Does depth matter on a Leo?

[opb78]

Hi, I have been reading your massive site for a while but I haven't seen this question yet.

I have come across a beautiful Leo diamond but the depth caught my eye. I would not have noticed the depth if I did not come here. I can honestly say that it looks great even though the depth is a little more than what is recommended.

First, I have heard different opinions on how deep a princess cut should be. I have heard anywhere from 65% to 80% max. Is it true that depth is an unknown for princess cuts?

Second, doesn't the extra facets on a Leo cancel out any loss of light from too much depth?

Here are some specs, if someone could tell me more about this and about how much this should retail for I would appreciate it. Again, it is extremely brilliant and is off the Gemex charts. Plus, my GF is sold on the Leo.

Leo Princess
Square modified brilliant
4.78 x 4.71 x 3.78 mm
.76 carats
D color
VS2
Depth: 80.3
Table: 69%
Girdle: Med - Ex. thick
Cutlet: none
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Fluoresence: None


I think that since it is on the depth "boarderline" then it should be ok...esspecially since I put my hand over it and it still sparkled!

Thanks!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/15/2005 10:22:35 AM
Author:opb78


#1. Is it true that depth is an unknown for princess cuts?

#2. Second, doesn't the extra facets on a Leo cancel out any loss of light from too much depth?

#1 - not true. There can be and are standards dealing both with the optic effects of the cut (depth & all other parameters included) and other effects (size for weight and durability).
You may want to look up the AGA charts (refferenced under "knowledge/fancy shapes" on top of this page). AGS is developing an ideal standard for princess cuts that will be released this year - as far as I know the preffered AGS0 princess depth will be more like what is accepted now for rounds - definitely not overly deep compared to current practice (there are older threads commenting on this standard and an article in the "Pricescope Journal"). AGA does not treat brilliance per se, AGS will.

#2. - who knows ? I somewhat doubt that. 80% is extremely deep, but I just do not know what the Leo facet pattern looks like, not to mention the particular pavilion angles of the diamond in cause.

Leo or no Leo, an 80% deep cut diamond has good reason to be discounted for the small aparent size, regardless of light return. A traditional princess or radiant cut that deep would be discounted for reduced size. Now... why would a branded cut be exempt ?

Btw. the "extremely thick" girdle on that diamond is not terribly desirable either - it just eats up weight and reduced face up size even more.

 

[Hest88]

The extra facets are not going to make up for the loss of light return. The extra facets will just give more of that disco ball effect. It''s cosmetic.

 

[sjz]

That depth is also going to make your 3/4 carat stone look like a 1/2 carat stone when it''s set. I think you''d be better to find a stone with less depth so that you will get the most size for your carat weight and your money.

 

[opb78]

I am in no rush, however I was offered a good price for this...I turned down a SI1 - H so they offered me this VS2 - D for the same price. I think it is because of the depth...but the depth is only 5% more than the 75% others have recommended....so, how much is 5% gonna do?

How much should such a stone cost, including the extra facets/brand/warranty/free checkups, etc.

Maybe I will hold off and look around for one with less depth...does - 70%-75% on a princess sound better? How much more would that 5% difference add to the price?


Thanks for your feedback!

 

[Lord Summerisle]

how much difference?

well...

ok the depth shown as a percentage of the width.

so taking the width as 4.71mm - 80.3% depth is the 3.78mm shown (well its 80.25% depth)

now keeping the total measured depth as 3.78mm... but with 75% depth would measure 5.04mm - a 0.33mm difference, a depth of 70% would give a stone that measured 5.4mm deep - a 0.69mm difference.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/15/2005 12:19:34 PM
Author: opb78

they offered me this VS2 - D for the same price


Maybe I will hold off and look around for one with less depth...does - 70%-75% on a princess sound better?

Well, 75% is already borderline deep - no need to go further. It would be nice to see depth & table around 65%. Definitely below 70%, IMO at least.

