How do the specs of this diamond look?

[sampras]

GIA certified
6.40 - 6.45 x 3.81 mm
0.95 carat
Depth: 59.3 %
Table: 59 %
Crown: 32.1 degrees
Pavillion: 40.8 degrees
Girdle: Medium, faceted
Culet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Very good
Clarity: VS2
Color: H
Fluorescence: None

AGS 3

It''s a little under $5500 at a B&M; I can probably find something similar for slightly cheaper online but I''m much more comfortable buying from a B&M.

Thanks for any input!

 

[sampras]

Forgot to mention its a Round Brilliant

 

[Shay37]

I dont' like that shallow crown. Just my personal opinion. If you want to buy local, no problem. Go to the top of the page and read the cut tutorial. Have your local store call in stones with better numbers.

ETA: I would also go with at least VG for polish and symmetry. Good luck and keep posting contenders for us to evaluate.

shay

 

[belle]

that crown angle is way shallow..did you get a chance to compare this with other stones?

 

[sampras]

The HCA seems to like it (except for the fact that the polish is good and not very good)
Factor Grade
Light Return Very Good
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.3 - Excellent within BIC range

Why do you guys say the crown angle is way too shallow??

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 11/1/2005 5:35:51 PM
Author: sampras
The HCA seems to like it (except for the fact that the polish is good and not very good)
Factor Grade
Light Return Very Good
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.3 - Excellent within BIC range

Why do you guys say the crown angle is way too shallow??

Chris,

I see that, too, and think the purchase, for this reason, could be absolutely reasonable. Alternately, there are 3 options in the search by cut database that are similar, but a bit less expensive, as you say, and possibly more balanced. For example, I might be a sucker for this one. Any chance you might order one from on-line, bring it to your B&M who will put his on hold for you, and ask your local guy to consider providing a ring for whichever diamond you prefer, thereby helping to insure the partnership of your local guy, regardless of which diamond you get. Then again, risks to the diamond for setting is an issue talked about here, which should be understood before you can feel comfortable with even this. However, you could consider comparing them.

I''ll bet the diamond is very nice, anyway, at your local store; the HCA seems like a helpful resource for options like this. Just too bad that the AGS3 valuation doesn''t get you a bigger discount...and that''s part of why I''d still be drawn to go on-line.

 

[phoenixgirl]

A crown angle in the 34 range is usually preferred, but the HCA says you have a good combination of angles, so I imagine it may be a very nice looking stone.

What I don''t like is the price. It seems high to me. PS has three 0.94 (no 0.95''s or 0.96''s, oddly enough) H VS2''s for about $4k to $4500.

You said you know you could find a similar stone online for slightly cheaper, but did you mean 25% when you said that? To me that''s a big difference.

I do respect the ease of buying in a B&M store locally, so if you like the stone, you might negotiate a bit on the price.

Maybe when you point out to the seller that you can get a 1 carat H VS2 H&A stone for just a bit more (the PS price is $5635) he''ll knock some off.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/1/2005 5:35:51 PM
Author: sampras


Why do you guys say the crown angle is way too shallow??

[leaving aside the question in bold below]


I don't.

If the two angles work together (HCA checks that), why worry if one is 'shallow'? Not too many would complain of a 'shallow' pavilion even though you get quite a few rounds over 41degrees.

And I don't think the polish grade has any visual effect either.

The averaged numbers you have leave aside one thing that many consider important - optical symmetry or the pattern of this thing (H&A is such a 'pattern' indicating as close to perfect optical symmetry as they get, but countless others are possible in round brilliants at different proportions etc.). I would like yours better if it had more precise rather than random optical symmetry - but I am not very picky in that department - it doesn't have to be exactly H&A (or precisely patterned) down to the utmost measurable precision to make my cut. But of course, that's just me, and I can understand the attraction of technical precision for its own sake too.


Just my 0.2

PS: does this have an AGS report saying AGS3 cut grade, or are the numbers obtained by other means (Saring report, say).

 

[sampras]

I know the crown and pavillion angles were obtained from a Sarin report; the AGS 3 must have been obtained from those numbers, they didn''t have an AGS report.

 

[sampras]

Date: 11/1/2005 5:56:29 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/1/2005 5:35:51 PM

Author: sampras



Why do you guys say the crown angle is way too shallow??

[leaving aside the question in bold below]



I don't.


If the two angles work together (HCA checks that), why worry if one is 'shallow'? Not too many would complain of a 'shallow' pavilion even though you get quite a few rounds over 41degrees.


And I don't think the polish grade has any visual effect either.


The averaged numbers you have leave aside one thing that many consider important - optical symmetry or the pattern of this thing (H&A is such a 'pattern' indicating as close to perfect optical symmetry as they get, but countless others are possible in round brilliants at different proportions etc.). I would like yours better if it had more precise rather than random optical symmetry - but I am not very picky in that department - it doesn't have to be exactly H&A (or precisely patterned) down to the utmost measurable precision to make my cut. But of course, that's just me, and I can understand the attraction of technical precision for its own sake too.



