Am going to look at Princess/Radiants and need advice

[BDarby]

After months of research here, Im starting my search!

I just talked to a jeweler (MANY friends have recommended the shop) and was quoted a few stones as examples of what he has in stock that I may be interested in. I am looking for something in a Princess or Radiant cut in the area of 1.25cts. Of course I wouldnt rule out anything larger or smaller if it seemed to be a great looking stone.

Two of the many stones seemed to have potential but I am concerned with the size of the ring. Obviously no girl would dissapprove of a large stone, but I dont want to purchase a rock that looks HUGE and out of place on her finger.

Would either of these two stones seem too large for a girl with a size 4 ring and only 5 ft tall?

1.51 Princess
VS2
F
Depth 71.3
Table 78
(around $8500)

1.60 Radiant Square
VS1
G
Depth 68
Table 72
(around $8000)

To me, the size isnt most important, but rather the quality of the cut. He also has a very nice sounding 1.22 Princess (VS2, F, depth 71.3, table 79 ....around $6000) that I plan on checking out along with some others.

What do you guys think? Worth taking a look at???? Does they seem to be in the ballpark for prices? Comparing the above with priceline vendors, it appears to be in the same neighborhood. My eyes and heart should tell me more later this week.

 

[Nicrez]

Welcome to Price Scope BDarby!

Personally, I don't like either, sorry. I noticed that these Princess/Radiant questions always pop up, and looking at stones in person is the BEST way to determine a good stone, or sticking to the numbers usually that are considered by most to be OPTIMAL, but NOT a GUARANTEE. Also do a search on this site for both "Princess" and "Radiant" and see all the posts that will be helpful!

Think of diamonds in proportion. Now a table is the face facet that we all see, and the depth of course, is just that. Consider that they are percents and not measurments. Also with such percents there have to be complimentary angles of the Crown and Pavillion.

In other words, if there is a low crown and a large table, there should be a equal matching depth at a tight percentage to OPTIMIZE the brilliance and fire of that stone. A table that is larger than the depth is usually not a very well cut stone, because it optimizes the "look" of the stone to look larger than it's carat weight, but will leak light, because the depth is not deep enough to support the reflection and refraction of the light entering.

Key: On both princess and radiants, look for a table % to be at least 1-4% smaller than the depth. The larger it is, the more white it will look, but it will have deadzones of no sparkle, and may exhibit dark facets of light leakage when viewed at a 45' angle...

For princess stones, use the Princess AGA Charts for guidance in cut qualities. For Radiants, which are cut like Emeralds on top and Round brilliant stones on the bottow (for a shattered glass look) use the Radiant/Emeralds AGA Charts. As I am a HUGE Radiant fan, I always suggest them in 2B or better cuts (with 71% depth or better, and 68% tables or better)... but I tell you now, most of the stones in BOTH these shapes will have LARGE tables or REALLY deep depths. Check out some stones at Good Old Gold to get an idea of good princess cuts with all the tests done on them to prove it...

I usually say, stick to stones that are GIA or EGL, but note that GIA has limited info given, but is the most respected. EGL does offer crown and pavillion angles, which help to decifer the cut make of the stone. if you have a GIA stone, see if the vendor can get you a Sarin report on it, for the required measurements.

Good luck and let us know what you find!

 

[valeria101]

Hm...

My opinion would not matter much, but there are some more or less general guidelines for what a fine cut is. You might want to take a look at them (LINK) before calling in a stone.

Also, for either cut, there is no way to predict whether a stone would be brilliant or not by numbers alone, and this is why some sellers select teir stones for brilliance, on top of the overall cut proportions (which otherwise dictate the face-up size for each weight and so on...). For example, this is how THIS stone is presented (Sarin and IdealSCope reports in place).

As you know, there is much more hype about 'ideal' cut rounds and stricter standards for cut quality. This is hardeer to achieve for non-rounds (because more parameters are needed), and the absence of clear standards is just one factor making the discussion of brilliance and cut quality less often touched upon by sellers - not on the cut-crazed PS though!

