Another newbie searchin'' for a princess...

[snowboarder]

Yup, another newbie post in search of a well cut princess for an e-ring. I''ve been lurking for a long time in an attempt to try and "soak" up all the guru''s infinite wisdom on this wonderful forum. What do think about this one?

Certificate: GIA
Shape: Princess
Cut: Select Ideal™
Carat: 1.01
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Regular Price: $4537
Wire Transfer Price: $4405

Diamond Proportions:
Measurements: 5.57-5.48-4.03
Length to Width: 1.02
Depth Percentage: 73.7 %
Table Percentage: 67 %
Girdle: M-STK
Culet: None (Pointed)
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Faint

Sarin:

ShapeRINCE Weight: 1.033CT 1980-04-26
Width 5.50 Length 5.56 L/W 1.01
Depth mm 4.00 72.8
Table 68.8
Crown h. 10.0 Crown Angle 36.4
Pavil h. 41.1 Pavilion Ang 40.7
Girdle (?) Culet off 0.1%
Gird Thick.mm 1.8 1.1 2.8

The Sarin info that was sent to me was sent as a picture and not a web browser application so I did my "best" to represent the info I was sent. For example, there was no amount for Girdle. ??

Any questions, comments or advice would be greatly appreciated since I am a bit weary of such an expensive online transaction. Thank you!!

 

[belle]

hey snowboarder

welcome to ps!
i'd say for a newbie, you did pretty darn good!

i like it very much. idealscope pictures would be a great confirmation if you can get them.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/10/2006 9:56:40 AM
Author:snowboarder
Yup, another newbie post in search of a well cut princess for an e-ring. I''ve been lurking for a long time in an attempt to try and ''soak'' up all the guru''s infinite wisdom on this wonderful forum. What do think about this one?

Certificate: GIA
Shape: Princess
Cut: Select Ideal™
Carat: 1.01
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Regular Price: $4537
Wire Transfer Price: $4405

Diamond Proportions:
Measurements: 5.57-5.48-4.03
Length to Width: 1.02
Depth Percentage: 73.7 %
Table Percentage: 67 %
Girdle: M-STK
Culet: None (Pointed)
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Faint

Sarin:

ShapeRINCE Weight: 1.033CT 1980-04-26
Width 5.50 Length 5.56 L/W 1.01
Depth mm 4.00 72.8
Table 68.8
Crown h. 10.0 Crown Angle 36.4
Pavil h. 41.1 Pavilion Ang 40.7
Girdle (?) Culet off 0.1%
Gird Thick.mm 1.8 1.1 2.8

The Sarin info that was sent to me was sent as a picture and not a web browser application so I did my ''best'' to represent the info I was sent. For example, there was no amount for Girdle. ??

Any questions, comments or advice would be greatly appreciated since I am a bit weary of such an expensive online transaction. Thank you!!

There is a huge inconsistency in the Sarin-measurements. A pavilion height of 41.1 cannot be with an angle of 40.7. The true pavilion height should be around 60%.

Because of this, the whole measurement is useless. That being said, it is impossible to judge the cut of this stone.

Live long,

 

[snowboarder]

Wow Paul, thanks for the information. I will be sure to mention this to them. I thought the Sarin looked a little shadey but who am I to judge.

belle - thanks for the quick reply

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

The whole thing is very weird, since it happens regularly that consumers post a princess-cut with such disparities. I think that someone''s Sarin or OGI has been programmed in such a way, that the pavilion depth and possibly the pavilion angles shown are completely out of wack.

It is easy to notice though.

Take the total depth, in this case: 72.8%
Deduct the crown height (-10.0%) leaves 62.8%
Deduct the pavilion height mentioned (-41.1%) leaves 21.7%

Now the girdle is a straight line in a princess, thus no problem with valleys and thicker areas. Therefore, these measurements would mean that the girdle thickness is around 21.7%. This is ludicrous.

Live long,

 

[belle]

you're welcome snowboarder

by the table, depth and crown, i think this stone has great potential and would not eliminate it solely on the apparent discrepencies in the sarin measurements. i would perhaps reject the keeper of the sarin, but not necessarily the stone itself.

how's the weather in antwerp paul?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

If we know that the Sarin-measurement cannot be relied upon, then the crown height should also be taken out of the equation. What is left, is the GIA-report, thus table and depth. And that info is insufficient, if not useless.

So, the stone might be good, but we have no trustworthy info about it.

By the way, it is cold in Antwerp. I hate that.

Live long,

 

[WinkHPD]

Paul,

It is Winter. It is supposed to be cold. Move to Florida, it is warm there. They have hurricanes.

It''s always something!

Wink

 

[snowboarder]

Very interesting Paul, thanks for the info and definitly noted. Here's the "new" Sarin information they sent me:

Certificate: GIA
Shape: Princess
Cut: Select Ideal™
Carat: 1.01
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Regular Price: $4537
Wire Transfer Price: $4405

Diamond Proportions:
Measurements: 5.57-5.48-4.03
Length to Width: 1.02
Depth Percentage: 73.7 %
Table Percentage: 67 %
Girdle: M-STK
Culet: None (Pointed)
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Faint

Sarin:

princess weight: 1.024
Width 5.53 Length 5.64 L/W 1.02?
Depth mm 4.01 72.5%
Table 3.86mm 69.9%
Crown 35.9 9.7%
Pavil 60.6 60%
Culet 0.7%
Girdle 2.7% (2.7 - 2.7)%

I still think it's a bit weird that they send the sarin info in jpg format. Or is this normal? Oh and I get 2.8% for the Girdle not 2.7.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

When checking these Sarin-data with the AGS cutting guidelines, the highest probable AGS-grade is AGS-2. Which I think is very good, compared to the average princess in the market.

Live long,

 

[snowboarder]

Any idea's on how I could compare AGS-2 to brillance?

Is 2.7 percent too thin of a girdle?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Do not worry about the girdle. 2.7% does not pose a problem.

AGS-2 is remarkably good, if you consider that the vast majority of traditionally-cut princesses are AGS-5 and lower. According to me, there should be a premium for AGS-2.

Live long,

 

[RockDoc]

Here''s paste from what you posted.

ShapeRINCE Weight: 1.033CT 1980-04-26


note what appears to be a date "4-26-1980"

That could represent a lot of things. Could be a stone that sat in the sellers inventory for 25 years ( but I would doubt that) or it could be a stone that was previously owned. I''d ask what that means from the seller.

What is the date on the GIA report?

I agree with Paul, but wanted to add....

One very important fact with Ogi or Sarin reports is that over the years they have changed the available models of machines, upgraded the cameras and computer cards, and constantly upgrade the software. Sarin had a cheaper model called the Brilliant Eye, and still does, that is basically a toy.

In fact Sarin had an upgrade for their software that was just released. In certain stones, especially fancy shape ones, there could be a difference.

It is also important to see the graphics that the Sarin (or other machine) generated when scanning the stone.

These are things the pros see and take into consideration that regular consumers aren''t aware of.

Rockdoc

 

[snowboarder]

RockDoc - That's exactly what I thought too, so I asked him and here was his reply:

"The number in the top right was not a date but an ID number sent out by
the machine; if we type that number again I do not have to have the
diamond all the info will be saved in the computer."

I personally question his statement.

After I had mentioned what Paul stated regarding incorrect Sarin information he replied that they were going to take the stone to a "better Sarin machine" hence the new results. I think it was a very old Sarin report and he was to lazy to bring up a new report. Just my opinion.

Oh, and the date on the GIA report is December 9, 2005.