Your opinion on these 2 Marquise stone

[saytoken]

Comparing 2 diamonds at www.diamond.com and www.uniondiamond.com, your opinion is appreciated.

#1. www.diamond.com
Carat=1.35, color=D, Clarity=VS2, Depth=63, Table=56, Length-Width=10.27 x 5.98(Ratio:1.72), polish=VG, symmetry=VG, Price=$8665.

#1. www.UNIONdiamond.com
Carat=1.39, color=D, Clarity=VS2, Depth=64.6, Table=58, Length-Width=10.8 x 5.79(Ratio:1.86), polish=VG, symmetry=G, Note: Pin Point Internal Graining, Price=$8031.

Thanks
Ken.

 

[Slykat12]

Please list more info on stones.

When I bought a Marquise and btw I am only a consumer not a gemologist, I went with Dave Atlas fancy chart and followed the 1a catagory to a T for my stone. It was hard to find as so few are cut like that.
Please note that the outline shape must appeal to you as well. Some may feel 1.72 ratio too fat, some like it. Definately get photos of their shape in some way be it ideascope or what ever.

 

[saytoken]

What other info. are you looking for ? Those I mentioned is pretty much all I have.

 

[Slykat12]

At a min the info on the gia report. Which you don't have it all. If you follow the fancy chart below u need a crown depth. The links u list don't lead to the stones.

I used this chart below. Everything was in 1a for my rock
I asked tons of questions got a sarin and photos in room light and an ideascope pic.
I then sent it directly to Roc Doc so he could be my eyes.
When I did lay my eyes on it I was so not disapointed.
Since I was buying online I felt I needed to stick with the numbers.
Thus the stone is Mind clean for me!!!!

http://www.gemappraisers.com/chartFrameset.htm

 

[saytoken]

#1. www.diamond.com
Carat=1.35, color=D, Clarity=VS2, Depth=63, Table=56, Length-Width=10.27 x 5.98(Ratio:1.72), polish=VG, symmetry=VG, Price=$8665

Girdle=VTN-VTK, F, Culet=NoneFluorescence=NON
#1. www.UNIONdiamond.com
Carat=1.39, color=D, Clarity=VS2, Depth=64.6, Table=58, Length-Width=10.8 x 5.79(Ratio:1.86), polish=VG, symmetry=G, Note: Pin Point Internal Graining, Price=$8031.

Girdle=NED-TK, F, Culet=NoneFluorescence=NON

How do you calculate the crown height ?

 

[valeria101]

The lab reports will not tell you exactly how they look, if they show bow tie allot or not quite and such. To use the AGS grades (mentioned above) you would indeed need that extra number (crown height) that usually comes from a Sarin report. But then, it would still be some approximation. If the sellers do not use to send pictures of their stones to customes it may also be of no use to make them struggle for just this one, because taking good pictures is not that easy and so-so rezults not very useful.

Bottom line, allow the seller to advize on the quality of the stone. They might have options at hand while the one stone you have selected is still at the wholesaler and all both seller and us can see are those couple of numbers.

I definitely like the sound of *very good* symmetry for a marquize because it isnot very frequent and symmetry makes allot of difference for this shape - I feel. However, the symetry grade on the cert is not the same as even looks, but a more techincally opaque term. So... it is still better to see them and ''good'' symmetry is by no means worse off the bat.

What can I say. I wish there were pictures. For these two, I''d pick the seller you preffer and start asking questions. The stats posted there do not contain any ''red flag'' I might be aware of, but do not say all that much either. They should be nice marqs, and could look very different too.

 

[Slykat12]

Yes, of course the eyeball is the best judge but an idealscope would help. Why Val said mine was good and totally effected my buying decision!

Imho it appears the first is mostlyl 1a. The very thin-very thk girdle brings the score down though.
It is so really hard to find a girdle that is not very thick.

Did you see these puppies? I did not include anything lower in clarity than vs2 as that seems to be your preference but you would not be able to tell a D from an E I don't think. Marquise look huge as well. Don't think you would notice the small diff in size as these cuts have thinner girdles and are less deep.



