Is it worth re-cutting this diamond?

[diamondhoarder]

Hi all

I have a 2.1ct Princess cut diamond with a larger table than depth percentage (table is 71%, depth is 68.7%).





Specs are: 2.1ct, F color, SI2 clarity, no flourescence. Depth 68.7, table 71, medium girdle, Very good polish, good symmetry.

Here is the the cert (I never got sarin data when I purchased it)



The diamond is completely eye clean without a loupe (despite the SI2 clarity and busy looking plot) and the other thing that originally attracted me to it was the spread which makes it look more like a 2.5ct diamond - it measures 7.54 x 7.22.

However, it doesnt have as much fire as I would like and I have come to understand that this might be because of the larger table and smaller depth, which presumably also results in a lower crown angle.

I wonder if any diamond cutting experts could advise as to whether it would be worth re-cutting the diamond to try and get closer to ideal proportions, with the aim of improving the visual performance. The diamond currently has a medium girdle and good, rather than very good or excellent symmetry.

I realise that re-cutting would mean I would sacrifice the spread of the diamond. In order to achieve a significant improvement in the light performance, would I be left with a diamond of below the 2ct mark? If the diamond ended up below 2cts would the improvement in light return offset the loss in value due to the weight reduction?

How risky is it to re-cut an SI2 princess diamond? What kind of costs would I be looking at, and who would be the best cutter to produce the results I am looking for?

I'm trying to work out if is is worth exploring a re-cut. If re-cutting is not an option I am wondering whether adjustments to the setting would help. I have noticed that there seems to be an open cup under the diamond, which makes it more difficult to clean (and may be contributing to lack of fire in the diamond). I dont think that the cup is needed and Im not sure what purpose it serves. Would this kind of open cup (there is a small hole in the bottom of it to allow for cleaning) positively or negatively impact the diamonds light performance?

I would really appreciate any feedback on this, and I'd also love to hear from any PS members who have had their own diamonds re-cut.

 

[danielxlin]

Pretty ring.

1) Make sure it's not just a gunk on the bottom of the diamond issue. Get the ring professionally cleaned, get an ultrasonic cleaner machine, or break out the toothbrush.

2) Send it to Brian Gavin for a re-cutting evaluation. I wouldn't worry about losing weight below the magic 2 carat. It's meaningless, finger coverage and light performance are most important. Diamonds are losing investments but they're great decoration.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Dh,
No.
Based on a lot of things written on the internet, there's a rift in understanding about diamond cut- and your question highlights some of the problem.
Fire is amazing- I love it.
But it's only one part of a recipe. You have spread- which is far easier to see than fire, and also possible to notice in many more viewing environments.

AGSL does have a cut grade for princess cut diamonds, however it's not all that popular for this exact reason. And other reasons.

There's no workable formula about table/ depth relationship.
Sometimes a princess cut with a larger table can be absolutely gorgeous.
The photos give limited info, but the stone looks great to me.
F/SI2 eye clean is an awesome grade- because it looks like a much more expensive diamond.

I think you did pretty well

 

[diamondhoarder]

HI Dh,
No.
Based on a lot of things written on the internet, there's a rift in understanding about diamond cut- and your question highlights some of the problem.
Fire is amazing- I love it.
But it's only one part of a recipe. You have spread- which is far easier to see than fire, and also possible to notice in many more viewing environments.

AGSL does have a cut grade for princess cut diamonds, however it's not all that popular for this exact reason. And other reasons.

There's no workable formula about table/ depth relationship.
Sometimes a princess cut with a larger table can be absolutely gorgeous.
The photos give limited info, but the stone looks great to me.
F/SI2 eye clean is an awesome grade- because it looks like a much more expensive diamond.

I think you did pretty well

Thanks - thats interesting to hear. When I found the diamond I remember I was really delighted that it faced up so big whilst still seeming to have plenty of life. And I was pleased to have found a "lucky SI2". But since then I have wondered if I sacrificed some light performance for spread.

