1.9 Carat Princess

[floorg]

I am in the market for a 1.9 to 2.0 princess cut diamond. I found the following and feel that it is a fair price at $13000. I would really appreciate any opinions on whether the price is right and the quality of the diamond.

Shape: Princess
Lab: GIA
Carat weight: 1.90
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Certificate: GIA
Depth: 71.2
Table: 71
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Girdle: Thin to thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.05*6.78*4.83
Price: $ 13,000

Thanks in advance for your help. GF

 

[Sundial]

I am no expert on princess cuts, but I have found them hard to judge by the numbers alone. Have you seen an idealscope image of this diamond? Personally I would prefer a girdle on a princess cut that is not thin and better than good symmetry, but that does not mean it isn''t a nice stone. I imagine that this is a hard size to find. If there is a good return policy from the vendor you could always order it and have a look.

 

[jcu1276]

Here is one you might consider.

http://www.exceldiamonds.com/diamond/49840.html

 

[dani13]

Large table and pretty deep stone- it will probably face up smaller than its true ct wt. Also, do you know if it is eye clean? You really need to see the stone in person and have it inspected by an independent appraiser. Buy from a company who will give you time for the inspection period, and if you decide the stone is not right for you, you will be able to send it back without any ramifications. I wouldn''t just buy this stone outright, sight unseen. But, that is just me.

Good luck!

 

[belle]

it''s really hard to say what the quality is like, especially with the ''good'' symmetry grading. the depth and table look okay, but they don''t tell the whole story. if you have seen this diamond in person and compared it to other stones then don''t second guess yourself. if you haven''t seen the diamond and aren''t able to prior to purchase, then you will need more information (an idealscope or ASET image) and a great return policy.

 

[Bunnifer]

I ditto what the other posters have said about looking at the diamond YOURSELF.

Two things:
1) Although the table is big and it is deep, don't let that necessarily cloud your judgment going in. Paul and Garry have had NUMEROUS discussions over calculating depth/table/etc. in a princess and it gets very technical. But I think the bottom line is that a large table/depth percentage is very not telling -- you need the crown and pav angles to make a better judgment.

ETA: I'm close to buying a princess with what is considered a "large" table, but when I saw it in person it outsparkled the ones with "preferred" numbers. So, again, the numbers game don't tell the whole story.

2) This diamond WILL face up smaller than a 2 ct. princess. A 2 ct. princess will have ideal L X W measurements of 7.5 X 7.5, thus having a surface area of 56.25. This stone measures 7.05 X 6.78, thus having a surface area of about 47.8. If you do the math, this diamond faces up -15% as compared to what an ideal 2 ct. princess should.

2a) I qualify the above statement by saying that IRL, princesses never measure 7.5 X 7.5 (has something to do with the way they are cut and weight retention.) However, I think you can come closer to those measurements than the stone you currently are considering. JMHO.

HTH!

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Date: 1/25/2007 11:03:38 AM
Author: Bunnifer


2) This diamond WILL face up smaller than a 2 ct. princess. A 2 ct. princess will have ideal L X W measurements of 7.5 X 7.5, thus having a surface area of 56.25. This stone measures 7.05 X 6.78, thus having a surface area of about 47.8. If you do the math, this diamond faces up -15% as compared to what an ideal 2 ct. princess should.

2a) I qualify the above statement by saying that IRL, princesses never measure 7.5 X 7.5 (has something to do with the way they are cut and weight retention.) However, I think you can come closer to those measurements than the stone you currently are considering. JMHO.

HTH!

Bunifer - what is the basis for your assertion that an ideal princess 2 ct would spread 7.5 mm? In order to spread as big as an ideal (8.2 mm) round, a princess would have to measure 7.26 x 7.26. Most princesses are, indeed cut for weight retention, and often 2 carat princesses are smaller than 7 x 7. Perhaps Paul could chime in on this since he specializes in princesses and I don''t, but I think that most experts would put the ideal range for a 2 carat princess at 7.0 - 7.2 (with 7 being slightly small but acceptable).

A 2 carat princess measuring 7.5 x 7.5 would almost certainly be too flat to have acceptable light return. It would by no means be "ideal"

There are no red flags in the information we have concerning the 1.90 . Off the numbers given, it stands a good chance of being a beautiful diamond, though we don''t have enough information to know for sure.

 

[Bunnifer]

Date: 1/25/2007 11:49:52 AM
Author: Radiantman

Date: 1/25/2007 11:03:38 AM

Author: Bunnifer



2) This diamond WILL face up smaller than a 2 ct. princess. A 2 ct. princess will have ideal L X W measurements of 7.5 X 7.5, thus having a surface area of 56.25. This stone measures 7.05 X 6.78, thus having a surface area of about 47.8. If you do the math, this diamond faces up -15% as compared to what an ideal 2 ct. princess should.


2a) I qualify the above statement by saying that IRL, princesses never measure 7.5 X 7.5 (has something to do with the way they are cut and weight retention.) However, I think you can come closer to those measurements than the stone you currently are considering. JMHO.


HTH!

Bunifer - what is the basis for your assertion that an ideal princess 2 ct would spread 7.5 mm? In order to spread as big as an ideal (8.2 mm) round, a princess would have to measure 7.26 x 7.26. Most princesses are, indeed cut for weight retention, and often 2 carat princesses are smaller than 7 x 7. Perhaps Paul could chime in on this since he specializes in princesses and I don''t, but I think that most experts would put the ideal range for a 2 carat princess at 7.0 - 7.2 (with 7 being slightly small but acceptable).


A 2 carat princess measuring 7.5 x 7.5 would almost certainly be too flat to have acceptable light return. It would by no means be ''ideal''


There are no red flags in the information we have concerning the 1.90 . Off the numbers given, it stands a good chance of being a beautiful diamond, though we don''t have enough information to know for sure.

Hi Radiantman,

I am using a chart posted by Belle a long time ago: http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

Another poster posted something similar for another site, but the info was the same.

Perhaps I shouldn''t have used the term "ideal" -- what I meant was, a 2 ct. princess SHOULD measure 7.5 X 7.5. However, by no means did I mean to imply that such dimensions will give "ideal" LIGHT PERFORMANCE. Hence, I qualified my comment in (2) with (2a) by saying that a 2 ct. princess is rarely ever cut to those dimensions. I just thought the OP could come closer to facing up how a 2ct. princess SHOULD (of course, to do so without sacrificing light return is another important aspect to consider.) Finding a diamond with BOTH aspects (face up surface area and light return) is what makes finding a good princess so hard.

 

[JulieN]

maybe we should stop using those charts.

maybe I will find some time to do something with ranges instead of 2 ct=7.5

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Confirm with Paul, but a correct chart would look something like this:

1.00 : 5.40 - 5.60
1.20: 5.85 - 6.15
1.50 6.30 - 6.50
1.70 6.65 - 6.85
2.00 7.00 - 7.25
2.50 7.40 - 7.70
3.00 7.9 - 8.20
4.00 8.6 - 8.90
5.00 9.4 - 9.70