1.15 E VVS2 61.8% 55% GIA thn-med no vg vg no 10.17x5.68x3.51 $7013
1.17 E VS2 61.9% 60% GIA stk-tk f no vg vg no 5.51x10.30x3.41 $6211

 

[valeria101]

Date: 7/26/2005 7:36:41 PM
Author: Kimberly

1.17 E VS2 61.9% 60% GIA stk-tk f no vg vg no 5.51x10.30x3.41 $6211

Hei! why not... I do agree about D and E - there always seems to be some premium on the top grade even if it makes no difference - perhaps just for the sake of some psichological effect. E-VS2 is pretty high and manages to get past this sort of bias. For 2k less, that stone is only a hair smaller than the two near 1.4cts and by no means worse in other ways.

Honestly, I do like that 1.4 weight because it appears such a bargain next to the 'jump' at 1.5 cts. So... how about:


A long one
surely like the slender shape and size due to 'savings' of girdle thickness... but it is EGL and a bit more pricey than I'd wish. For the money one could look at the 1.5 cts range anyway.

Certificate EGL------------ (!but ...) 136895201
Carat 1.46 ------------------------ (close to 1.5)
Color E
Clarity VS2
Price $ 8812.74------------(but also at 1.5cts price)
Measurements 11.86 x 5.66 x 3.82 mm------------(pretty large relative to those shown this far)
Depth Percentage 67.4 %
Table Percentage 58 %
Girdle EXTN-THN
Culet SM
Polish GOOD
Symmetry GOOD
Fluorescence MEDIUM BLUE

I am not very sure I prefer this to the one you found at Uniondiamond (the one I'd choose between the two you chose because of sturdier girdle and longer profile and better price...all relatively week arguments in absence of relevant pictures, unfortunately). 8k calls for like 1.5 cts IMO, and this is where the hesitation comes from, really. I am one of those that would have the hardest time telling D from F and need to see what they are getting.

Speaking of which:

Here's one I can see (LINK)
1.5 cts, D/Si1 (GIA) -------------------- pictures show well what the clarity grade is all about, via progressive magnification
MM Size: 10.63 x 6.16 x 3.94
Fluorescence: FAINT BLUE
Girdle: Slightly Thick - Thick
Table: 57.00%
Depth: 64.00%
Symmetry: Excellent ----------- (didn't know these exist!)
Polish: Very Good
Culet: None

Just an idea... It is hard to deal with just numbers, so it may well be that the simple presence of pictures give a serious advantage (IMO) to some otherwise underserving choices. I am posting knowing that some other Pricescopers more expert than me will chime in

 

[Slykat12]

Wow Excellent symmetry- U show off. I thought he would poo poo lower clarity so did not look. hehehe
Mine is very good though and I can see it is off. hahaha

 

[RockDoc]

RE Stuller Diamond

I looked at the link and while the GIA rating of excellent symmetry is impressive, I really think that you should get an image of the GIA report. The clarity comments of "feathers from girdle" are a matter of concern.

GIA is more forgiving with clarity grading on stones from 1.50 carats than they are for smaller stones.

Of course there is nothing like seeing it, and learning whether the feathers break the surface.

Also note that the excellent grading for symmetry is essentially on for how the meet points are. Some diamonds with really excellent symmetry don''t scinitillate as much as some others. You need to know, and should be concerned with the different properties that the symmetry for this stone affects the result of its light return. In that the facetting angles in a marquise varies as you measure from the center to the tips,and much of this is affected by the l/w ratio, how well the "aiming" of corresponding facets is cruicial.

Facet yaw, is also very important to observe and the affect on the appearance of the stone. This does take personal examination, best made by an expert, however your personal preferences also do come into play. Perhaps one of your local merchants who deals with Stuller, can get the stone in on consignment from them so you can see it. This is probably the best way to proceed, and then if you are pleased with the general appearance, consider having an expert check it and get his opinion of the diamond as well.

Rockdoc


Marquises, are such that they really should been seen.

 

[saytoken]

Got a picture of the 1.39 Marquise, what do you think? I can''t tell it is good or bad, just that I like what I see. Maybe that''s the whole point, but also want to be sure I''m getting good value for the dough......

I will post the Sarin report if I have it.

Much Thanks to everyone ! This forum indeed is great !

 

[belle]

if you love it, that is all that matters.

here is a smaller pic....
nice shape!

 

[saytoken]

Indeed the symmetry is very important, I just went to a local store, saw a Marquise that is wider in the bottom than the top, and the stone look like it''s leaning to the right side. The problem is, looking at this picture above, it also looks like it has the same problem, is it just my eyes ? Is there a hard number to check ?

