Too flat, right???

[AlwaysLearning]

Hi everyone,

My jeweller gets their diamonds from overseas so I'm going to have to purchase sight-unseen. Of course, as a newbie trying to make his first purchase based solely on the numbers, I'm a bit uncomfortable. Thank goodness for Pricescope. Oh, and at this stage, the jeweller is only feeding me GIA info too. Double scary. I asked for crown and pavillion angles in future. He said he would ask.

The first set of numbers he threw me were these. They were off a fax, so I'm having a little trouble reading some of them:

Weight: 0.66ct
Measurements: 5.68(?) x 6.89 (?) x 3.41
Depth: 50.1% (?)
Table: 59%
Girdle: Thin to medium, faceted
Culet: None
Polish/Symmetry: EX/EX
Clarity: VS2
Colour: G

Armed with my few months of PS knowledge, I thought it looked like a dud. With a depth of 50.1% (hard to read though... it could be 60.1%, which sounds better to me), I think it was too flat. Fish-eye maybe?? What do you guys think?

 

[valeria101]

What shape is the stone?

The depth percentage is calculated as depth/width, so here it is indeed 60% (3.41/5.6. Better news - generally speaking - thna 50%. It would be great to judge this diamond by more than numbers...

It is good news to see "excellent" symmetry and polish on a fancy cut. Hope it looks as good as it "sounds".

 

[Volred]

Will he send you pictures of the diamond?

 

[AlwaysLearning]

Thanks guys.

It's round. Ahh, that makes a lot more sense.

I didn't think to ask for pictures... that's a good idea. But can you actually see or learn anything from a photo?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 9/3/2004 11:42:09 AM AlwaysLearning wrote:



It's round.

----------------

The numbers posted above give a length / width ratio of... 1.2:1 - that's very much an oval! If those were 5.68 - 5.89 it would be "round" by GIA's definition (L/W <1.05), only not as precise as these super ideals so highly regarded around here.

The proportions (table and depth, since this is all we know) are outside AGS0, so I bet the price is attractive. I see no reason to ask for pictures if you will hold the stone - aside from posting some here, of course. Which is always nice to see, but up to you, of course.

You have ordered an Ideal Scope, is it so? Since you will hold the stone, this test should be quite fine. Also, if you can compare your diamond side by side with a H&A, that will also help decide.

One may not identify a super precise H&A with such hands on approach, but it should be perfectly feasible to judge one diamond for brilliance.

Did you have any choice at all, or is this the only diamond that you will have to decide about? It's always nice to choose, oh well...

 

[CaptAubrey]

----------------
On 9/3/2004 9:27:50 AM AlwaysLearning wrote:











My jeweller gets their diamonds from overseas so I'm going to have to purchase sight-unseen.

----------------

this raises all kinds of red flags for me. any reputable jeweler is capable of ordering an assortment of stones on memo for you to view and pick the one you like. i've never heard of a storefront jeweler making the customer buy sight unseen because they "get their diamonds from overseas."

and those numbers have to be way off. you cannot have a 0.66 ct round with those dimensions.

 

[Jeffjo]

Hi,
Its impossible for 50.1 to be the right number,
in addition I love the polish and symmetry both graded excellent .
But its important to note whether or not the GIA info he is giving you comes from a GIA certificate.
It could equally well be from EGL, and while EGL New York, is pretty reliable, I have seen some questionable EGL certs from EGL in Israel .
You also need to consider is the value good
sincerely,
Jeff.

 

[AlwaysLearning]

Thank you so much for your replies!

How did you guys conclude that it couldn't be round? Isn't the ratio just the diameter around the girdle divided by the diameter of the table?

I have an IdealScope but sadly I won't be able to use it

I'm using Niwaka in Soho, NYC. They ask their Japanese office to find the stones for them and just fax the GIA certificates. The reason I have to buy sight unseen is because the stone is sent direct to Japan where the ring is made to order. The next time I get to use my IdealScope will be on set ring. Bah!

Certainly the certificates are GIA. I have a copy here.

I turned that one down yesterday so they're looking for some more now. It's not my only choice. However, after your comments, I'm going to call them to confirm these numbers. The GIA cert says that it's a round brilliant.

The worst bit is that I think the stone was over-priced. Approx $4300. They quoted me exactly the price from their little approximate price/guide book thing plus 10%. I suspect they'll charge me that price for any 0.66ct, G, VS2 that they show me (that's what I asked for). That could work either way for me so I want to be careful.

It's a bit unfortunate that I like their rings so much that I'm willing to put up with all of their inflexibilities. Like this thread, Niwaka is very much on the high side.

It sounds so bad doesn't it? If I don't use their stone, they'll charge me a fortune for whatever setting i choose. I don't want to copy it, and I'm sold on it (even put a deposit on it already). I figured, these guys are supposedly the 'Tiffany' of Japan (whaddayaknow, it's Friday), they wouldn't sell me a total dud. It seems I could be wrong.

 

[CaptAubrey]

----------------
On 9/3/2004 2:55:42 PM AlwaysLearning wrote:





How did you guys conclude that it couldn't be round? Isn't the ratio just the diameter around the girdle divided by the diameter of the table?

----------------

if the dimensions are 5.68 x 5.89 x 3.41 (i.e., you've got a typo there), that would look correct as far as the weight goes. however, that gives you a 58.9% total depth. assuming the numbers on the fax are really 60.1% and not 50.1%, you've got a 60/60, which is a defensible proportion and not necessarily "too flat." however, i would never buy it (or any other diamond) sight unseen.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have modelled it on DiamCalc and it must be 60% not 50% depth to weigh .66ct

Also GIA can not give EX Ex for a stone with 1.8% out of round - you have a good chance of it being a nice stone

 

[valeria101]

Yeah, the price on the stone alone is not the breatest, but the, if the total cost of the ring remains the same (or gets worse) regardless of where you get your diamond from, not much can be done.

It seems that the fax with the numbers was unreadable, not the diamond out of norm. Were you pleased with the diamonds n shop in the NY store? Since this is a respected brand, as you say, I would not suspect this particular stone would be any worse.

Just my 0.2, of course.

Is there a picture fo the ring you have chosen ?

 

[AlwaysLearning]

Wow, you guys rock!

I don't suppose Diamcalc is available for Mac OSX?

Quite right, it seems the fax is probably the source of my confusion. I'm going to call them tomorrow to reconfirm the numbers. The stones in the shop looked fine but the guy did mention that the little 'Niwaka' engraving on the diamond doesn't happen until after I purchase it. I wonder what that means -- ie. I wonder where they actually get these diamonds from if they're not already Niwaka diamonds at the time of sale.

Oh, and here's a picture of the ring I'm getting. I just lifted it from the website. It's only supposed to take between 0.3ct and 0.48ct so mine will be a custom job. It also has a 0.02ct blue diamond on the bottom of the ring.

I can't wait to take pictures of my own one! Or better yet, hand photos!

 

[valeria101]

This is one special ring :0 I would not even put a larger diamond in there - their idea of using 0.5 cts max seems very fine... unless they scaled the rings down to whatever the average japanese ring size might be

Totally understand why you are going for these! And the ring should take a band near beautifully as well - maybe a few more brighlty colored diamond dots.

Now I can't wait to see this on your hand