Advice on this 3.51 radiant

[nyring]

Would appreciate advice/opinions on this loose diamond.


3.51Cts. radiant
measurements 8.82-8.27 x 5.9 mm
depth 71.3 %
width 69%
crown height 12%
pavilion depth 57%
medium,polished girdle thickness

polish/symmetry- very good
culet-none

VS2
H
no fluorescence
EGL certified

 

[slg47]

do you have images? impossible to judge fancies without images.

also I would stick with GIA or AGS graded diamonds, the grading is more consistent/reliable.

 

[nyring]

I think I am ok with it being EGL certified rather than GIA (as long as it is what it claims to be- I'm ok with variations with color). I am mostly concerned with the measurements and whether this stone shows big or small. Unfortunately, I do not have any images to share.

thanks!

 

[Dreamer_D]

The issue with EGL is that it is hard to assess value of the diamond, because EGL is inconsistent in its grading. Though lower in price than GIA, EGL is not a true deal.

We can't really help you without images in this case. The physical size of a diamond is not the only determinant of how large it looks. A well cut stone with edge to edge sparkle will look much larger than a poorly cut stone. There are a *lot* of poorly cut diamonds out there. Be sure to compare this one to many others to educate your eyes before you pick, if you plan to just use your eyes to pick.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Is radiant the shape preferred by your girlfriend? Just wanted to be sure you knew that a radiant is cut a little deeper and will face up smaller than a comparable weight round. A 3.0 ct. round has a diameter of about 9.2mm. Of course, radiants probably cost less per carat for that reason. But just wanted you to have a frame of reference. I usually think of EGL stones as 2 color grades lower and 1 clarity grade lower when comparing GIA graded stones. But as the others said, numbers mean very little unless you have pictures of the stone.

 

[oldminer]

I understand that if the GIA were to grade this stone the same you'd be content, but the chances of that being the case are quite slim. You can't possibly be satisfied with using a document that is nearly always off by a grade or several grades. Since you just can't rely on the grading, how could you be okay with what the report says the grades are.

I graded an XXX lab F-SI1 2 carat stone this week that I thought would be a GIA I-I1. I also was involved with a 10ct fancy shape that graded G-SI2 at brand XXX lab and I-I1 at GIA.... The difference in value of this 10ct stone stone is 3X more as a G-SI2(GIA) than as I-I1(GIA). Of course, the G-SI2 was a brand XXX lab report and not GIA. Dealers will have very different takes on the value of the 10ct stone. Those who sell "paper" may pay a great deal more for the stone with the XXX Lab report than they would for the stone with a GIA report because they have customers who also sell "paper" and can much more easily compete with "paper" than with real value in properly graded stones. Those who really sell "diamonds" and not "paper" would likely not want this big rock with only the XXX Lab grading and would insist on a GIA report first before really buying. They might make an offer contingent on the outcome, but they know how to grade diamonds and really don't need a lab to tell them a whole lot.

 

[nyring]

Thanks for the tips. I guess the way I see it, is that I don't care too much about the actual grading as long as I like how it looks and I am not being completely taken advantage of price wise. I know that the price reflects the fact that it is not GIA certified... I am mostly concerned with making sure that this diamond is ok in comparison to other radiants of similar size, weight, etc. Too bad I cannot provide any images. I was hoping I could get some info based on its specs.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Thanks for the tips. I guess the way I see it, is that I don't care too much about the actual grading as long as I like how it looks and I am not being completely taken advantage of price wise. I know that the price reflects the fact that it is not GIA certified... I am mostly concerned with making sure that this diamond is ok in comparison to other radiants of similar size, weight, etc. Too bad I cannot provide any images. I was hoping I could get some info based on its specs.

To be sure of the former you need to see a LOT of diamonds and give your eyes a little training. All diamonds are pretty, and big diamonds are really pretty, especially in jewelry store lighting. But some diamonds are much better looking than others, and you can only learn that from seeing a whole bunch of rocks.

The trouble with the latter is you can't really determine that with EGL, because EGL comps might not be *true* comps due to lab inconsistency. See? There is no comparison standard by which to judge if you are getting taken advantage of.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Would appreciate advice/opinions on this loose diamond.


3.51Cts. radiant
measurements 8.82-8.27 x 5.9 mm
depth 71.3 %
width 69%
crown height 12%
pavilion depth 57%
medium,polished girdle thickness

polish/symmetry- very good
culet-none

VS2
H
no fluorescence
EGL certified

Here is an article with broad rules of thumb concerning cut quality for radiants: https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/radiant-cut-diamond Good as a general tool, but not definitive.