|
|
|
|
| ||
Diamond Jewelry Forums
 Picture Gallery
 Video Gallery
 Journal
|
|||
|
|  Search
|  Posted Today
|  Most Active
|  Help
|
||
 »
Home
»  » Diamond Prices and Grading »
 » RockyTalky
»  » Newbie needs help with Princess
|
|
 |
Newbie needs help with Princess |
 |
| P: 4/5/2004 11:52:10 PM | |
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
Greetings everyone I am new to this site and must say how impressive it is. I am looking for a princess cut diamond around the 1 carat range, most likely less in order to avoid that premium. I've looked at the princess cut chart on this site and have been using that as my guide. I found this rock and want your opinion. .86 carat E color VS2 5.51-5.24x3.87 Depth 73.9% Table 65% Girdle Med. Polish Very Good Symmetry Very Good Price 2,761
uclaure |
| Posted: 4/5/2004 11:52:10 PM | |
|
There are 30 replies to this message. There are 30 replies on this page. |
|
| P: 4/6/2004 12:02:08 AM | |
|
cmcwill Cut Rock Total Posts: 247 Last Post: 1/11/2005 Member Since: 2/26/2004 |
It sounds really awesome! Who certified it? Pros: This seems to be a really good price as well? Colleen
|
| Posted: 4/6/2004 12:02:08 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 2:23:12 AM | |
|
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
GIA Certified My only concern was the table size relative to the overall depth. Are these proportions ok? I know that these two proportions would be rated a 1a-1b, but they're still relative. What I mean is that a princess cut can have a table of 62 (lowest and still in 1a range) and overall depth of 75 (highest and still in 1a range), but overall what would it look like? Does this make sense? uclaure |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 2:23:12 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 2:29:38 AM | |
|
cmcwill Cut Rock Total Posts: 247 Last Post: 1/11/2005 Member Since: 2/26/2004 |
I'm not sure I can answer that without looking at the diamonds myself. It depends on carat size as well, and whether is perfectly square or somewhat rectangular. Someone said that a smaller table makes the diamond look smaller versus a stone with the same depth and larger table. I dont really see how this is possible, since the dimensions are based on the corners of the upper girdle. I think that this stone will provide you with lots of fire, probably has a great crown height due to the small table, and looks like a killer price! However there are def more knowledgable posters out there...stick around they'll help you! Colleen
|
| Posted: 4/6/2004 2:29:38 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 2:30:07 AM | |
abe2ooo Rough Rock Total Posts: 9 Last Post: 4/7/2004 Member Since: 6/6/2003 |
ITS A GOOD PRICE AND THE PROPORTIONS ARE GOOD TOO
YOU NEVER WANT A PRINCESS WITH MORE THAN A 78 TABLE OR MORE THAN 77 DEPTH. IDEALLY A PRINCESS SHOULD BE BETWEEN 69 TO 71 DEPTH AND 70 TO 74 TABLE
|
| Posted: 4/6/2004 2:30:07 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 2:39:43 AM | |
|
cmcwill Cut Rock Total Posts: 247 Last Post: 1/11/2005 Member Since: 2/26/2004 |
Where are you getting your information abe? AGA says 62-68 for ideal (1A) tables and up to 72 for 1B tables. I wouldn't throw out at 74 just by reading the numbers, but it comes in at the end of 2A. Colleen
|
| Posted: 4/6/2004 2:39:43 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 2:43:18 AM | |
|
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
Given the specs, how big will the diamond look mounted as a solitare. I think that I'm going to mount it on a very thin band, 2mm with little diamonds all around the band and also on the setting itself(bridge)going around the stone on the head. I think that in total it was about .43 carats for the ring.
uclaure |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 2:43:18 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 2:44:10 AM | |
|
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
oh, and 18k white gold
uclaure |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 2:44:10 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 9:10:35 AM | |
moremoremore Ideal Rock Total Posts: 6,825 Last Post: 2/9/2009 Member Since: 3/15/2004 |
70-74 table? I don't think so!
______________________________ Stewart says: I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggon'it, people like me. |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 9:10:35 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 9:12:41 AM | |
|
moremoremore Ideal Rock Total Posts: 6,825 Last Post: 2/9/2009 Member Since: 3/15/2004 |
my only concern with the first stone is that it is a bit deep so that it will look small for its carat weight! 
