canuk-gal|1444832847|3938161 said:Is the 2 carat mark, "necessary"?
It's cheap because it only has the diameter of a responsibly cut 2.70 ct diamond.solgen|1444843052|3938217 said:It's not bad but not great either. You can see the symmetry is off aand it isn't very round. Looks like it might leak some light from under table and maybe the edges too. Some reflector images might help to ascertain the extent. But $19k for a 3ct is very cheap so I think it is worth investigating this stone some more.
Diamond_Hawk|1444841761|3938211 said:canuk-gal|1444832847|3938161 said:Is the 2 carat mark, "necessary"?
Without comment on the diamond itself, in the interest of clarifying, it appears the report indicates this is a 3.01 carat.
John Pollard|1444848789|3938246 said:It's cheap because it only has the diameter of a responsibly cut 2.70 ct diamond.solgen|1444843052|3938217 said:It's not bad but not great either. You can see the symmetry is off aand it isn't very round. Looks like it might leak some light from under table and maybe the edges too. Some reflector images might help to ascertain the extent. But $19k for a 3ct is very cheap so I think it is worth investigating this stone some more.
The producer used a thick girdle and put enough weight in the crown to force the rough to hold 3 carats. The owner will get the technical "bragging rights" of 3 carats. But if the wearer compares it side by side to folks wearing well-cut 2.75 ct diamonds this "3.01 carat" will look smaller. The only way anyone will realize it's 3 carats is to tell them: "Hey. It's 3 carats."