Does this spread make my diamond look big?

[ttr1325]

Hello All! While i do not post much ....I very much enjoy reading all the threads and getting my diamond education fix. My question today concerns shopping for a diamond based not on carat weight but on a specific range of MM dimensions.

Shopping online at the usual suspects like BGD, Whiteflash, GOG et al, I see that the usual filter tools let you enter a carat weight range but not a MM range. For example, if I wanted to search for an oval with these dimensions.....9.4x6.4x3.6 I don't see the option to do that. Can anyone recommend an online vendor that provides the option to search on MM size as well?

Eventually I would like to purchase an oval with the MM dimensions noted above. I want the option to take my time and search based on MM and not necessarily have to contact various vendors asking "Do you have an oval with these MM range?"

Thanks! Terry

 

[luvdajules]

Hi OP, to answer your answer question, I don't believe you can do a search based on measurements. Furthermore, I'd add that you wouldn't want to pick a fancy shape based on a certain set of measurements anyway. An ASET would be a good tool for help selecting a fancy, though. Sounds like you might have a specific setting you are trying to use? Perhaps with great sentimental value? Contact GOG. I've heard many times they can help pick a killer fancy and may enjoy a challenge like this one.

 

[Gypsy]

The reason you don't see it offered as an option for searches is because it's exactly the wrong way to shop for an oval.

If you want a big dull stone with a giant bowtie, keep looking for spread. If you want a gorgeous diamond that will sparkle and shine... you need to learn more about ovals, how to shop for them, and what makes a good oval.

Numbers and lab reports tell you nothing of importance about an oval. And spread tells you nothing about a diamonds performance. And that's what you need to shop for: performance.

The entire purpose of faceting a diamond is to reflect light.
How well or how poorly a diamond does this determines how beautiful it is.
How well a diamond performs is determined by the angles and cutting. This is why we say cut is king. With fancies though (anything other than a round brilliant), that is a little complicated. But no other factor: not color, not clarity has as much of an impact on the appearance of a diamond as its cut.

There really is no other way to determine if you have a good oval online is to see images of the stones, and then you need is a way to check actual light performance of your actual stone.

That's what an ASET image does. http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=education-performance Please read.
And ASET shows you how and wear your diamond is reflecting light, how well it is going at it, and where you are losing light return That is why you won't see us recommending vendors like Blue Nile, as they do not provide images or ASET images for their diamonds. James Allen and Good Old Gold do this. So do Brian Gavin and Whiteflash and High Performance Diamonds.

 

[ttr1325]

Hello Gypsy and Luvdajules. Thank you for your responses.

I am NOT in any way shape or form thinking of attempting to research or shop for an oval on MM dimensions alone. Yes an Aset is Required for evaluating cut quality for a fancy shape like an oval. Was looking to search for potential stones using MM as a search filter just like entering the carat weight range is a common search filtering tool or using clarity. I get the message loud and clear from reading dozens of posts that cut is king and the importance of an Aset; and that fancies are evaluated on an individual basis and an Aset is absolutely needed in the process to choose a well performing stone.

I simply wanted to search using MM to gauge what stones in a particular MM range are costing. As well as the other 4 C's in trying to develop a realistic budget. I have no idea what budget goal I should be saving/aiming toward for an oval in the 9x4x3+ MM range. I am not in the position to purchase now, again what is the ballpark budget for such stone. I do not want to contact vendors wasting their time when I am not going to purchase now, i. e. budget is not in the ballpark.

Again, Thanks!

 

[tyty333]

Classic ovals have a ratio of 1.35 to 1.5 so for a 9MM length you would be looking for a width of anywhere between 6MM and 6.75ish
(for a classic oval).

Depth between 59%-62% but this can vary (aset required)

For fancy cut, numbers are just lose guidelines. We really have to look at asets and the faceting pattern to see whats going on.

If you could narrow down color and clarity we could give you a price range.

Here are some examples

High color/clarity $16k
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/1.50-carat-d-color-vs1-clarity-sku-277579

Middle color/
lower clarity $11+k
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/1.52-carat-g-color-si1-clarity-sku-293522

Lower color/lower clarity $8740
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/1.52-carat-g-color-si1-clarity-sku-293522

Hope this helps.

Edit - I just notice you were looking for 9.4 so you will probably need bigger than 1.5.

 

[tyty333]

Here is a not so pretty, almost 9.4 x 6.4 for $12.7k. I think its too deep.
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/1.80-carat-e-color-si2-clarity-sku-297459

 

[ttr1325]

I forgot to mention I do own an Aset. That is how seriously I understand cut is king.

I view Asets on PS but I do not trust my evaluation of Asets to declare it is a dud or a good performer. Sometimes I think okay that one looks good to my eyes but then an expert will respond that it is a dud. I miss a lot of what the experts see that allows them to draw the conclusion this Aset is good vs that Aset is garbage. Don't even get me started on patterning. LOL!

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI All,
I'm the first to say, you can't buy a diamond based on t's measurements.
BUT- in a case of an oval, the measurements are actually very useful.
Take the depth number out, and search L x W to find stones that meet an overall size goal and profile. Might be squat 1.2:1 or tall 1.5:1
Even then, you'll need to look at ASET, or photography to get the actual overall shape- particularly how the outline looks.
But, if someone is looking for a "tall" stone, using a formula to eliminate actually makes a bit of sense.