If cut quality is the most impoartant to you, how about those H&A cut aquares? (the 'Jubilee', 'Regent' and "Queen of Harts' to be found down THIS link...). These should be available at other distributors too, if you want it so, of course.


PS: You might wander how popular these guidelines are... Well, I don not know the number of votes, but those tables represent a straighforward presentation of what otherwise would go by the name of "make" and remain a misterious quality, for the seller and definitely not for the buyer to understand.

As far as I know, fancy shapes are on schedule to acquire cut quality grades (like AGS does for rounds and GIA will soon enough; and you may find plenty of refs on these industry changes)... So the issue is there getting recognized.

 

[BDarby]

I should probably clarify.

Ive done ALOT of research. Between using tutorials here on pricescope and on GOG, WF, BNile, DCD, Superbcert etc., my heads about to explode. I understand that with shaped stones the "ideal" percentages arent written in stone. Obviously the eye will show much more than the numbers. When I get to see the stones I plan to ask for more in depth info and I will of course utilize tools such as AGA's DIY grader. Again Im not too worried about the exact numbers of these stones. Its not as if these are my only choices. I will see other stones by other vendors. (By the way Nicrez, most of the rocks out there dont follow the "table should be smaller than depth" ideal you quoted. I suspect thats why the AGA charts allow some wiggle room in depths and tables for all grades).

Im really wondering about the size issue. Could 1.5ct be TOO big on a small hand. Would a woman prefer something smaller so as not to look gawdy

?

Also I beleive these stones seem to be in the same range as other similar stones located on pricescope vendors inventory.

 

[moremoremore]

Would a woman prefer something smaller..... um, NO! LOL. I think anything up to 2 carats is safe on any hand!

The second one could be a nice stone... The first one, I can almost guarantee it's going to bark- but best of luck with it!

 

[moremoremore]

And one more thing- just do yourself a favor- take a look at a princess or radiant (even if it's not in your budget...-just to compare cuts) with a good depth (I'd say under 72) and a table under 70 (of course, tons of other factors involved).... and you won't even bother with a vendor who is showing you 79 table stones!

 

[valeria101]

There is a BIG difference between stones sold by numbers and those chosen for brilliance (and obviously there is a price for the service).

So... why not ?

 

[Nicrez]

BDarby, I agree that MOST stones are not cut with a table smaller than thier depth. BECAUSE they are cut like caca... Frankly, the cutters get away with cutting something that bad because most people either do no understand the dynamics of cuts on diamonds, or just plain don't know.

They cut these stones deep, so they can cut them faster (as it is FASTER and CHEAPER to cut a stone according to a deeper depth or larger table, if the rough is shapped oddly. Most stones are basically cut to keep as much carat weight as possible, so why would they cut them EVEN more at the table, when they can KEEP the precious carat weight on to demand more money.

Far as I know stones of equal quality are sold to the public based on carat weight, and NOT cut. Go into any mall and ask for a Ideal cut stone, versus a 1.5ct stone, and the first one will get question marks, versus the second request.

More is right. Only one woman I know thinks certain sizes over 1.5cts are gaudy. I originally looked at 1cts and "up to" 1.5. When my fiance found a "larger" stone, I can't say I refused it... Size depends on the woman, her likes, her job, and how active she is at work or at play. Maybe your wants a smaller one to be comfortable, or maybe the 1.5ct will just take her breath away. Either way, know thy lady!

Ttrust me, you can never learn ENOUGH about diamonds. I thought I knew a lot in the 3 months of my daily search for my e-ring stone. I visited over 40 vendors in NYC every single day at lunch, and STILL I am learning every day more and more from PS. At one point, I was teaching some jewelers what cuts constitute a good cut, and what increases brilliance or fire... and STILL I am humbled by every Radiant post that I end up reading... Always so much more to know!

Good luck!