However, this is a matter of price after all - if the size of half a carat is fine, and the price is realistic, and the stones are bright... well, why not.

For price refferences you could run a search for princess cuts on the database here. Leo prices would be harder to find.

Several other branded squares are available, and a few are presented in detail at goodoldgold.com.

A deeper cut version of brilliant princess cuts is put forth by Exceldiamonds.com (also called "Superbcert"). These stones are cut with the same facets as a typical princess cut, only with optimized proportions to maximize yield (this is why these stones are also very deep) and brilliance. You may want to compare prices with those.

Hope some of the random stuff helps

 

[opb78]

Date: 3/15/2005 1:21

3 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 3/15/2005 12:19:34 PM
Author: opb78

they offered me this VS2 - D for the same price


Maybe I will hold off and look around for one with less depth...does - 70%-75% on a princess sound better?

Well, 75% is already borderline deep - no need to go further. It would be nice to see depth & table around 65%. Definitely below 70%, IMO at least.

So, a princess cut should be treated just like a round?

What is the range for depth and table for a princess?? 65%-low 70's?

 

[sjz]

Date: 3/15/2005 5:38:12 PM
Author: opb78




So, a princess cut should be treated just like a round?
Wouldn''t a 65% table and depth make it kind of flat?

Obviously, I''m not one of the experts on this forum, but from what I''ve read and been told, princess cuts are usually a bit deeper than round cut stones. But I think that 80% seems like it might be a little too deep. I think that going back to 70-75% would increase the table of the stone enough to be noticable. And that seems to be what most people are looking for...size and the appearance of size.

I looked at the widthxlength measurements and they would be equal to less than a 1/2 carat stone if the stone that was cut to a more "ideal" proportion. Using my geometrically challenged brain

...it seems like the stone would not appear to be as "big" as another 3/4 carat stone of a shallower depth. Going too shallow might affect the brilliance of the stone, I''m thinking...it might just look like a slice of glass. But conversely, going too deep might make the stone look smaller and less desireable just as easily. I might be wrong on my assumptions, but that is what logic would seem to dictacte.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Didn''t Rich Sherwood do a review of the Leo here on the Forum? Tons of good info there.

 

[opb78]

Thanks again for your opinions, there seems to be a bias on this site towards B&M stores and "branded" diamonds.
I have come to realize that most guys are like me, they don't spend days or years researching stones, but come to this site to guide them in the right direction. I am thankful for the info that PS have provided me, I have learned a lot and will know more for the future.

I decided to get the diamond I described above, thanks to the comments by some: "It all depends how it looks".
Well, this looked great and I got a good deal. After the purchase I took the ring to a PS recommended appraiser in VA and they were great, and the ring appraised for a lot more than what I paid.

I was told that depth does not really matter for a princess which I agree since this diamond glows. The appraiser said that princess stones usually run a little deeper and what really mattered was the table/crown which inhances the brilliance of a princess. It turns out that the crown on mine was really good and helps the sparkle (it is awesome).
I think a lot of people here (don't know if they are qualified or just stating their opinions) use the RB specs to judge all other cuts and this should not be the case.

From one layman to another I give this advice: Just go by how it looks and make sure you are not overpaying. I chose the B&M for their service. I could have gone anywhere since I was using my own funds, but the piece of mind was worth it (similar diamonds online were only $300 - $600 less). If anything happens I can bring it back to the store and they will fix it for free, if it is lost them my homeowners will replace it, if it chips then the B&M (Jareds) will replace it. I don't think an online vendor offers that yet. If I did get it online and something happened to it I (not knowing much about jewelry) would be right back here spending hours reading about "what to look out for at repair shops" or "how much should a repair cost"....now I don't have to worry about it. In otherwords, B&M are great for guys like me, and online stores are better suited for people with pre-existing knowlege and passion for jewelry (they already know where to go, what to expect, and how to deal with anything that comes up).

