62% depth issue

[spags]

i was looking at a 1.34 diamond (round brilliant) and everything seemed fine until i learned about the depth issue. the depth of the stone is 62.2% from what i am reading and have heard, this is unacceptable for a diamond of this type. all the other issues look good. VS2, G. Table 54%

i called another diamond seller (a friend) and he didn''t make a big deal out the depth issue at all (and i was just asking advice and not buying from him), but other people i spoke with and in other books, the 62% issue has been described as a deal breaker.

is depth something that you shouldn''t be flexible in this way, whereas with color you might be able to a little bit?

just was looking for feedback on this issue.

thanks

 

[phoenixgirl]

Did this happen to be a book written by Fred Cuellar? He is actually a convicted criminal -- took some investors' money and never made good on it. His diamond tips and rules of thumb have the effect of leading sincere consumers to call him up when looking to buy a diamond because they can't find a diamond under the magic 61% from a "bonded" jeweler (a term he made up). It's all marketing. Anyway . . .

The light return that a diamond produces has more to do with the combination of the crown and pavilion angles than with the total depth or table percentages. 62.2 is not overly deep. However, what you really need to know are the stone's crown and pavilion angles, which you can get off the cert if is from the AGS, or which you can get from a "sarin analysis" if your jeweler has the right equipment. That is on the deeper end of the spectrum, but it is certainly not too deep based on that information alone. This doesn't mean that we can ascertain if it's an above average cut or not, but the depth does not preclude it from having one.

 

[Iceman]

I’m at home but isn’t ideal depth 60 to 62.5% ?

Also, do you really think in the real world you will look accross the table at somebody’s ring and say that is a 60 depth!

No, People we live in the real world were dirt and grim and not having access to 10x magnification exists. Don’t let the numbers mess with your head. Each diamond you need to see. I’ve seen beautiful 60% depths with 60% tables, I’ve seen the old world 58% tables that are comparable to some of the best diamonds cuts.

But think about it next time you buy a diamond and you will leave the store to live in the real world and you want that VVS1 when the SI1 looks as good or that you can not tell an "H" from an "E" face up or a 55% table from a 58% but you see it in your pocket book! Save your money and enjoy other things in your life.

Maybe its piece of mind , maybe its just something you want.

I just think the consumer gets told what to buy sometimes instead of what he really thinks looks good.

Nuff said

 

[bdw146]

Spags,

I am in the same boat you are with a very similar stone. I was looking at a 1.32 F VS2 carat round brilliant with a depth of 62.4% and a table of 53.4% After looking at the crown and pavilion angles it didn't seem to be worth the money the jeweler was asking. While the crown and pavilion technically made it an AGS 0 stone they were very borderline. I would get a Sarin or an an OGI report and then decide based on those numbers and the price of the stone if it is a good deal or not.

Brian

 

[Iceman]

The fifth "C" is most important "Cost"

 

[bdw146]

Amen to that

 

[Iceman]

Also Deal with the owner!

He is the one that can crack the deal. If Im busy , I make sure I do get around to butting into the sale to say Hi and make sure the consumer is ok. Yes, You can see me selling something to a highschooler student during the day instead of golfing , people are important no matter the age or the income.

 

[WinkHPD]

I just uploaded some H&A stones today. The "worst" stone in the parcel was a 62.2 depth 56.2 table that came out a 1.6 on the HCA. If you have used the HCA then you know that any thing 2 of under is in the excellent catagory.

Find out the angles on the stone and run it on the HCA if you are concerned, but if the stone looks magical, then do as the Iceman so wisely recommended and grab it if the price is right.

Take your time and find the right stone, but do not dismiss this stone without knowing all of the numbers, many incredible looking stones have depths in the 62 range.

Wink

 

[yeewl]

Hello,
I own an E vs2 0.82 round brilliant with table 59 and total depth of 62.2 graded by GIA. Although the polish and symmetry were graded as good, once when it is set in platinum, it shines brilliantly with and lots of fire!! Received lots of compliments from everyone I meet..

 

[niceice]

The total depth of a diamond has a direct relationship to the outside diameter of a diamond and that is the primary issue, but the really important thing is what are the crown and pavilion angles on the stone? That is what is going to control the light return, the the total depth. If those angles are on target, we wouldn't worry too much about the total depth.

 

[valeria101]

Just in case you wander, Spags, wether PS 'sels' those angles just as the other source rants about 'the no-go 62% depth' here's a line:

It just happens that the respective angles plus table (and girdle) do determine depth - while the converse is not true. So one can have a complete description of the diamond (and it's optical propoerties, using some model) using the crown and pavilion angles and table size, but the same cannot be true if one is given total depth only (or depth and table, if you wander about the typical GIA numbers)...

The respective depth is accepted by the AGS 'ideal' standard - but there is no single definition of the 'ideal' cut yet although several, closely related but with various tollerance, circulate. You could find lots of notes on these issues here and among GIA papers if interested, at this point.