I have an ideal cut rb and in some lights my princess seems a little flat in comparison. I realise that fancies have a different way of handling light and are unlikely to outperform an ideal cut rb, but I suppose I still wonder if I could have done better with my princess, hence the thoughts about a possible re-cut. Having said that, I really like the facet patterning of my stone (and I looked at loads before settling on this one).

Can a princess, with AGS 000 parameters ever perform as well as an ideal cut rb in all lights and from different angles? Maybe I am aspiring to a standard that it not really possible in a princess cut stone? One thing that attracts me to princesses is the shape and crispness of the straight lines, so perhaps its not fair to compare it to my rb which has a different appeal altogether.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI DH, Can a great steak perform as well as a great salad?
That's basically the essence of the question of judging light performance.
IN many discussions the subject of light performance is treated as a distinct property. This (whatever) stone "performs" better than the other stone. It's just not that simple.
Personally I can never remove visual size from the equation. Or price.
Plus, the positive aspects of one shape can be counter balanced by other factors.
Will a princess ever have the same brilliance as a well cut round? No.
Can the different sort of brilliance offered by a princess be just as desirable? Yes.

I'm going to go out on a limb here- to me it sounds as though your love for your stone has been diminished through learning about light performance based on the more limited view.

Enjoy it- it does seem like a great stone.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi all

I have a 2.1ct Princess cut diamond with a larger table than depth percentage (table is 71%, depth is 68.7%).





Specs are: 2.1ct, F color, SI2 clarity, no flourescence. Depth 68.7, table 71, medium girdle, Very good polish, good symmetry.

Here is the the cert (I never got sarin data when I purchased it)



The diamond is completely eye clean without a loupe (despite the SI2 clarity and busy looking plot) and the other thing that originally attracted me to it was the spread which makes it look more like a 2.5ct diamond - it measures 7.54 x 7.22.

However, it doesnt have as much fire as I would like and I have come to understand that this might be because of the larger table and smaller depth, which presumably also results in a lower crown angle.

I wonder if any diamond cutting experts could advise as to whether it would be worth re-cutting the diamond to try and get closer to ideal proportions, with the aim of improving the visual performance. The diamond currently has a medium girdle and good, rather than very good or excellent symmetry.

I realise that re-cutting would mean I would sacrifice the spread of the diamond. In order to achieve a significant improvement in the light performance, would I be left with a diamond of below the 2ct mark? If the diamond ended up below 2cts would the improvement in light return offset the loss in value due to the weight reduction?

How risky is it to re-cut an SI2 princess diamond? What kind of costs would I be looking at, and who would be the best cutter to produce the results I am looking for?

I'm trying to work out if is is worth exploring a re-cut. If re-cutting is not an option I am wondering whether adjustments to the setting would help. I have noticed that there seems to be an open cup under the diamond, which makes it more difficult to clean (and may be contributing to lack of fire in the diamond). I dont think that the cup is needed and Im not sure what purpose it serves. Would this kind of open cup (there is a small hole in the bottom of it to allow for cleaning) positively or negatively impact the diamonds light performance?

I would really appreciate any feedback on this, and I'd also love to hear from any PS members who have had their own diamonds re-cut.

Diamondhoarder,
I am sorry you are dissappointed in the performance of your princess. As others have said, and you have alluded to, making sure this diamond stays very clean is quite important. If the setting is such that it is difficult to keep the pavilion clean, it would be worth getting a jeweler to consult with you about a different head style.

It's likely that a diamond with those proportions has significant light leakage and film on the pavilion greatly exacerbates that problem. And the lack of fire that you notice, has much to do with the shallow crown, as you correctly surmised.

Unfortunately, I doubt that you will find re-cutting a palatable option. The problem with diamonds cut for spread over performance is that in order to reverse that dynamic you will suffer more size loss than you may be prepared for. And there's the cost of re-cutting and also some risk. Another reason why re-cutting, even to AGS Ideal, may not have the full desired effect is that there is alot going on in the stone in terms of clarity features which may be having a negative impact on performance (including the clouds not shown on the plot). If you are prepared for all that, you might want to get a consult.