 

[researcher]

BDarby,
I'm also searching for a princess cut diamond, and have learned one important lesson from seeing them in person--the people here on the forum know what they're talking about! After gaining a TON of knowledge in the past couple of weeks, I'm now able to walk into a jeweler and tell them what the table % is without them saying a thing (I am a statistician by trade, so numbers come easy). My point is, when the table is big it's obvious. I have yet to find a stone with the same luster as stones with smaller tables. That being said, I do agree that the table doesn't necessarily need to be smaller than the depth, but it should not be any larger than equal the depth (you'll see what everyone here is talking about when you view the stones). I, like you, was originally looking at the D-F color stones and trying to stay within the IF-VS2 range. However, during my actual in-person viewing of stones, I found that, in some SI1 and SI2 stones I honestly couln't see the inclusions any more than in the VS1-VS2 clarity range, and some H-I diamonds (especially those with fluorescence) face up white. My point? Be flexible in color and clarity, but not in cut. While the AGA guidelines are just that--guidelines--they really do help you to weed out the ones with little potential. Should you still take a look at a stone that doesn't fit the specifications if it really speaks to you? Of course! But don't stop your search there. You really should compare stones with excellent cuts to those with excellent color, etc.

In regards to the size of the diamond, I'm 27 years old, 5'7, don't weigh much, and have a 4.5 ring size, and am looking in the 3 ct range. So, to answer your question, the diamond size you're considering won't look funny (it's really when I get into the 4 ct range that they look a little big because the diamond can be the same width as my finger).

Good luck with your search and make sure to bring your ideal-scope with you!

 

[BDarby]

True enough. Once I looked at the AGA charts again I realized the Tables are a bit on the large side. I'll note that when I take a look. The selection there and at the other B&Ms hopefully should be better than just those few examples. Then I'll be able to compare them to the Etailers. Luckily Im not in a rush.

Thanks for the help guys. I dont ignore the percentages, I just dont want to become a numbers snob. I can sometimes paralyze myself with too much research and too many numbers. Grad school seemed to do that to me.

In the end I dont want to ignore a diamond just based on numbers. My own eyes and using comparisons with other stones should help immensely. (But of course I plan on using the Charts for reference.)

 

[BDarby]

Well I visited 3 jewelers this weekend in the Diamond Building here in Boston. Over all impression...not too impressed. One jeweler was showing me a bland 1.5 princess cut and was pushing me to purchase it based on being able to be "superman for your girlfriend". Yeah...that may work!

All of the stones were pretty unimpressive. Large tables and depths giving the stones a real glassy hollow look. No sparkle at all. (from what i could tell, I think one specialized in getting stones with large tables to give the diamonds larger overall appearances.)

So I checked a well known jeweler just south of boston thats been in bussiness since 1900. The store is an AGS member and definately more upscale than the merchants in the diamond district. (Of course I was nervous that they would be wayyyy over priced) I viewed a couple of stones that viewed as much better cuts. T and D were in low 70s. Both had far more life to the stones than any I had seen earlier. AND THE PRICES WERE CHEAPER THAN THOSE IN THE DIAMOND DISTRICT. (they quoted a beautiful 1.09ct J VS2 for $4000 compared to far less attractive 1.1ct E SI2 for $6700 in the diamond district).

I havent commited myself to any one jeweler yet, but Im definately more trusting of the AGS jeweler. They are bringing in some stones for me to check out later in the week. Just getting out and looking has definately opened my eyes further.

 

[moremoremore]

Good luck to you. I think I am throwing in the towel re the princess. It is just too hard to find one I like.

 

[chialea]

----------------
On 5/5/2004 3:20:23 PM BDarby wrote:

Obviously no girl would dissapprove of a large stone, but I dont want to purchase a rock that looks HUGE and out of place on her finger.

Would either of these two stones seem too large for a girl with a size 4 ring and only 5 ft tall?
----------------

*cough*

I feel quite out of place around here on this one, but I feel that stones that large look out of place on my fingers (size 4.75-5, and I'm 5'9"). It's just not practical for me, and I think it looks too big.

Have you asked your intended about this (or gotten information from her girlfriends)?