______________________________ Stewart says: I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggon'it, people like me. |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 9:12:41 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 10:05:47 AM | |
|
cmcwill Cut Rock Total Posts: 247 Last Post: 1/11/2005 Member Since: 2/26/2004 |
It might depend on how you set it though, 5.51 on a .86 seems bigger than most .85ish around. It is a 1.05 L2W and the 5.24 might make the whole diamond look smaller. I don't know which way you should set it, naturally I would say along the finger, not across it, but it would depend on your sidestones and the setting! Colleen
|
| Posted: 4/6/2004 10:05:47 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 10:49:45 AM | |
Nicrez Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,230 Last Post: 10/21/2009 Member Since: 1/21/2004 |
Setting a longer stone east to west is never really suggested, unless the person particularly chooses to do so. It tends to spoil the intended look of the stone, and the flow from the height of the stone is taken away, in cases of radiants and princesses being slightly rectangular. Princesses by nature should be square, but that is based on preference, and can be found purposefully rectangular, as radiants can be pruposefully found square, against their original rectangular shape. This particular stone is carrying a lot of it's carat weight on it's pavillion's depth, so that may make this .86 look slightly smaller than it's true weight. That is my only real concern. Note that princesses, are cut with large tables and steep depths, as a characteristic of the stone's cut...their crown angles, tend to be on the lowest side of all cuts. I am also guessing that it's price is lower due to that measurement, as well as the fact that it is not perfectly square. In a princess a good color, is nice, as well as a decent clarity, so you have done well on that end. It could be a very nice stone, but I would try to see how the angles play the light off eachother, and if the 1.05 ratio is any worry to you, or if you prefer it. Good luck, and let us know what happens. "Sometimes it's OK to throw rocks at girls...as long as they sparkle! |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 10:49:45 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 10:59:56 AM | |
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
Just one thing: This is a square stone!!! veru square. E-W is same as N-S (this in sot geopolitics, it is a little, perfectly cut, square diamond). I wish I'd know more about the debate between the "small-table" and the "large-table" camp. Some say that princess cuts should have larger tables 'cause you're supposed to enjoy the look of the pavilion through it. And that the bigger the table the larger the stone looks. But then... small table mens higher crown and more fire... Just a headache The AGA charts do not rule out combinations of parameters with table a tad larger than depth... As far as I can tell (not very far) these are two different breeds of the same race. The best listed here is a serious beuty-contest candidate, overall. Thsi stone does not fall radically in either camp. I think it is gorgeous. And a greta deal. And the ring project wonderful as described ! Best of luck 
Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 10:59:56 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 11:07:04 AM | |
|
Nicrez Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,230 Last Post: 10/21/2009 Member Since: 1/21/2004 |
As squarish as 1.05 is, it's NOT QUITE square. I am a stickler, sorry Ana, but my radiant is 1.06, just .01 over her 1.05 and it will look quite squarish, but NOT entirely...Again, I have crazy good eyes... Uclaure, look at my ring to determine how much more it is rectangular than it is square. 1.06 radiant Your stone could very well be lovely...I certainly love mine!!! 
"Sometimes it's OK to throw rocks at girls...as long as they sparkle! |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 11:07:04 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 11:12:01 AM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
So... here's what a very exaggerated example for the E-W/N-S square dilemma looks like. Have you seen this "Fancy Shape Selector" at gemappraisers.com before? It should be noted that the huge size of these shapes and 2D wire frame relative to sparkly 3D prism, lets any variation of proportions show very exaggerated. Hope this helps.  Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 11:12:01 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 11:18:19 AM | |
|
Nicrez Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,230 Last Post: 10/21/2009 Member Since: 1/21/2004 |
Thanks for those pictures Ana! The picture representations are helpful, but seeing the stone with your eyes can really make the difference! I suppose that is depends on a person's eyes, because my stone, DOES look squarish, NOT perfectly square. I saw only stones that were 1.07 and under. I can tell a L/W ratio from just looking at it (sort of like color!). I would have gotten a 1.02-1.04 if I had any choice... I also saw a 1.00 stone that was perfectly square, and when it was actually set within the four prongs, it looked almost ROUND! I would say that if the 1.05 is square enough for you, then it will be OK. Again, I repeat, I am the one with really nitpicky eyes, that can determine color, and shape right off the bat, so if that's not how you see stones, not one word of this 1.05 length to width will bug you.  "Sometimes it's OK to throw rocks at girls...as long as they sparkle! |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 11:18:19 AM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 12:01:12 PM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
Nicrez, I thik we were posting in the same time How could I disagree with you? The 1.05 looks out of square to you, and yet you found such a stone appealing enough to buy it after a long serch There is some truth in saying that a bit of deviation might look better, in fact. I would agree with that. One needs to handle a bunch of these stones to form an oppinion and all we have here to haggle about are those numbers  Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 12:01:12 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 5:38:38 PM | |
|
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
Should I get this diamond appraised before purchasing? Can anyone give me an estimate as to how much this will cost. Does the vendor pay for appraisal or is cost tacked onto final price of diamond?