Rounds and princess are different flavors so expecting the same look is not the best way to judge the princess. You will never get quite the all around performance from a princess cut as you will from an ideal cut round, although it is possible to get close.

Sorry if this assessment seems harsh, but you seemed to be looking for some straight talk. From the pictures it does look like a pretty stone. I think if you approach the problem from a cleaning and possibly a re-setting perspective, you will see improvement without sacrificing too much in terms of size and money.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Bryan,
While I agree that "significant leakage" can be problematic, many lovely princess cuts I've seen do exhibit dispersed leakage in ASET.
If the OP's stone had "significant leakage" why can we not see that in the pictures?

In your opinion does a diamond's spread factor into performance at all?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

HI Bryan,
While I agree that "significant leakage" can be problematic, many lovely princess cuts I've seen do exhibit dispersed leakage in ASET.
If the OP's stone had "significant leakage" why can we not see that in the pictures?

In your opinion does a diamond's spread factor into performance at all?

Yes, spread factors into performance. Too little spread and the stone is hiding weight. Too much spread and you have light leakage, loss of fire and possibly other problems.

Here's an article that explains in some detail they way AGSL goes about assessing light performance in princess cuts:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/ags-laboratories-diamond-cut-grading-princess-cut

 

[Rockdiamond]

That's a very comprehensive description of AGSL princess cut grading.
It's important to note that the judgement of performance is subjective. Especially in fancy shapes. Unlike round diamonds there is little industry support for the AGSL princess cut grade. The reason is that many of the stones outside the AGSL box are very desirable and also have amazing performance. Different from the AGSL standards yet Every bit as good.

Part of this has to do with green and white in ASET.
The AGSL standards emphasize less green and less white.
Many people prefer the performance of a princess cut with more dispersed green and white in ASET than AGSL top cut grade for princess cuts.

 

[diamondhoarder]

I have now read the information about AGSL parameters - thanks Brian, for the link. It seems to require a pretty complex formula to end up with an "ideal cut" princess. Interesting to hear Davids views as well - plenty of food for thought!

Taking into account what you have both said I think I may go with a conservative approach and try having my setting altered to make the diamond eaiser to clean. Looking at it with my loupe, despite having been home-steamed and dipped in windowlene, I can still see a dirty film on the underside.

I am wondering why it has been set with a partially open cup under the diamond. I purchased the diamond loose then had the setting made for the diamond and had it shipped to me as a semi-mount before having the diamond set by a third party. I never noticed the "cup" at the time of setting, but now I am questioning why the ring would have been constructed this way. I always thought that cups were mainly used to enhance color in colored diamonds. Why would they be used to mount a colorless diamond? Could there be any advantage in light performance of the diamond by having a cup underneath it?

 

[diamondhoarder]

Here is a picture of the gallery from the side:



It looks from the side as though the whole of the pavillion would be open and easy to clean.

But underneath it looks like this:



I couldnt get a better close-up than this, but you can see that behind the inverted chevron with the 3 diamonds there seems to be a partial cup under the pavillion with an opening where the culet is poking through.

It would appear that removing this cup would make it much easier to keep the diamond clean, but my question is whether the cup could be serving any purpose connected to the light return of the diamond. ie could it be somehow improving the performance of the diamond? If not, then I am going to have it removed, but I wanted to check first that removing it is not going to make my stone look worse.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Remember that the word performance when used in relation to diamonds is only a subjective value judgment. In all likelihood whoever made the setting has never heard the word performance used in relation to diamonds, So it was not put there for any reason related to that concept. In my opinion the structure under your stone is there because it's a cast piece, and it needs the structure for strength.

It is possible to make a much more open design for the setting, but generally not with a cast ring. A hand forged ring made from extruded wires can use smaller parts that allow a more open settings under the diamond.

 

[diamondhoarder]

Remember that the word performance when used in relation to diamonds is only a subjective value judgment. In all likelihood whoever made the setting has never heard the word performance used in relation to diamonds, So it was not put there for any reason related to that concept. In my opinion the structure under your stone is there because it's a cast piece, and it needs the structure for strength.

