round brilliant depth

[BlackIce]

Hi

I''d like some opinions on The Diamond Guy''s 61% total depth cutoff.

 

[TLS]

who is the diamond guy?

I am no expert but heard that staying under 62 is a good rule, or for me preferably under 61.8 (At least that is what I thought, but I wanted a super-ideal cut), much more than that and you might be paying for weight you can't see and if you go way over that like 64 or something then you could have even worse problems with regard to the optical properties as well as paying for weight you can't see.

mine ended up being 61.6. Would I have liked it closer to 60-61? probably because then maybe the diameter would have been a little bit bigger... but finding the right diamond can be tricky so I wasn't going to knock one out of contention because of that... it was still a great depth that would allow the diamond to be sparkly and beautiful. Sometimes it is tricky to find what you are looking for, for me I was trying to find a tough size & an eye clean SI1 with G or H color, so when it came along I jumped on it. I wanted to definitely stay under 62, not to say there aren't beautiful diamonds with depths greater than this !

If you want a super ideal you probably want the depth under 62, I think that is what I heard. I think Nice eye listed what they favored in one of the threads and I can't remember exactly but i thought it was no more than 61.8 or something like that? I could be wrong about that though so don't quote me


edited to add: the more important thing though are the crown and pavilion angles from everything i have read.

 

[BlackIce]

The Diamond Guy is Fred Cuellar.

I am looking at a diamond with a 62.4% total depth. It''s an SI2 G. Symmetry is very good, polish is very good, crown and pavillion angles are 34.5 and 40.5, respectively, table is 55%. The diamond looks great to the eye, but I read "How to Buy a Diamond", and the 61% total depth rule threw me off.

This guys says not to even consider a diamond with a total depth of greater than 61%. He says they are bottom of the barrel and don''t sparkle, but this stone seems to have great fire and brilliance.

 

[belle]

you can do a search for fred cuellar and see what many think of him......
your own eyes are always the best judge!

 

[TLS]

someone on a previous thread posted this link and I think it says all I would need to know:

http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1998/06/08/story3.html

 

[BlackIce]

Thanks, that is very interesting.

 

[TLS]

that is insane that he said they are bottom of the barrell if they go over 61....

When I first started looking I bought a couple books that i found helpful.

One was "diamond ring buying guide" by renee Newman. I really like this one a lot because it really helpful for the beginner learning about diamonds. It has a lot of helpful pictures too.

I also bought "diamonds - The Antoinette Matlins Buying Guide - How to select, Buy, care for and enjoy diamonds with confidence and knowlege". I liked this one too, it too was helpful.... but I did see a table in the book that said ideal depth was 58-60% and "excellent" was 60+ -62. Not sure where these numbers came from that were listed, but diamonds in the 61 range are fine (assuming everything else is ok). I think low 62 range is fine too if all other criteria is also good.

I just checked David Atlas's website and the cut classification for grade 1a the depth can go to 62.3 (obviously there is a lot more needed than just this depth to make it a 1a depth limit for 1b looks to go to 62.9.

edited to add, I am sure there are many beautiful diamonds that go slightly deeper than 62 as well, but I just don't like the idea of paying for weight you can't see. I am not sure where I would draw the line, I guess I would have to see it in person to see if spoke to me . My cutoff point is 62, but if I saw a gorgeous 62.4 I can't say for sure I'd pass it up... it would really all depend. If i could find an equally beautiful diamond that was slightly less deep for the same price and it faced up a little better in size because of less depth, I would prefer that.

 

[Rhino]

Forgive the French but the 61% rule is a load of horse kaka. There is absolutely no foundation and "0" science for such a conclusion. I can point you to many many diamonds that have depths greater than 61% which are some of the most beautiful diamonds you''ll ever see in this lifetime and can demonstrate with graphics why this claim is bogus.

Fred''s book isn''t a total waste, there is some information in there that is very good but there are many examples of quackery which have no foundation in truth whatsoever. Another is the warped diamond theory.