Thin to Thick Girdle... and diamond size

[jatt247]

Will .91 ct PRINCESS cut diamond be a good size with measurements 5.32mm x 5.18mm x 3.94mm?

has thin to thick girdle.

since i have a very limited budget... i am looking to get a size close to 1ct average


i am only asking for its size (not how good the stone is)...




P.S> stone is Good cut (bluenile standard)

 

[John P]

Will .91 ct diamond be a good size with measurements 5.32mm x 5.18mm x 3.94mm?

has thin to thick girdle. since i have a very limited budget... i am looking to get a size close to 1ct average

i am only asking for its size (not how good the stone is)...

P.S> stone is Good cut (bluenile standard)

Is this a princess cut? If so I'd expect that spread for around 0.75-0.80ct. Equally as important; the overall cut quality will play a huge part in determining how brilliant the diamond is. If the diamond lacks the proper angles to return light edge-to-edge it will look even smaller for its weight in soft lighting conditions.

 

[jatt247]

yeah.. it is princess cut..

so you are saying that... based on the specs this diamond will look like a 0.75 - 0.8 ct diamond? correct me if i am wrong

 

[Christina...]

A one ct princess will be approx 5.5mm and a .75 will be approx 5mm. You don't want to purchase a diamond that has too large a spread for it's ct weight and alternately you don't want to purchase one that has too small a spread for it's ct weight. One or the other is a sign that the stone isn't cut to ideal proportions and the performance of the diamond will suffer because of it.

Princess cuts face up smaller than many of the other cuts, so if size is important to you, you may want to consider another cut that will give you more finger coverage for your buck.

EDIT: I just saw that you posted that this diamond is a 'good' cut by blue nile standards...if you want a diamond with optimal performance you really need to consider only excellent and ideal cut stones. As John mentioned above, the diamonds performance is going to suffer as a result and it will also look smaller than its weight because of leakage.

 

[John P]

yeah.. it is princess cut..

so you are saying that... based on the specs this diamond will look like a 0.75 - 0.8 ct diamond? correct me if i am wrong

Yes. Or even smaller, if light return issues at the edges.

A one ct princess will be approx 5.5mm and a .75 will be approx 5mm. You don't want to purchase a diamond that has too large a spread for it's ct weight and alternately you don't want to purchase one that has too small a spread for it's ct weight. One or the other is a sign that the stone isn't cut to ideal proportions and the performance of the diamond will suffer because of it.

Princess cuts face up smaller than many of the other cuts, so if size is important to you, you may want to consider another cut that will give you more finger coverage for your buck.

EDIT: I just saw that you posted that this diamond is a 'good' cut by blue nile standards...if you want a diamond with optimal performance you really need to consider only excellent and ideal cut stones. As John mentioned above, the diamonds performance is going to suffer as a result and it will also look smaller than its weight because of leakage.

I'd mention two things here:

First, there are no "ideal proportions" for fancy shapes. There are some basic guidelines (a chart exists here on PS) but the variability of configuration in fancy shapes makes it impossible to derive meaningful cut performance information from basic measurements.

Second, Blue Nile's cut-quality labels are assigned by the seller, not by an independent laboratory. They publish no information about how they determine these labels, so there is no way to know if "good" has leakage or what kind of difference may exist between it and other labels. The short story? More than a grading report or a label without published criteria will be required to determine anything - positive or negative - about optical performance quality with this shape.

 

[Christina...]

yeah.. it is princess cut..

so you are saying that... based on the specs this diamond will look like a 0.75 - 0.8 ct diamond? correct me if i am wrong

Yes. Or even smaller, if light return issues at the edges.

A one ct princess will be approx 5.5mm and a .75 will be approx 5mm. You don't want to purchase a diamond that has too large a spread for it's ct weight and alternately you don't want to purchase one that has too small a spread for it's ct weight. One or the other is a sign that the stone isn't cut to ideal proportions and the performance of the diamond will suffer because of it.

Princess cuts face up smaller than many of the other cuts, so if size is important to you, you may want to consider another cut that will give you more finger coverage for your buck.

EDIT: I just saw that you posted that this diamond is a 'good' cut by blue nile standards...if you want a diamond with optimal performance you really need to consider only excellent and ideal cut stones. As John mentioned above, the diamonds performance is going to suffer as a result and it will also look smaller than its weight because of leakage.

I'd mention two things here:

First, there are no "ideal proportions" for fancy shapes. There are some basic guidelines (a chart exists here on PS) but the variability of configuration in fancy shapes makes it impossible to derive meaningful cut performance information from basic measurements.

Second, Blue Nile's cut-quality labels are assigned by the seller, not by an independent laboratory. They publish no information about how they determine these labels, so there is no way to know if "good" has leakage or what kind of difference may exist between it and other labels. The short story? More than a grading report or a label without published criteria will be required to determine anything - positive or negative - about optical performance quality with this shape.

True, and point taken. I didn't mean to imply that there were specific criteria to imply that a fancy shape diamond was ideal. In my experience though, that when vendors such as JA, and BN for example publish a rating guideline such as 'good' that it's often based on some characteristic of the stone that would make it a less ideal option than one that they had given a better rating, such as the stone is cut deeper than what is considered appealing to the majority of consumers. I was only trying to suggest that there may be issues with the stone that couldn't be addressed here without further information that is unavailable through BN.

I apologize I didn't mean to speak for you. I also apologize to the OP because he did not ask for the stone to be critiqued, only if the stones measurements seemed appropriate for the ct weight.

Edit: deleted an incomplete thought (typo)

 

[John P]

No apology necessary Christina!

I was only trying to suggest that there may be issues with the stone that couldn't be addressed here without further information that is unavailable through BN.

Precisely.