2 RB GIA...overpriced 1.75ct?

[stanelz84]

Hi All!

Looking at 2 RB GIA centerstones. Listed below are all proportions with HCA score. Any feedback regarding price and measurements are appreciated. Am considering the 1.75ct, but have seen very similar stones quoted much cheaper.

1.75ct H Si2 $14,100
Eye-clean with white crystals in center.

Measurements
7.72 - 7.77 x 4.76 mm
Cut Grade
Excellent
Polish
Excellent
Symmetry
Very Good

Proportions
Depth
61.4 %
Table
57 %
Crown Angle
35.0°
Crown Height
15.0%
Pavilion Angle
40.6°
Pavilion Depth
43.0%
Star Length
50%
Lower Half
80%
Girdle
Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 3.5%
Culet
None

Fluorescence
None

clarity characteristics
Crystal, Feather, Cloud, Needle

HCA:
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread
or diameter for weight Very Good
Total Visual Performance 0.9 - Excellent
within TIC range


1.62ct H Si2 $12,400
Eye-clean with white crystals in center

Measurements
7.50 - 7.56 x 4.68 mm
Cut Grade
Excellent
Polish
Excellent
Symmetry
Excellent

Proportions
Depth
62.1 %
Table
54 %
Crown Angle
34.5°
Crown Height
16.0%
Pavilion Angle
40.6°
Pavilion Depth
43.0%
Star Length
45%
Lower Half
80%
Girdle
Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted, 3.5%
Culet
None

Fluorescence
None

Clarity characteristics
Crystal, Cloud, Feather, Needle, Indented Natural

HCA:
Factor Grade
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread
or diameter for weight Very Good
Total Visual Performance 0.9 - Excellent
within TIC range

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Do you have magnified photos of the stones or idealscope images? I would not buy SI clarity without photos. The first one is a good bit larger than the second one. I'd have to look for price comps.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, prices appear to be too high after doing a price search here:

https://www.pricescope.com/diamond-search-results

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Yes, prices appear to be too high after doing a price search here:

https://www.pricescope.com/diamond-search-results

I absolutely disagree with the usage of the general PS-search to determine that prices on two SI2-diamonds appear too high. There are far too many variables determining that price which can simply not be assessed with the available information.

DS's first reply therefore is spot-on. You need to determine how good or bad the SI2 are.

Live long,

 

[stanelz84]

Unfortunately, I do not have any photos. I believe the 1.75ct is a top Si2. I did not see any
black carbon or dark imperpections throughout the stone. I will try to search for price comps in the
meantime to compare.

 

[pfunk]

I just did a search and was able to find several stones from 1.6 to 1.83 carats with ideal numbers and clarity vs2-si1 for prices equal to or less than 14.2k. So my guess would be that, even if eye clean, you can likely find better stones with higher clarity within the same budget.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I just did a search and was able to find several stones from 1.6 to 1.83 carats with ideal numbers and clarity vs2-si1 for prices equal to or less than 14.2k. So my guess would be that, even if eye clean, you can likely find better stones with higher clarity within the same budget.

Pfunk,

I am sorry, but I find this reply unacceptable.

First, the OP lists two stones, one 1.71Ct. of $14,100.-, the other 1.62 Ct. $12,400.-

Your reply 'I just did a search and was able to find several stones from 1.6 to 1.83 carats with ideal numbers and clarity vs2-si1 for prices equal to or less than 14.2k.' completely goes past the cheaper stone being almost $2K less the 14.2K, while you do allow yourself the leeway of searching in the broader size of 1.60 to 1.83 Ct.

To go on by saying 'My guess would be that' is meaningless. Does it mean that you know cheaper eye-clean examples, or is it your guess that there must be cheaper, eye-clean examples, simply because there are so many that seem cheaper?

Your reply does not help the OP, rather confuses him into thinking that he is over-paying, while you absolutely do not have the info to even indicate that he is over-paying.

