Another

[diamondtime]

Hi everyone,

Been lurking a while and learned a lot from the site. I decided it''s time to finally join up. I was hoping to get your expert opinions on a diamond I''ve been looking at at a retail store. It''s EGL certified which makes me a little nervous right off the bat. They told me it was certified in NY but I didn''t see that written anywhere (the cert # started with EGL.... and not US). Here are the specs:

1.52 c Round
F
VS2
Depth 62.9%
Width 60%
Crown Ht 13%
Pavilion Depth 43%
7.26x7.21x4.55
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good to Very Good
Culet: None
GIrdle: Thin to slightly thick
Fluorescence: None

I looked under the magnifier and could see well defined hearts and arrows.
$: 15k

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!

 

[JulieN]

nah, not worth it. the spread sucks, and price is too high.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/30/2009 4:43:00 PM
Author: JulieN
nah, not worth it. the spread sucks, and price is too high.

Welcome!

I agree with Julie, I would pass on this one - not well cut. It is facing up small for the weight also so you may be buying 1.5 carats but you won't get the ' look' as this diamond has the spread or face up size of a smaller diamond. Also seeing hearts and arrows patterning isn't an indication that a diamond is in fact well cut, this is a common misconception.

If you could give us an idea of budget and your requirements, colour, clarity, carat, cut quality and so on, we could suggest some diamonds which might be suitable for you?

 

[diamondtime]

Date: 3/30/2009 4:45:25 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/30/2009 4:43:00 PM

Author: JulieN

nah, not worth it. the spread sucks, and price is too high.

Welcome!


I agree with Julie, I would pass on this one - not well cut. It is facing up small for the weight also so you may be buying 1.5 carats but you won''t get the '' look'' as this diamond has the spread or face up size of a smaller diamond. Also seeing hearts and arrows patterning isn''t an indication that a diamond is in fact well cut, this is a common misconception.


If you could give us an idea of budget and your requirements, colour, clarity, carat, cut quality and so on, we could suggest some diamonds which might be suitable for you?

Wow! You people are fast AND smart! Here''s the summary - I''m looking for a three stone ring with the center being ~1.5 C and the two laterals ~ 0.5 to 0.75 C. These sizes are not set in stone, so to speak, they just seem to fall in my budget range. I was budgeting ~18-20k for the diamonds and a platinum setting and was looking at mainly F, G or H color, Round cut, and VS1or2 clarity. Ultimately, I was trying to play with different combinations of these parameters to get the best bang for the buck.

I was suspect of the dimensions listed above but wasn''t sure where the ultimate problem was. Also not a fan of "Good" polish - I thought that should be at least a V Good. You say the ''spread'' sucks? I''m a noobie remember and I''m afraid I don''t fully understand what that means. Should the overall width be larger and the depth smaller?

Thanks so much.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/30/2009 4:56:32 PM
Author: diamondtime

Date: 3/30/2009 4:45:25 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 3/30/2009 4:43:00 PM

Author: JulieN

nah, not worth it. the spread sucks, and price is too high.

Welcome!


I agree with Julie, I would pass on this one - not well cut. It is facing up small for the weight also so you may be buying 1.5 carats but you won't get the ' look' as this diamond has the spread or face up size of a smaller diamond. Also seeing hearts and arrows patterning isn't an indication that a diamond is in fact well cut, this is a common misconception.


If you could give us an idea of budget and your requirements, colour, clarity, carat, cut quality and so on, we could suggest some diamonds which might be suitable for you?

Wow! You people are fast AND smart! Here's the summary - I'm looking for a three stone ring with the center being ~1.5 C and the two laterals ~ 0.5 to 0.75 C. These sizes are not set in stone, so to speak, they just seem to fall in my budget range. I was budgeting ~18-20k for the diamonds and a platinum setting and was looking at mainly F, G or H color, Round cut, and VS1or2 clarity. Ultimately, I was trying to play with different combinations of these parameters to get the best bang for the buck.

I was suspect of the dimensions listed above but wasn't sure where the ultimate problem was. Also not a fan of 'Good' polish - I thought that should be at least a V Good. You say the 'spread' sucks? I'm a noobie remember and I'm afraid I don't fully understand what that means. Should the overall width be larger and the depth smaller?

Thanks so much.

Lol! Thanks! We try to please!

Ok, when we say spread, we are referring to how large the diamond looks face up, for example a 1 carat diamond should have the spread of about 6.5 MM. Some diamonds are cut too deep ( as above) or too shallow, often done by the cutter to try to save carat weight and therefore increase profits - sometimes at the expense of cut quality and therefore the diamond's beauty...