uclaure |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 5:38:38 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 5:43:10 PM | |
|
moremoremore Ideal Rock Total Posts: 6,825 Last Post: 2/9/2009 Member Since: 3/15/2004 |
If the stone has a cert and if there is a good return policy, then appraising after is fine. However, cos like dirtcheap will actually ship it to the appraiser, you can watch them do it, and then you can buy it. It should cost no more than 100 bucks...and no, it ain't included!
______________________________ Stewart says: I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggon'it, people like me. |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 5:43:10 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 5:44:02 PM | |
|
Nicrez Ideal Rock Total Posts: 3,230 Last Post: 10/21/2009 Member Since: 1/21/2004 |
Depends where you are the appraisal can be anywhere from $95- $240+ (as ours was and we never even got it!) Price scope has a list of approved and listed appraisers that are considered INDEPENDANT, as seen HERE. Meaning, if it's the guy that is selling it to you, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Obviously, he has something to gain... In the end, we didn't get our final stone independantly appraised. It was too rare to be replaced or be anything else with two different certificates saying the same thing...It's YOUR call... I would try to get it appraised just to quickly determine color, size and clarity. A simple verification MAY be cheaper, ASK! If you want a full blown appraisal after that, meaning once you liked it and bought it, then see if you can pay extra to have the stone fully checked and appraised for it's insurance value. Good luck! "Sometimes it's OK to throw rocks at girls...as long as they sparkle! |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 5:44:02 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 5:44:07 PM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
---------------- For insurance, the seller can provide their appraisal. Some buyers want an independent appraisal (question of making sure that the stone is the one the cert refers to ang get some unbiased opinion on the quality of the stone) - this costs extra, and there is a list of appraisers right here on top of the page. Some list costs, and e-mail works to get a quote from the one nearby, if you want this. Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 5:44:07 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 5:48:56 PM | |
|
moremoremore Ideal Rock Total Posts: 6,825 Last Post: 2/9/2009 Member Since: 3/15/2004 |
$240!!!! Holy cow!!!! But then again, if I showed you guys the $25 appraisal I got in the back of an alley, you'd die laughing. When I get my new stone, I'm sending it to Dave A.!!!
______________________________ Stewart says: I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggon'it, people like me. |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 5:48:56 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 6:24:08 PM | |
|
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
What if I decide not get the stone, then I'm out of 100+ dollars? This might get quite expensive by the time I find the diamond of my liking.
uclaure |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 6:24:08 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 6:30:57 PM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
---------------- Why is it very important to have a third paty say what you like (as in 'diamond of my liking" above? Getting a bunch of stones appraised one by one would not only take some money but also lots of time and logistics. If identifying the stone is your only concern, this can be done by any jeweler for very little. Otherwise, you can always have 2-3 stones down to the appraiser's office, choose among them and keep the one you like. This worked for a PS poster or two and you'd have to talk with the appraiser and the seller of the stones (hopefully one) to see how it works. It does not really pay to get a few stones with cut parameters completely off the hook and hope one would not bark... I guess. This makes a good part of the argument for using some guidelines and tests before descending diamonds from ciberspace. Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 6:30:57 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 6:35:16 PM | |
diamondsman Ideal Rock Total Posts: 625 Last Post: 11/12/2009 Member Since: 11/11/2002 |
I would've like to have see a table and deopth that are in the low 70's range smaller tables make the stone look smaller for the top. Diamondsman |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 6:35:16 PM | |
| P: 4/6/2004 11:16:31 PM | |
|
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
Ok...I'm not going to settle for this one. Maybe I can find one with a bit bigger table, mabye 68-70. I'm not going to send it to an appraiser before I get it if it has a GIA cert, I will take a to a local jewlwer and get an opion. I was condsidering buying the 25 ideal scope to help me out in my search. Will this tool work with non-round brilliants? How will it work on princess cuts?
