.85 CARAT VS .90

[Jimmy]

I''m just full of questions today. I''m going to look at a .85 carat Princess SI1 D colour. I''ve been told that it''s spectacular and the numbers sound really good. Can a .85 that is cut incredibly look as big as a .90 that is not cut as good. Let me know ASAP! I''ve has my mind set on a .90 carat but I don''t want to get a .90 carat just for the sake of it.

 

[moremoremore]

a .85 can look BIGGER than the .90 Check the depths and mm measurements of the stones. Carat size alone in a fancy shape does not indicate size. In any event, if they were totally equal (which in reality would never happen) you would not be able to see much if any size diff anyway

 

[Jimmy]

I'm going to look at the .85 carat si1 f colour. As I said earlier, the numbers are great. Anything I should be looking for when trying to find the best cut princess? I understand that the depth shouldn't exceed 75% and the table should always be a 2-3% behind it and the girdle is better meduim to slightly thick. Anything else?

 

[alexah]

Ok - two things:

[/i]..."I understand that the depth shouldn't exceed 75% and the table should always be a 2-3% behind it"

Not true... yes it's easier to find a better performer w table less than depth but, for example, my princess has a table of just under 63 & the depth is 70 & it's amazingly firey & brilliant! At one point I was looking for a table 2-3% below depth & I'd have missed a real beauty if I'd stuck w that guideline...

..."and the girdle is better meduim to slightly thick"

For a princess, i think most people would agree that a medium girdle is best... but that's not to say that a thin girdle would necessarily be bad (tho i'd stay away from Ex Thin). It really depends on where the thin section is - if it's in a *minor* spot (not near/on the corners), it's not nec a bad thing.

SI1s can be tricky w a princess - I'm sensitive to inclusions (ie, i dont wanna see any) so i stuck w a VS2. And yet i picked up a RB this wk that's a SI1 w no visible inclusions... So just be sure to examine your SI1 candidates thoroughly...

 

[moremoremore]

Ditto Ditto Ditto!!! What great advice!!!

First, I'm glad to hear that your table is so much lower than depth...I'm looking for yet another stone for myself, and the one I've picked is a 72.9 depth, 68 table...at first I was nervous, but then I went onto GOG and looked at almost all of the stones there and their analysis....The truth is, you just can't predict based on depth and table alone!!! It's much more than that

a thin girdle is fine! Again, the new one I'm looking for is thin!!!! Med to thick will maybe help a little against chipping, but that's not to say a think girdle will chip....

And I agree that Si1s can be tricky...I know a little too well.

..Remember that clarity grades have nothing to do with "eye clean"..just the nature and size of inclusions....Believe it or not, I am returning a Vs2 with eye visible inclusions face up!!

 

[researcher]

You have great advice already, but I thought I'd mention that I prefer a table that's 3-5% smaller than the depth, but would go for a stone with a table equal to the depth or more than 5% less than the depth if the crown height was >10%. Also, I prefer tables in the high 60's/low 70's (prefer 67-70%) and depths in the low 70's/mid 70's (no higher than 75%). I've just found that I have the best luck with these numbers. The only thing is you should not pass up a beautiful stone that does not fit particular parameters. I did not believe this advice until I started helping a friend find a pear shaped stone and the most beautiful one scored a 3A on the cut charts while the others scored a 1A-1B. You really need to pay attention to whether the table and depth compliment one another, and produce a stone with a good crown and nice pavilion. Oh, and I prefer a stone with a TN-M girdle, a medium girdle, or a M-STK girdle.

Hope this helps!