Here is the link to this diamond: Marquise 1.39

 

[valeria101]

Date: 7/27/2005 5:56:59 PM
Author: saytoken
Indeed the symmetry is very important, I just went to a local store, saw a Marquise that is wider in the bottom than the top, and the stone look like it''s leaning to the right side. The problem is, looking at this picture above, it also looks like it has the same problem, is it just my eyes ? Is there a hard number to check ?

''Guess the stone was tilted when they took the photo.

RocDoc is right (of course, he is, he is the expert here!) saying that the symmetry grade on the lab report is not the same as what one might imagine - it does not describe the visual match between the sides of an axis of symmetry of the stone (lets call this visual symmetry) although somewhat implies it - in theory. I was just surprised to see the top gia grade for this on the cert of a marq.

There are no numbers on the Sarin report that tell visual symmetry. It is difficult to aling the diamond and the camera down to a fraction of a degree to show off such quality of the cut.

So... of course these reports were no meant to make seeing those diamonds redundant. You should see this. It is good to know that you like it at least in picture (good start, saying ''this is worth a reality check'', IMO) and that its ''stats'' fit AGA. After all, there is quite a bit of experience an good will in those AGA numbers and it does help that the instructions for using the standard themselves avice restraint (= considering the first two or three quality steps ''top'' and avoiding further hair splitting, see the ''fancy shapes'' page of the tutorial).

Do I like ti ? Of course. I find it funny that some marqs and ovals actually display two ''arrows'' across the bow-tie region when their proportions get just so. Can''t tell if this means anything, but this being a H&A inclined forum I''m seeing arrows everywhere. Including across the face of your marquize.

So... the pictures show a nice diamond and not much in the way of technical detail. But who cares ?

Diamonds are supposed to be nice not HiTech.

If you do care about technicals, get an Ideal SCope to look at your new treasure when itcomes in - there is no precise standard though, so chances are the beauty will pass even such judgement. Tome, Garry''s toy is entertaining enough to be worth the money - you don''t get to see every day wher light goes off your diamonds, right...

 

[saytoken]

Thanks.

I''m just concerned the diamond would look leaning to the side, after seeing one such diamond in a store, I can''t imagine her enjoying wearing something like that....so hopefully it would work out.

Also, the price just went up by $267, or 3%, I just inquired 2 days ago. I think it''s caused by # of hits from the web to this particular diamond, the theory commodity such as diamond fluctuates every day seem a bit stretched to me. If that''s the price I will get then I''m not comfortable, or feel good about this purchase and probably shop around.

 

[Slykat12]

Beautiful shape l/w very pleasing to me.

I am a hair spitter though. I am a nerdy science girl and I do worry about the depth. Probably because I know less about diamonds than Val and the Gemologists here thus I am more careful. Online we can''t "see" 10 diamonds in person side to side thus guidelines do help unless you completely trust your vender. All venders do have a job to sell you a stone you know. God love em but their job is to be somewhat bias.

The numbers don''t guarantee a great stone but you can weed out obvious dogs. Only you know what is acceptable to you.

If you must have a large, D, VS2 or better so be it, but don''t skimp on the cut which it more important to overall beauty.

Union is a good company and they will send you idealscope pics if you ask. I did send my Roc to doc prior to purchase for a second opinion but no one can replace what your eyes think.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 7/28/2005 11:52:47 AM
Author: saytoken

Also, the price just went up by $267, or 3%, I just inquired 2 days ago. I think it''s caused by # of hits from the web to this particular diamond, the theory commodity such as diamond fluctuates every day seem a bit stretched to me. If that''s the price I will get then I''m not comfortable, or feel good about this purchase and probably shop around.

Huh !

$300 is dwarfed by the total expense, but the variation does feel like some lack of curtesy either from the seller or passed down from the wholesaler... or something. It may even be some attempt by the seller to charge for producing the pictures and Sarin... but why don''t they say so ? At this point, I am curious about what the real deal was. For now, among the sellers talked about here only GoodOldGold sets out a strighforward fee for passing diamonds vis his cut quality checkyup. But the costs are incurred by all - or so I think. The explantion about indexing website visits might be true... on some distant planet, not this one!

I am not trying to defend the kind of behavor... just give the diamond a chance. Although there''s plenty to choose from. Hopefully the seller will read this thread.