uniqueness. But again, I have 100% trade-in value with my vendor, so I won't have such a difficult time should I choose to change it.

 

[Rank Amateur]

hey yowah

69 is the table, not the depth. It's a shallow stone, not a deep one. That being the case, are these common (now or ten years ago)?

R/A

 

[Jennifer5973]

I am a BIG believer that a variety of cuts/proportions yield gorgeous diamonds and am not as much of a stickler to the H&A "ideal" numbers as some folks are, but even with that perspective, 69% sounds like a fish-eye.

PS my orginal ering stone is 10 yrs old and a shallow cut... must have been the trend before the buying public knew any better.