Live long,

 

[tyty333]

Here is a JA stone that is an H/SI1 AGS000 stone (for comparison). You would have to ask JA how eye-clean it is or if it's
hazy.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.71-carat-h-color-si1-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-475830 $13,300


VS2 but smaller
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.66-carat-h-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-353901 $14,250

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, prices appear to be too high after doing a price search here:

https://www.pricescope.com/diamond-search-results

I absolutely disagree with the usage of the general PS-search to determine that prices on two SI2-diamonds appear too high. There are far too many variables determining that price which can simply not be assessed with the available information.

DS's first reply therefore is spot-on. You need to determine how good or bad the SI2 are.

Live long,

The PS search is a good indicator of pricing since it reflects pricing of multiple GIA Ex stones from multiple vendors. I can't think of a more objective way for a consumer to compare prices as long as you take into consideration obvious factors that will affect pricing. I can tell that the first stone is not superideal cut considering it has very good for symmetry, so there should be no price premium for that. I am sure some of the SI2s have worse (visible) inclusions than others and that affects pricing as well. There are 5 GIA stones listed with H SI2 between 1.72-1.79 cts and the price range is $10,300-12,100. True, I cannot know from numbers if any are eyeclean. But like pfunk, I found several SI1 stones that fell into the price range he is looking at, and I would think there is a likelihood that some of those are eyeclean. I'd certainly rather have an SI1 stone for the same price as an SI2, all else equal. In other words, we cannot be 100% sure if he can do better unless he looks farther. But what we can see indicates he may do better looking further. In fact, he may get a better stone for the same or less money if he uses vendors that will provide an idealscope image.

 

[pfunk]

I just did a search and was able to find several stones from 1.6 to 1.83 carats with ideal numbers and clarity vs2-si1 for prices equal to or less than 14.2k. So my guess would be that, even if eye clean, you can likely find better stones with higher clarity within the same budget.

Pfunk,

I am sorry, but I find this reply unacceptable.

First, the OP lists two stones, one 1.71Ct. of $14,100.-, the other 1.62 Ct. $12,400.-

Your reply 'I just did a search and was able to find several stones from 1.6 to 1.83 carats with ideal numbers and clarity vs2-si1 for prices equal to or less than 14.2k.' completely goes past the cheaper stone being almost $2K less the 14.2K, while you do allow yourself the leeway of searching in the broader size of 1.60 to 1.83 Ct.

To go on by saying 'My guess would be that' is meaningless. Does it mean that you know cheaper eye-clean examples, or is it your guess that there must be cheaper, eye-clean examples, simply because there are so many that seem cheaper?

Your reply does not help the OP, rather confuses him into thinking that he is over-paying, while you absolutely do not have the info to even indicate that he is over-paying.

Live long,

I am sorry my reply is unacceptable for you Paul. Let me try to be more detailed, as I was pressed for time in my last reply. If the OP wants a 1.62 carat, I saw several stones of higher clarity (similar or larger in size, equal color, ideal cut) for less than $12,400. If he wants larger, I saw stones up to 1.83 carats with higher clarity and priced less than $14,200. All of these with images and no dark inclusions. The stones I saw had inclusions that appeared likely to be eye clean after viewing the highly magnified photos, though since I do not have them in hand, would never confirm nor deny the eye cleanliness. Hence why I say "my guess would be", even though it is very likely IMO he can find better value.

 

[pfunk]

Edit to my previous post:

I apologize as I just saw my error. I realize I said $14.2k but what I meant was $14,100, the price of the OP's larger stone. I did not mean to suggest any diamonds priced higher than the original stones. Everything that I saw was of comparable size, color, and cut but was higher in clarity for less than or equal to the price quoted buy the OP. They were also all triple excellent stones, while the 1.75 is very good in symmetry. Simply trying to suggest there are likely better deals to be had if he/she cares to continue seaching.