Just my 0.2

PS: does this have an AGS report saying AGS3 cut grade, or are the numbers obtained by other means (Saring report, say).

They also sell Hearts on Fire at this store, and there was some type of scope he had for viewing those. Should I ask to look at the stone through this and just look for some type of symmetry then? I assume all these "scopes" (idealscope, proportionscope, etc.) all will show me the same thing.

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/1/2005 6:09:07 PM
Author: sampras
I know the crown and pavilion angles were obtained from a Sarin report; the AGS 3 must have been obtained from those numbers, they didn't have an AGS report.

Thanks. I tried them to to see if they add up - they do... perhaps the girdle is a tad thicker than AGS might call 'medium'. but that I can't know for sure. These numbers are never absolutely dead on to the second decimal.

The result of this trial is the picture below. I have no reason to believe the stone actually looks like that - to have a perfect look-alike I should know how each facet deviates from perfect alignment. It would probably look sort of like that (i.e.very nice) just imagine the lines of the drawing twisted a bit. If the main proportions that you gave me did not work, the model corresponding to them would not have looked that good according to the H&A and IdealScope rules.

This is about all that comes to my mind about the respective rock

 

[belle]

ana, how did you get those numbers to input? for me, dc wouldn''t allow a 59% table and a 32.1 ca.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/1/2005 6:24:52 PM
Author: belle
ana, how did you get those numbers to input? for me, dc wouldn''t allow a 59% table and a 32.1 ca.

Here it is... can''t tell what might not have worked.

There''s that tiny variation of girdle thickness - somewhere borderline between ''medium'' and ''slightly thick'' that could be to blame. I can''t tell what the Sarin calls ''medium'' relative to what ags does. So... it ''s small anyway, within measurement error as much as I can tell.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/1/2005 6:24:52 PM
Author: belle
ana, how did you get those numbers to input? for me, dc wouldn''t allow a 59% table and a 32.1 ca.

Belle, have you tried locking them in order (top to bottom)? It does work, although the girdle result for my DC quickie = very thin. Here''s the ASET.

A FYI: HCA does tend to favor shallow diamonds.
A further FYI: These DiamCalc simulations assume optical symmetry and invent minor facet configs. An actual ideal-scope or other reflector image would be more telling than HCA, these DC sims or tea leaves

(I keep waiting for Strm to show up and say this will make a better pendant than a ring, and then we can all argue for 2 pages)

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/1/2005 6:48:49 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 11/1/2005 6:24:52 PM

Author: belle

ana, how did you get those numbers to input? for me, dc wouldn''t allow a 59% table and a 32.1 ca.

Belle, have you tried locking them in order (top to bottom)? It does work, although the girdle result for my DC quickie = very thin. Here''s the ASET.


A FYI: HCA does tend to favor shallow diamonds.

A further FYI: These DiamCalc simulations assume optical symmetry and invent minor facet configs. An actual ideal-scope or other reflector image would be more telling than HCA, these DC sims or tea leaves

(I keep waiting for Strm to show up and say this will make a better pendant than a ring, and then we can all argue for 2 pages)

naw,
its an interesting combo.
sometime when im awake ill have to model it myself and play.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 11/1/2005 6:18:39 PM
Author: sampras
They also sell Hearts on Fire at this store, and there was some type of scope he had for viewing those. Should I ask to look at the stone through this and just look for some type of symmetry then? I assume all these ''scopes'' (idealscope, proportionscope, etc.) all will show me the same thing.

Thanks everyone for your input.

Chris,

The viewer used for HofFire will allow you to check for symmetry....but if the question to you is...if it lacks symmetry, should you make that a deal breaker, and you needn''t feel that it will. Separately, not all scopes are alike, and whereas the "heart&arrows" scope is designed to show symmetry for both arrows & hearts, the ideal scope is separately designed to pick up light performance behavior, and so if you''re committed to buying locally, investing $25 to $100 for one of those jobbies may be worth your while (see Idealscope above under Tools). Apart from concerns about other details like contrast and performance in indirect light (seems like you have to either buy at GOG or buy a branded stone to have all ones possible concerns covered), this additional scope may help you feel you''ve done reasonable due diligence before your purchase commitment.

 

[belle]

thank you ana and sir john..i have no idea what i was doing before. i think my brain must be on vacation still!

 

[sampras]

Thanks everyone for your input. If I can''t get the local guy to go down a couple hundred dollars in price I think I am going to consider buying a stone online and buying the setting at the local store.

 

[Kaleigh]

Good luck, and I hope he will meet your price. If you buy online which I hope you do as you will get a great stone, make sure that the jeweler you buy the setting from will also set your stone. Some jewelers will not set stones that they don''t sell, sad but true. Just wanted to give you the heads up on this.