a

[CaptainPolyester]

. . . is this really too little to pay?

In the process of looking for my final diamond selection.
Educating myself and using this forum and website as a great resource.
I came across this diamond the other day, and although a "J" colour wasn''t something I was considering, the price they''re offering is really low.
Am I missing something?
Chime in on your opinions of this rock.

1.793, J, VS2
Depth: 62.6
Table: 54.1
Crown Angle: 35.1
Crown %: 16.1
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43.1
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.76-7.77X4.86


I''ve tried to attach the ideascope image and the sarin.
It looks great to me, but maybe I''m missing something?

 

[CaptainPolyester]

sarin report

 

[CaptainPolyester]

sorry everyone. . . somehow I messed up the title.

 

[JulieN]

nice ES.

 

[CaptainPolyester]

that''s the funny thing. The diamond looks fairly "tight". I would have thought it''d make ACA, but maybe I''m missing something?
The Holloway on this one came out to 1.4 (if I remember correctly).
I put this one up for inspection more to see if what I''ve been learning is correct, because this looks like a solid rock to me.

 

[belle]

i''ve seen it in person and can tell you it''s beautiful

it''s definitely a ''j''. but it is totally eye clean and the size is great. if it were just a little bigger i would have bought it myself!

 

[CaptainPolyester]

well. . . .now you''ve really got my interest!
Can you explain to me why it''s being priced the way it is.
I realize it''s a J, but it seems like a big markdown per carat just for that.
Unless it''s really obvious to the eye that it''s a J.
I agree, the size is on that borderline level for me too.
I''m considering a few stones slightly larger than that, but came across this one and was simply puzzled.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/18/2006 6:09:33 PM
Author: CaptainPolyester
well. . . .now you''ve really got my interest!
Can you explain to me why it''s being priced the way it is.
I realize it''s a J, but it seems like a big markdown per carat just for that.
Unless it''s really obvious to the eye that it''s a J.
I agree, the size is on that borderline level for me too.
I''m considering a few stones slightly larger than that, but came across this one and was simply puzzled.

my only guess about the pricing is that it is priced more like a 1.7ct than a 1.8ct. because of the slightly higher depth which makes it face up a bit smaller than it should.
it is .77mm bigger than my current stone, which was not different enough visually for me to justify a change. i just had to see it though because the price is amazing. i so wanted it to work out and had a really (really) hard time sending it back.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/18/2006 5:52:30 PM
Author: CaptainPolyester
that's the funny thing. The diamond looks fairly 'tight'. I would have thought it'd make ACA, but maybe I'm missing something?
The Holloway on this one came out to 1.4 (if I remember correctly).
I put this one up for inspection more to see if what I've been learning is correct, because this looks like a solid rock to me.

I cannot answer your question on price because you didn't mention what the price of the stone is, and I'm honestly too lazy to go hunting for it on WF's website. I can tell you that color DOES play heavily in the price when you get into the larger goods (which this is).

I can, though, reply on the sentiment of "this diamond looks tight, so why didn't it make ACA". Cut proportions and H&A patterning aren't the same thing. A diamond can have great cut proportion numbers (be "tight") and possibly not exhibit the crispness of the H&A pattern that would meet or exceed Brian's standard for H&A.

Although they are somewhat related, they aren't the same thing, sort of like a car.

Proper tire pressure and a smooth running engine are both elements that contribute to the overall performance of a car, but testing the enging doesn't measure tire pressure, and vice versa.

H&A patterning is just that - it judges *only* the crispness, precision, etc. of the H&A pattern. Cut proportions measure how the facets relate to and align with each other to affect light performance. Often, they occur simultaneously in diamonds because anyone who's taking the time to make a nice crisp H&A pattern wouldn't do so on a less than premium make.....it would be like putting souped up tires on a 1973 Ford Pinto.

So, H&A and "tight" proportions typically exist together, but a stone can have great proportions and light performance even if it isn't an H&A. Seeing that only H&A diamonds make the "A Cut Above" label, obviously this one isn't a perfect H&A. That doesn't mean the stone isn't a screamer for performance....only that it doesn't meet Brian's VERY stringent standard for the H&A pattern.

 

[FacetFire]

I went an looked up the stone, and it looks like an incredible deal. Beautiful stone for the money. It almost makes me wish I needed a stone.

I like the small table, and the depth, while a touch deep, is still acceptable for me. If it is in your desired parameters, I''d snatch it up.

 

[sunshine14]

Belle...when you say that it''s definitely a J...what do you mean? Is there alot of warmth to it? Or just from the sides?

Thanks!

 

[belle]

i mean next to my ''g'' in certain lighting i could see some color in it. i showed it to many different people and they never noticed it until i put it next to my current stone though. it just depends on what you are focusing on i think. most people notice ''sparkle'' before anything else.

 

[CaptainPolyester]

alj,

thanks for your input. . . you too Belle.

Sorry for not mentioning the price or more specific details.
I''m a rookie poster, and wasn''t sure if it was appropriate to mention vendor and price, especially since they''re heavily supported on the forums.
Not that I don''t like or support Whiteflash. I''ve talked with them several times and think they''re a fantastic company.
I just didn''t know if was appropriate.
But, as far as what everyone''s contributed, I appreciate the input.
The big plusses I thought on this diamond were the close range of pavilion angles, how they float towards 40.7 but don''t go over 40.5, the smaller table, and the ideal scope has a great look to it.


anyway, appreciate the input, feel like I learned a bit from all this.
Thanks everyone!

 

[biokatie]

I have little experience with diamonds but I am learning. I saw a J today...and I didn''t even need to see it next to another stone to notice how yellow it was and next to an H, there was a remarkable difference. I didn''t care for the color, but others might not feel the same way. The one I saw was like a carat and it was going for less than the 0.75 carat.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/19/2006 12:10:40 AM
Author: biokatie
I have little experience with diamonds but I am learning. I saw a J today...and I didn''t even need to see it next to another stone to notice how yellow it was and next to an H, there was a remarkable difference. I didn''t care for the color, but others might not feel the same way. The one I saw was like a carat and it was going for less than the 0.75 carat.

were you looking at a well cut (ideal) graded by a reputable lab?
i''ve seen my fair share of pedestrian cut diamonds and can tell you that, for a fact, a well cut diamond will look far better (even color wise) than it''s poorly cut counterpart. not to mention that not all diamonds are graded for color the same. some labs are much more strict than others. a ''j'' graded by igi or similar might actually be graded as a ''k'' or even an ''l'' by ags or gia.
bottom line is, you must compare apples to apples and not all ''j'' color stones will look yellow. superior cut quality makes a huge visual difference.