So, thanks again. I've learned alot and I hope this post lets a joe shmoe know they should just look around, keep in mind what "she" wants, and don't let all the "numbers" get to you. Even if you have "the numbers" you won't understand them unless you went to gem school, and most people here asking about them here already of their opinion set in stone on what is good and what is bad (if you look around you'll see many different opinions on what measurements are good vs. bad). So use the info here as a guide and keep it simple, get what looks good cause your eyes don't lie.

I'll try to upload a pic incase anyone is interested...thanks again!
I ended up getting a Platinum band with small VS2 (E-F) princess stones on the top, also has a antiquey type engraving....also got a matching wedding band (She picked out the bands but had/has no idea about the diamond yet).

 

[opb78]

These are under "office lights"....it is amazing outside, and halogen lights.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

It is incorrect to look at the depth of a princess-cut in the same way as that of a round.

In a round stone, more depth automatically means that diameter (or surface) has been sacrificed for more weight in the depth of the stone.

This does not need to be the case for a princess-cut. Just think about a stone with the same crown height and the same girdle thickness.

In a round, you have one basic pavilion angle, establishing the pavilion depth. The lower girdle facets are closely linked to that main pavilion angle and have little effect on the total weight of the stone. Thus, a deeper pavilion means less diameter.

In a princess, it is the P2-angle which establishes the pavilion depth. The P1-angle however can vary enormously, and it is with this angle, that a cutter can retain weight, while not touching the pavilion depth. By playing with the chevron-facets, a cutter has even more room to play with weight. Because of this, one cannot take the general rule of rounds (more depth means more surface) and apply it to a princess-cut.

I have stated this very often these last weeks, and I need to repeat it a zillion times: ''Do not take a rule, which applies to rounds, and apply it automatically to fancy-shapes.''

Live long,

 

[opb78]

Thanks Paul, that is EXACTLY what I found out from the appraisers. I wish I had a pic that was not under "office lights". This priness really sparkles, the only thing I was concerned about was the depth...and that got thrown out the window.

This process would have been a lot easier on me as a consumer had I not started to worry about the depth. An extra week was added to my search because some people here said depth does matter on a princess. And finally I just didn't care because this colorless diamond looked white and sparkled during a cloudy day last week...then the appraisers broke it down to me in a way I could understand and now I am satisfied.

I have a close up on the table but I am having trouble getting it below 100k, I'd love to show the facets and crown on this.

Cheers

 

[opb78]

Here is the table, I had to crop the pic to get under the file size limit. So the corners (prong heads) can't be seen, but you can see the facets, kind of cool I think.

It was graded as a (D) VS2, small cloud (beauty mark

), and 2 small surface dots....only visible under scope. That's it, otherwise it is totally clear and no color or flouresence. I noticed that a lot of the Leo's they offer are SI range clarity and G-I range color. This was the only D color in the area, and 1 of a few VS2's...so if you are interested in these then look around, don't rush. PS, their service was great...no preasure at all, pretty informative.

Another note, I believe the larger jewlers like the company that runs Jareds/Kays/Shaws, etc. use IGI because they are cheaper for their reports. GIA is the cream of the crop but their reports cost more. All the specs on the IGI report checked out and the appraiser agreed with them. As far as the Gemex (this diamond was off the charts in all catagories), it really does not hold much weight, the appraiser didn't even look at it. It is more for marketing but it did help me! At the store I looked at this one (D) VS2 and a (H) SI2 both had similar weight and cut, and I had the Gemex reports next to each other....basically, the Gemex reports confirmed on paper what my eyes saw and that helped me put the light return in a better perspective.

