![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
| Diamond Jewelry Forums
|
|||
|
| |
||
» Diamond Prices and Grading »
» RockyTalky
» |
|
![]() |
Too good to be true?? Input appreciated. |
![]() |
| P: 7/1/2004 7:02:59 PM | |
lluuaapp Rough Rock Total Posts: 3 Last Post: 7/2/2004 Member Since: 7/1/2004 |
I've been looking for a loose diamond for an engagement ring and found the following: Graded by: GIA Shape and Cut: ROUND BRILLIANT Weight: 1.00 Clarity: VS1 Color: G Dimensions: 6.3 x 6.35 x 3.88 mm Depth Percentage: 61.3 % Table: 61 % Crown: % Pavilion: % Girdle: - Culet: N Polish: EXCELLENT Symmetry: GOOD Fluorescence: NONE Notes: Cost Per Carat: $ 4993.62 where as others with the identical specs are at least $500+, I'm by NO MEANS a diamond expert, but I think this price is great, but is this to good to be true? I'm going to pursue this diamond, anything I should look out for or ask when I see this diamond? found this on a reputable online distributor. thanks for your input. ![]() |
| Posted: 7/1/2004 7:02:59 PM | |
![]() |
There are 9 replies to this message. There are 9 replies on this page. |
![]() |
| P: 7/1/2004 7:30:33 PM | |
|
DiamondExpert Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,243 Last Post: 6/20/2009 Member Since: 1/16/2003 |
What is the girdle measurement? I'd like to see a diameter closer to 6.5mm, and what makes the symmerty only a Good grade. Crown and pavilion angles would be of great interest also. You're probably getting what you would be paying for - as is amost always the case. |
| Posted: 7/1/2004 7:30:33 PM | |
| P: 7/1/2004 7:32:54 PM | |
|
quaeritur Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,238 Last Post: 2/3/2005 Member Since: 3/12/2004 |
Hi lluuaapp- Just off the bat, this stone seems to have a smaller diameter than it should for 1ct. A well-cut 1.0 ct stone should be right around 6.5mm...maybe it's hiding weight in the girdle, where you won't see it. Even though it seems like a great price, if it only looks like a .90 ct stone, I'm not sure it's worth it. See if the vendor can give you crown and pavilion angles, or better yet, a full Sarin report, that way you can get a better idea of the cut quality. Also an IdealScope picture would be great.
quaeritur |
| Posted: 7/1/2004 7:32:54 PM | |
| P: 7/1/2004 9:57:52 PM | |
lluuaapp Rough Rock Total Posts: 3 Last Post: 7/2/2004 Member Since: 7/1/2004 |
hum.. thanks for the reply. what "should" the Crown and pavilion angles look like for that diamond? I'm going in to see it tomorrow..
|
| Posted: 7/1/2004 9:57:52 PM | |
| P: 7/1/2004 10:18:20 PM | |
|
quaeritur Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,238 Last Post: 2/3/2005 Member Since: 3/12/2004 |
Take a look at the tutorial -it will tell you all you ever wanted to know about angles (link at the top of the page).
quaeritur |
| Posted: 7/1/2004 10:18:20 PM | |
| P: 7/2/2004 9:52:11 AM | |
|
Paul-Antwerp Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,911 Last Post: 11/24/2009 Member Since: 9/3/2002 |
It has the diameter of a 0.90 Ct and the depth of a 0.95 Ct. Somewhere, a lot of weight is hiding. This is a clear sign that the stone has a thick girdle (maybe even extremely thick). Weird that you have all the information of the cert, but not the girdle. Make sure that you do not drop the stone, because if it starts rolling on that girdle, you have no idea how far it will roll. The problem is, in this case, you might have great angles, but the performance will not be good. You might be getting what you pay for, but then again, you might be overpaying for something that only looks like a good deal. Live long, Paul Slegers |
| Posted: 7/2/2004 9:52:11 AM | |
| P: 7/2/2004 4:47:03 PM | |
lluuaapp Rough Rock Total Posts: 3 Last Post: 7/2/2004 Member Since: 7/1/2004 |
The diamond does infact have a medium-thick girdle, which per the tutorial "Diamonds with thick, very thick, or extremely thick girdles weigh considerably more but may be much better buys." That means then that I'm getting what pay for, but my question is, how much does the girdle thickness play into the factor of determining a diamond? Obviously it is one of the "main" factors, but it's not as important as the 4c's.
|
| Posted: 7/2/2004 4:47:03 PM | |
| P: 7/2/2004 5:02:05 PM | |
luckyworldtour Rough Rock Total Posts: 12 Last Post: 8/2/2004 Member Since: 6/6/2004 |
I just purchased a .91 very close in size to your 1.0 6.29-6.31 x 3.84 mm Depth 61% Table 55% Crown Angle 34.2 Pav. Angle 40.8 Girdle Thin to Medium, Faceted Culet: None HCA 1.0 I would definitely get more Sarin information on your diamond.
|
| Posted: 7/2/2004 5:02:05 PM | |
| P: 7/2/2004 5:30:27 PM | |
|
lop Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,651 Last Post: 9/7/2009 Member Since: 6/14/2003 |
The diameter of the stone is what is going to determine the visual size of the stone. The weight of the stone is how they set the price. With this stone you are going to pay 1ctw pricing (where there is a good price/carat jump) for a stone that looks the same as a .9ctw ideally cut stone (where the price per carat is lower, and the absolute ctw is lower.) It's your choice, but that is what people are trying to tell you here. This is probably why the stone is lower than other 1ctw stones. It probbly isn't a stellar deal for a .9ctw stone. Do some searches using the PS search engine to find comparable prices and diameters.
|
| Posted: 7/2/2004 5:30:27 PM | |
| P: 7/5/2004 3:35:30 PM | |
|
Paul-Antwerp Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,911 Last Post: 11/24/2009 Member Since: 9/3/2002 |
Sorry lluuaapp, I just saw your PM right now. Something is seriously wrong with this stone. With that diameter and depth and with a medium-thick girdle, I seriously doubt whether you can reach a weight of 1.00 Ct. I smell a misrepresentation here. Is this a GIA-GTL-report or an in-house-grading by someone who took the GIA-GG-course? Please be extremely careful. Live long, Paul Slegers |
| Posted: 7/5/2004 3:35:30 PM | |
|
|
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