 

[palmersj]

Yes, prices appear to be too high after doing a price search here:

https://www.pricescope.com/diamond-search-results

I absolutely disagree with the usage of the general PS-search to determine that prices on two SI2-diamonds appear too high. There are far too many variables determining that price which can simply not be assessed with the available information.

DS's first reply therefore is spot-on. You need to determine how good or bad the SI2 are.

Live long,

You are in the minority on that statement.

 

[palmersj]

I just did a search and was able to find several stones from 1.6 to 1.83 carats with ideal numbers and clarity vs2-si1 for prices equal to or less than 14.2k. So my guess would be that, even if eye clean, you can likely find better stones with higher clarity within the same budget.

Pfunk,

I am sorry, but I find this reply unacceptable.

First, the OP lists two stones, one 1.71Ct. of $14,100.-, the other 1.62 Ct. $12,400.-

Your reply 'I just did a search and was able to find several stones from 1.6 to 1.83 carats with ideal numbers and clarity vs2-si1 for prices equal to or less than 14.2k.' completely goes past the cheaper stone being almost $2K less the 14.2K, while you do allow yourself the leeway of searching in the broader size of 1.60 to 1.83 Ct.

To go on by saying 'My guess would be that' is meaningless. Does it mean that you know cheaper eye-clean examples, or is it your guess that there must be cheaper, eye-clean examples, simply because there are so many that seem cheaper?

Your reply does not help the OP, rather confuses him into thinking that he is over-paying, while you absolutely do not have the info to even indicate that he is over-paying.

Live long,

Paul,

Your opinion is just that. Stop being so demeaning and disrespectful towards other posters. Pfunk was simply trying to make a point of his own. It's not like we're making money off of our opinions. We're here for free helping others to hopefully learn from our collective experiences.

IMHO the stones are potentially higher priced than what the market should bare with the information that's been provided. Additional time and research would be my recommendation to ensure maximum value is obtained.

 

[stanelz84]

I appreciate all the replies! As I continue to do research and similar price comps..I am noticing the 1.75ct is priced higher to my
liking. Will continue to search on...

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

My apologies if my posts in this thread were taken as offensive and rude. I did not have time to check out PS in the past days, but owe it to you to explain in more detail why I reacted as I did.

Reading the OP's questions and the thread-title, one of his questions is whether the diamond is overpriced. Questions about the quality of the stones seem to be disregarded.

Checking prices quickly, I see that quoted prices to the OP are plausible. Plausible to me is not the same as overpriced, so I consider that the correct answer, based upon the information available. Do be aware that one of the stones (over 1.70) is a premium-size generally getting a premium-price, and that with both stones being SI2, the price is highly affected by the 'quality' of the SI2. Aside from that, we have no information on where this customer is buying, which also might affect pricing.

Briefly, I consider a question 'is this overpriced' not the same as 'can I find cheaper elsewhere', so I approach the replies posted in that state of mind.

DS posted one good technical reply. However, in the next post she clearly says that pricing appears too high, linking to the general PS-search. I am sorry, but I found prices plausible, not too high, and the general PS-search as a reference makes no distinction about the level of the SI2 or the sales-channel. Simply following the PS-search risks to lead the OP to non eye-clean SI2, clearly cheaper indeed, but not at all comparable to the original supposedly eye-clean stones.

In the case of Pfunk, I reacted mainly because he compared only to the most expensive original stone, not taking into account that that stone is a premium-size. I must admit, I did overreact there (my apologies, Pfunk), as in the speed of reacting, I did not notice that he was talking about VS2-SI1-comparisons.

I guess that I did get carried away in my reactions, as I found the questions of the OP largely disregarded. He wanted feedback on the stones, making sure that they were not overpriced. I found the general reaction that he could find cheaper elsewhere exaggerated for stones where I consider the pricing plausible. In that spirit, I found both posts to which I reacted technically incorrect, and I wanted to point out that incorrectness.

Live long,