uclaure |
| Posted: 4/6/2004 11:16:31 PM | |
| P: 4/7/2004 12:38:33 AM | |
|
cmcwill Cut Rock Total Posts: 247 Last Post: 1/11/2005 Member Since: 2/26/2004 |
It really helps! I saw lots of radiants with tables 78-82, deep pavillions, and saw the light leakage, then I saw a better cut stone, table 67, and saw how much more light it returned. It was my second opinion for what my eyes were seeing! Definitely try it out! Colleen
|
| Posted: 4/7/2004 12:38:33 AM | |
| P: 4/9/2004 3:19:32 AM | |
|
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
ok guys and gals...I found another princess cut. I will ultimately choose between this one and the one mentioned in my first post. Diamond #1 Princess .86, E, VS2, Depth 73.9, Table 65, Gridle Med., Polish VG, Sym. VG, 5.51 x 5.24 x 3.87 mm no flourescence. Price:2761 Diamond #2 Princess .87, F, VS1, Depth 73.8, Table 70, Girdle thn-thk, Polish VG, Sym G 5.35 x 5.19 x 3.83 mm no flourescence. Price:2793 I have asked my vendor to have both of these shipped to her from her supplier. My main question that needs to be answered is the crown height on both of these. My vendor said she would provide that for me when she gets them. She will give me a description of what these babies look like in person. I can't wait to receive her phone call some time later today. I would like to get some of your opions. The prices are alomost identical. I am looking for the best cut and the one that will have more brilliance and scintillation and the best overall appearance. So please, take you pick and defend your choice. I really value the opions of posters on pricescope uclaure |
| Posted: 4/9/2004 3:19:32 AM | |
| P: 4/9/2004 8:25:28 AM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
There is no way to deduce light return from this numbers. The cut of the second stone is less precise: variable girdle and Good, as oposed to Very Good symmetry. VG is unusual for fancy cuts - a nice blessing to have. Otherwise... I am definitely keeping my preference for the first stone. The smaller table is, well, sure 'fire'. No idea on brilliance. At this point, hope the seller can provide more in this department, since this seems to be among your requests. How does THIS look ? Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/9/2004 8:25:28 AM | |
| P: 4/9/2004 9:59:00 AM | |
|
cmcwill Cut Rock Total Posts: 247 Last Post: 1/11/2005 Member Since: 2/26/2004 |
I agree with Ana that the first stone still looks the best. For all her reasons and it will looker bigger! (not sure by how much, but it does have a bigger spread) One question though: they both have about the same depth, with a big difference in table....does that naturally beget that the .86 is going to have a much bigger crown height that the .87? or could the girdle interfer with my thinking of 'where the weight could go'? It will be great to hear your jeweler's opinion!! Colleen
|
| Posted: 4/9/2004 9:59:00 AM | |
| P: 4/15/2004 2:48:01 AM | |
|
uclaure Rough Rock Total Posts: 93 Last Post: 4/18/2005 Member Since: 4/5/2004 |
can someone please answer the question posted by the last poster towards the end of her post. "One question though: they both have about the same depth, with a big difference in table....does that naturally beget that the .86 is going to have a much bigger crown height that the .87? or could the girdle interfer with my thinking of 'where the weight could go'?" uclaure |
| Posted: 4/15/2004 2:48:01 AM | |
 Previous Page
|
Next Page 
|
Contact Us | Back Home | Privacy Statement | Forum Agreement | Forum Policies | |
| Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.4.beta1 | Message forum software powered by the Ideal BB |
| |
Pricescope -
Knowledge -
Diamond Prices -
Tools -
Resources -
About
© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives
"