This thread explains more on the matter of spread.

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/spread.asp

Polish - it is said good and above look the same to the naked untrained eye, however those who are looking for the very best cut diamonds expect at least excellent or ideal, with the best cuts these details of finish are crafted to the highest standards possible anyway. Mainly we look for very good or above at a minimum.

More on polish below...

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/polish.asp

As to your diamonds, your colour and clarity requirements are fine, I would suggest including SI1 clarity in your search if you are agreeable in order to broaden the options. I would also stick to GIA or AGS graded diamonds, these two labs are considered to be the gold standard of diamond grading.

It is cut which gives a diamond its beauty, so it is very important to concentrate on this aspect. I will post some numbers below that you can use as a guide to find a well cut diamond, it gives you a range of proportions so you can see good table sizes, depths etc.

depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4%
table - 54- 57%
crown angle - 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees
girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc
polish and symmetry - very good and above


note - with crown and pavilion angles at the shallower ends ( CA 34- PA 40.6) and steeper ( CA 35- PA 41) check to make sure these angles complement in that particular diamond - eyeballs, Idealscope, trusted vendor input - check as appropriate!

From expert John Pollard.
"As the above implies, configurations depend on each other. A little give here can still work with a little take there.

With that said, here's a "Cliff's Notes" for staying near complementary crown and pavilion angles with GIA reports (their numbers are rounded): A crown angle of 34.0, 34.5 or 35.0 is usually safe with a 40.8 pavilion angle. If pavilion angle = 40.6 lean toward a 34.5-35.0 crown. If pavilion angle = 41 lean toward a 34.0-34.5 crown.

GIA "EX" in cut is great at its heart, but it ranges a bit wider than some people prefer, particularly in deep combinations (pavilion > 41 with crown > 35)."

 

[JulieN]

spread: this diamond faces up more similar to a 1.4 ct stone. I'm not really one to quibble over the appearance of .10 cts IF the stone looks really good and the price is right. However, since it probably does not have the best cut, I would pass.

For example, this 1.37 has nice spread (the same as your 1.52): http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1193776.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

 

[diamondtime]

Wow again. I think I just got my degree in diamond buying.

Thank you again Professors JulieN and Lorelei.

Great info!!

 

[diamondtime]

Hi again,

Using my new knowledge base, I''ve located two more diamonds that I feel are far superior to the original one I found. I''m having a hard time choosing between them. #1 does have a superior cut according to the numbers but will the extra $2000 it costs make it more visibly stunning than #2? They''re on-line so I have no visual comparison.

Diamond 1:
1.56 c Signature Ideal Cut
Color E
Clarity VS2
Depth 61.0%
Table 55%
Crown Angle: 34.3
Pavilion Angle: 41.1
Symmetry/Polish: Ideal/Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium, faceted
Culet: Very small
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.54 x 7.56 x 4.60

Diamond 2:
1.6 c Signature Ideal Cut
Color F
Clarity VS2
Depth 61.7%
Table 56%
Crown Angle: 35.2
Pavilion Angle: 40.5
Symmetry/Polish: Ex/Ex
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick, faceted
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.54 x 7.48 x 4.63

Thanks as always for your comments and suggestions.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/6/2009 4:12:07 PM
Author: diamondtime
Hi again,

Using my new knowledge base, I''ve located two more diamonds that I feel are far superior to the original one I found. I''m having a hard time choosing between them. #1 does have a superior cut according to the numbers but will the extra $2000 it costs make it more visibly stunning than #2? They''re on-line so I have no visual comparison.

Diamond 1:
1.56 c Signature Ideal Cut
Color E
Clarity VS2
Depth 61.0%
Table 55%
Crown Angle: 34.3
Pavilion Angle: 41.1
Symmetry/Polish: Ideal/Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium, faceted
Culet: Very small
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.54 x 7.56 x 4.60

Diamond 2:
1.6 c Signature Ideal Cut
Color F
Clarity VS2
Depth 61.7%
Table 56%
Crown Angle: 35.2
Pavilion Angle: 40.5
Symmetry/Polish: Ex/Ex
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick, faceted
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 7.54 x 7.48 x 4.63

Thanks as always for your comments and suggestions.

Glad to help!

Ok these two really need Idealscope images due to the steep pavilion angle on the first and shallow pavilion on the second. But I take it these are from Blue Nile? Then Idealscope images won''t be possible regrettably. I would look for some if you are buying from BN with a pavilion angle of around 40.6 - 41 with complementary crown angles as above if no chance of images.