It is possible to make a much more open design for the setting, but generally not with a cast ring. A hand forged ring made from extruded wires can use smaller parts that allow a more open settings under the diamond.

Rockdiamond - if I understand you correctly its not as simple as just removing the diamond from the setting then shaving away the platinum which forms the cup under the stone and remounting the diamond?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bear in mind that any assessment made from the photo will be an incomplete one – but yes it looks to me as though it wouldn't be quite as simple as just cutting away some of the metal - it might be integral to the structure

 

[diamondhoarder]

Thanks Rockdiamond, I will bear this in mind.

I just gave it the most intense ultrasonic & steam clean of its life and its looking a lot brighter. I think I finally got rid of the film under the pavillion. I know that it will never be an AGS000 (unless i go down the re-cutting route) but I'd like some feedback as to how much light leakage there appears to be now its clean (Texas Leaguer, Rockdiamond - what do you think?).

Here it is at its best benefiting from optimum lighting conditions:

 

[diamondhoarder]

And at its worst in less favourable lighting:

 

[Rockdiamond]

Unless you have compared your diamond to an AGS triple zero, and you like the AGS stone better, you could be wishing for something you don't even want.
The AGS graded stones tend to have a particular look – it can be very pretty. However many people prefer other types of princess cuts.
Leakage is a totally overblown fear . Large areas of leakage can be problematic - creating dull areas in the stone. However, dispersed leakage is an essential element of many princess cut diamonds.

If your diamond did have large areas of leakage, they would likely be showing the pictures, and they do not. Having said that, of course it is not possible to properly assess the diamond based only on pictures.

 

[LLJsmom]

I think you should really consider how much the diamond not sparkling as much as you want it to bothers you. If you are even considering a recut, it would seem to bother you quite a bit.

Have you seen other princess cut stones that you like a lot more? That seem to sparkle more? If so, is that what you want?

If it doesn't bother you, and based on the comments of the above experts in trade, I can see you letting it go.

If it continues to bug you, be a burr in your side, then I would still contact a vendor that recuts and see what your options are. Maybe you find out that you sacrifice too much in weight to get the cut you want. So no go. Or maybe weight isn't that important to you, and you would rather have a stone that sparkles a lot more, and that it is possible. Maybe seriously consider it at that point. I'm saying that in the end it comes down to how much YOU want the stone to sparkle. And if still unsatisfied, maybe consider a trade in, or sale, if it you are not tied to the stone.

Sometimes, regardless of the stats, and expert opinions, what the heart wants is what it wants. Good luck!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Before you do anything you should compare it to a 2ct AGS 0 cut Princess. IMO, if you wanted to see lots of "fireworks" then a princess cut may not be right for you.

 

[diamondhoarder]

Those are all points worth consideration. I have to say that since I got the diamond really clean I am seeing a lot more life and fire than before. I am not not sure why it was so hard to get it clean enough to get the best out of it. I don't have the same issue with my round diamonds. I think it must be to do with the setting.

Dancing fire - I have looked at various branded ideal cut princesses but very few of them appeal to me in terms of their facet patterns. I'm not sure why. I am not keen on the look of how the much smaller table creates the illusion of an uneven circle inside the square outline of the princess. So maybe I did end up with the flavour of princess cut that most appeals to me

I'm going to explore the re-setting options first I think.

 

[Dancing Fire]

From looking at your pics the crown looks too low to create much fire. I have never seen a low crown stone with a lot of fire.

 

[diamondhoarder]

I have heard that princesses have fragile corners. My stone has a medium girdle. I have been holding back on doing anything different with the stone for a while because I am worried that one of the corners will get damaged when having it removed from the setting or reset into a new setting. I have the ring insured all risks, but I am unsure whether this insurance would cover damage to the diamond during re-setting? I have heard that setters often don't have insurance to cover damage to diamonds they are working on. Has anyone had this happen? How was it resolved?