If you're looking for maximum light performance, I agree with Gypsy, you're not going to find a "spready" stone.
If you're looking for an overall look where size is very important- you might include a well cut Oval Modified Brilliant. Placing a priority on spread as opposed to light performance.
There are indeed well cut examples of shallower Ovals ( 55-65% for example) that have no bowtie due to the Modified Brilliant Design.

 

[ttr1325]

Hi tyty333. My thought process I would love to one day upgrade to an oval that faces up as close to 1.50 but would aim to buy below that actual carat weigh.

Instead find one where the MM size is in the range of 1.50 but not actual weight. Thus trying to get an idea of spread/cost for oval stones that face up MM of approx. 9x6x3MM and over but the carat weight is below the magic 1.50. Of course keeping in mind to evaluate potential stones performance with the all important Aset tool. Would like H - J would consider a K if well cut. SI1 - SI2 eye clean from top and the sides from 3".

Terry

 

[ttr1325]

RockDiamond, thanks for the tip to search based on LxW ratio.

I would want a stone that is around the 150.1 range. My current stone was purchased pre PS. I love it despite being highly likely not well cut. Still pretty sparkly to my eyes. Next time around arming myself to upgrade with much more knowledge.

Current stone: .70ct oval, GIA cert, G color, SI2, MM 7.23x4.77x2.99, LxW something like 1.52.1, minimal bow tie to my eyes. Again bought pre PS so not going to fret about cut quality at this point, just going to love it. Educating myself for the future.

 

[tyty333]

So you are looking for something that faces up large for its size. I think 9.4 length is bigger than most 1.5 carat ovals.
As long as you are not in a hurry and can take your time you can probably find something.

But...instead of looking for length/width have you tried looking at something with shallow depths (most/some? search engines
can do this) in a certain carat weight? That might help you. And when you found something you thought might be worth a look,
I would post and see what others thought.

So, this one probably cost more than you are looking for (but I dont know your budget) but it is a 1.6ish with a 57% depth.
(also try to stay away from thick to extra thick girdles...this one has thick). Cost is $9430 for
9.15X6.89X57.2.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/1.62-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-sku-269790

You know a better way to go about this is to look at pre-loved. It might not be easy to find a pre-loved oval but if you can
pay less and get the dimensions then its still a win-win.

I know if you give PSers a certain budget with specs they can come up with all kinds of ideas so when you are ready to start looking and
have a budget, let us know.

 

[ttr1325]

tyty333, yes I want a spready stone that faces up larger than its carat weight. I would love to double the size of my current .70ct stone. So 1.40ct or there about in carat weight but very spready facing up larger that 1.40 closer to 1.50 but of course not paying for a true 1.50 ct weight. That is my desire. Hence the crazy questions I'm asking. Thus my original question of developing a budget....but not necessarily for a true 1.50ct oval. Sorry my questions are convoluted.

Terry

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Good ovals are hard enough to find without adding a requirement that it be nice cut and shallow. I think you should focus on finding the best cut 1.3-1.49 stone you can find within your budget.

 

[ttr1325]

Diamondseeker2006, Thank You for succinctly summarizing plan of attack that won't drive me over the cliff. I do value this site and the contributions so many of you provide.

Terry

 

[ttr1325]

Tyty33, when you say also look at faceting pattern do you mean if it's a 4, 6, or 8 main pattern? If not please explain. For example my current .70ct stone has a 6 main pattern.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Yes, the spread irrespective of the weight won't work. It's those kinds of combos that produce a poor performing stone particularly if the stone isn't deep enough. You don't want it too deep either but I think you'll have a very difficult if not impossible time finding something that is spready but light on carat weight and well cut.

Maybe you would be better off contacting a couple of vendors for their picks. It would give you a better idea of parameters to look for.

 

[ttr1325]

Hi MissGotRocks! Ok so my desire for an oval based on the discussion is something of a unicorn in probability of finding. Ok will use all the very helpful information provided to edit my parameters. So goes the quest to get the most bang with the minimum amount of bucks as possible.

Again, Thank You all for your responses! I continue to read, enjoy the bling and learn.

Terry

 

[Gypsy]

Regarding depth and ovals. Ovals that have depths of under 62 seem to be more prone to bad bowties. And ovals that have depths 63ish range and up seem to have much better bowties. So I would not filter by depth on ovals.

 

[ttr1325]

Hey Gypsy! Good information for me to tuck away. Another question....when ppl. speak of patterning do they mean the # of facets? For example my .70ct stone is a 6 main.

 

[Gypsy]

Well.The arrangement of facets is what I think that the term refers to, so that can reference the number of pavillion mains. But if someone uses the term and you don't know if you understand their usage, it is best just to ask what THEY mean by it. Cuts down on confusion. And there are a lot of terms in jewelry that where the meaning changes depending on who you are talking to.

 

[Gypsy]

Also, I am happy to hear that you have an ASET scope.

I have one too and love mine .

 

[TC1987]

Good Old Gold, if you search Ovals, then when you get that list, click the burgundy Hide/Show Columns button, you get a list of options that you can select or deselect.

(Not sure if somebody said that already. Didn't have time to read through the whole thread.)