 

[Michael-LEO]

I think you have lent a great perspective here. It does seem that most participants on this forum do not like the B&M services, but they should all be reminded that a diamond is and should be about aesthetics. A statement about Princess cut depth between 60% and 70% actually demonstrates a lack of knowledge that is surprising for this forum. The princess cut was developed early in the seventies specifically by Israeli manufacturers for weight saving and a great look. Over a relatively short period of time it became one of the hottest items around and still is. Ironically, many "Diamantaires" stayed away from manufacturing these because it was deemed a gimmick to save weight. However, princess cuts have proved that they have legs and I will remind you that when AGS began grading Ideal cuts and Hearts and Arrows, this was seen as a an Amercian gimmick as well. In fact, to this day, you would be hard pressed to sell a 56 table round stone to Cartier or Van Cleef. Most Europeans prefer a 60/60, which was the standard when I was "growing up in the business". In the early 80''s and 90''s, Tiffany''s minimum was 59 and the desire was 61!

I specifically chose not to pipe in while you were looking but I do believe you have arrived at the right conclusion. An 80% depth is not exorbitant in a princess cut, if only because so many are like that. The princess cut is based purely on the rough model and an ideal crystal rough will always deliver a deeper stone. However, the reason that you get more bang for the buck is precisely because of the faceting in a princess and the fact that it costs the manufacturer (cutter) less to produce because he keeps more weight. LEO Princess does add to this.

In fact both AGS and GIA are beginning to get away from ironclad table and depth percentages, finally acknowledging what those of us who have been cutting for 30 years or more always knew - the look and appearance of a diamond is what counts and is highly subjective and personal. Now the labs are finally noting that if a layperson really likes it there must be a legitimate reason!!

Good luck!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/1/2005 9:21:55 AM
Author: Michael-LEO

A statement about Princess cut depth between 60% and 70% actually demonstrates a lack of knowledge that is surprising for this forum.

The mistake is mine. And chances are this is not the only place it happend !

Paul''s explanation and yours are crystal clear.
Given the database here and the GA it takes 10 minutes to reconstruct the facts, so... I should have known better.

Please accept my apologies for the silly interference.


However, I do not remember to have heard this before, despite all the ado about princess cuts.
It may be worth adding the bit to the common knowledge sources of this forum somehow.

 

[Rhino]

Don''t feel so bad Val ... there is validity to your statement.

In my experience I have seen and tested many princess cuts with depths around 80% that have had incredible optics.

Now while what Paul is saying is very true it doesn''t *always* work out in the way he''s describing and there are many princess cuts on the market with these depths that do look smaller. It''s one reason I avoid them altogether. And even among those of us in the trade ... if all things are equal and we''re looking at a princess cut with a 72 depth 65 table and another wiht an 80 depth 70 table (assuming awesome optics via B''scope on both) which would you buy? In almost all instances it''ll be the 72 depth.

Given the circumstances it appears our intial poster made a good choice and his eyes confirmed for him what the BrillianceScope results showed as well. Sure he could have probably found a stone with a better spread but if that came at the expense of optics I''ll take optics over spread any day.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 4/1/2005 9:21:55 AM
Author: Michael-LEO

It does seem that most participants on this forum do not like the B&M services, .....

Michael, I seriously disagree with this contention. It''s not that people here "don''t like" B&M services......I *like* them just fine as people, but I''ve not found one that carries any meaningful (more than 2 or 3) selections of AGS0 stones nor any that will provide me with the information I want as a customer.

Date: 4/1/2005 9:21:55 AM
Author: Michael-LEO

..........but they should all be reminded that a diamond is and should be about aesthetics.

That''s *partly* true. Selecting the stone that appeals most to your eye IS about aesthetics, but determining the fair market value for that stone when I''ve decided I want to purchase it is *not* about aesthetics. That''s about determining the properties of a stone (color, clarity, MAKE).

I agree that I should select the stone that *I* find most visually appealing....but if it turns out that stone is an AGS2 proportioned stone, I don''t want to pay an AGS0 price for it. To that end, information is important, and until the B&M stores provide it, I think they are at a disadvantage.

It doesn''t mean I don''t LIKE B&M stores.....it''s not personal, Michael. it just means they cannot compete for my business until they address those issues.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I''ve seen plenty of deep princess cuts which were gorgeous, and in reality they are usually priced with an appropriate discount that compensates for their smaller surface area.

Hence, nobody loses.