62.7% Too Deep For an Ideal Round Brilliant?

[moonraker]

Hey all,

Potentially looking at a diamond that is deep but is still graded AGS 000 ideal. It also scored a 1.6 on the HCA. I've read that slightly deep diamonds can still be 'ok' if the pavillion & crown angles line up right though? Here's the stats

1.68 H VS2
AGS 000
7.54 - 7.58 x 4.74
Table: 55.6%
Depth: 62.7%
Crown Angle: 34.9
Pavillion Angle: 40.8
Lower girdle facet: 76
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible

So, it will still face up smaller. Everything I've read has said to stick with max depth of 61.8 or 62 for ideal cut rounds. But this one's still AGS000 due to their grading range. Since it passed the HCA is it worth checking out further? Or should I not even bother and draw the line in the sand at 62% for depth? Cut is my top priority but I'm no expert so wanted second opinions. Thanks for looking!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The reason I cut them off at 62 is because I want the diamond to actually look the weight I am paying for. It's not a lot of difference, but just FYI, my stone is 1.63 cts. and faces up at 7.6mm. So I would expect your stone to at least be in the 7.6 mm range if the depth was less. Again, it's not a lot of difference, but it would bug me so I would look further.

 

[John P]

Wondering if this diamond has the new AGS Platinum Report or an older report? The reason I ask is that DiamCalc predicts AGS1 for those parameters. This is not AGSL software, but curious about that report versus this prediction.

 

[John P]

Nevermind - answered my own question: Changed lower facet length to 76% and got AGS0. Interesting.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

That is quite a good spread for a hard to find size in well cut stones.
I would ignore the depth % and work on the mm or spread percentage.

 

[moonraker]

@JohnPollard: Saw you caught the lower facet length but just wanted to reply that the report is the regular Diamond Quality Document, not the Platinum report. The date on the report is from last month though.

Thanks to all for the replies. Part of me thinks this could be an intriguing prospect (for the right price of course), but the depth did give me pause. Any other opinions out there?

 

[oldminer]

That amount of depth alone does not disqualify a diamond from possibly being "Ideal". There are limitless combinations of parameters and 62,7 is not a deal breaker in many situations.

 

[Dreamer_D]

My diamond is the same ct weight and almost .10mm bigger in diameter, so the lack of spread might be the only negative -- not that you can actually *see* .10mm . But it is a very hard to find size so might be worth it to you... it looks like a real contender to my eye.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

That is quite a good spread for a hard to find size in well cut stones.
I would ignore the depth % and work on the mm or spread percentage.

I agree that it is a hard to find size, Garry, but a good spread for a 1.68? You seem to be lowering your standards, is this because supply is less?

Live long,

 

[John P]

@JohnPollard: Saw you caught the lower facet length but just wanted to reply that the report is the regular Diamond Quality Document, not the Platinum report. The date on the report is from last month though.

Thanks for that information. The Platinum Report is their most robust examination but I believe the DQD puts the diamond through the same performance-hoops (?) If it bothers me to the point of being itchy a phone call will get the answer. Admittedly, I take some issue with the differing report formats (and standards) AGSL offers, which can lead to confusion.

 

[Karl_K]

Do you have any images? is/aset?
If everything else was spot on the depth would not bug me.
The information you posted is not enough to say yes or no.

 

[Karl_K]

That is quite a good spread for a hard to find size in well cut stones.
I would ignore the depth % and work on the mm or spread percentage.

I agree that it is a hard to find size, Garry, but a good spread for a 1.68? You seem to be lowering your standards, is this because supply is less?

Live long,

hca says:
Spread or diameter for weight Very Good
That tells me that his opinion has not changed or lowered.

 

[moonraker]

Thanks for that information. The Platinum Report is their most robust examination but I believe the DQD puts the diamond through the same performance-hoops (?) If it bothers me to the point of being itchy a phone call will get the answer. Admittedly, I take some issue with the differing report formats (and standards) AGSL offers, which can lead to confusion.

Any other info I should try to extract about the stone since it isn't the Platinum Report? Noticed the obvious absence of light performance grading. Which brings me to my next point below...

Do you have any images? is/aset?
If everything else was spot on the depth would not bug me.
The information you posted is not enough to say yes or no.

Unfortunately don't have IS or ASET images. B&M guy I'm friends with came across it as he keeps an eye out for certain specifications. Could get hearts & arrows but don't know if I could get an ASET. Obviously evaluating the stone in person face up versus a 1.5 and 1.7 carat would help compare. Just didn't know if I should even bother if it was too deep to begin with.

 

[John P]

I'm pretty sure the AGSL DQD uses the same in-lab criteria to determine 0 light-performance as the Platinum Report. It is a strong positive indicator for the stone. It's just that there are differing levels of performance and flavor within the overall AGSL 0 grade - which is why detail-minded folks like us who cannot see it like to have more information, like specific ASET (etc). It sounds like your jeweler can help you to find comparison candidates...or just extend a reasonable full-return period so you can take it on a "world tour" of your favorite places and even compare it with other diamonds in other stores.

 

[moonraker]

So when viewing a deep stone in person is there anything I should look for in particular besides "nailhead" or darkness?

Getting an IS and ASET would give me more peace of mind in that they would catch things my untrained eyes wouldn't. Need to find someway to get those.