Any Feedback on This Diamond??

[Mannolino]

Hello All! I am very close to purchasing this RB stone and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts before I take the plunge...

CTW - 1.325
Clarity - VS2
Color - H (on the high end according to the seller)
Cut - Ex
Polish - Ex
Symmetry - Ex
Table - 57%
Depth - 60.3%
Crown Angle - 33.5
Crown Depth - 14.5%
Pav Angle - 40.8
Pav Depth - 43%
Culet - None
Girdle - Thin to Medium (faceted)
Laser Inscription - Done by GIA

HCA - 0.8
AGA - 1A
Sarin - Ideals across the board - however the table was recorded as 58% instead of the 57 shown on the GIA report.

I am also considering this setting -> http://www.uniondiamond.com/jewelry/jewelry.php?item_id=881&action_type_id=2&pic_name=&shape_id=

The total price for the stone and setting is $9600. Any feedback on the stone, setting or price is appreciated. Thank you in advance!!

 

[AdaBeta27]

Just taking a quick glance, either 57% or 58% is a pretty big table. You might like that look, or not. Be sure to look at some with smaller tables in the 55% to 56% range. Large table stones have glare from that table plus may have fire out toward the edges and not much fire from the center. I think you'd need the Sarin data for someone to predict the fire.

 

[Mannolino]

Thanks for your input!

The salesperson suggested that I rely on the GIA report (57%) rather than the Sarin after I brought it up. She said the GIA is more precise and is what I should base my thoughts on. I thought that a table of 57% was pretty good, so I am glad you brought this up.

The Sarin report was odd for this stone, but here it is...

 

[AdaBeta27]

It's slow in here and I'm certainly not the person to help you w/ detailed cut analysis, LOL. I just know that there's a definite preferance for smaller tables more in the 55% to 56% range. It you read through the tutorials at Good Old Gold, they discuss all the factors and how they interact. Star and girdle facets plus crown & pavillion angles with that big table is what I was thinking of when I mentioned fire. You don't want a big clear table looking into a bland pavilion and that's what the experts can help you with.

 

[Mannolino]

You make a great point. I figured that HCA would have picked up on the table being too big for the other dimensions. The HCA changed to 1.0 when I used the Sarin data instead of GIA data - so I felt it was probably ok. Maybe some other experts will weigh in....

 

[DiamondExpert]

I can''t see that the comment that 57% is a "pretty big" table is useful to a potential buyer in any way...

...there are plenty of stunning "Ideal" cut rounds with 57 tables.

 

[Mannolino]

Excerpt from GOG - "An acceptable table size that falls at about 53-60% of the diameter of the diamond will give you a balanced display of both white and spectral light, as long as the diamond has a proper balance of crown & pavilion angles and girdle facet cutting."

Would it be safe to assume that the discussed diamond would have the "proper balance of crown & pavilion angles" based on the HCA, AGA and GIA results?

Thanks everyone!

 

[JohnQuixote]

For the record, in global terms, 53-59% is a small table, 60-64% is medium and 65%+ is large.

All other things being equal, as table gets smaller the crown gets higher (associated with more dispersion/fire) but the crown angle/table relationship of each stone will determine particulars for that stone. Overall configuration is important in every case. In similar configurations a few % in table size is hard to determine with the naked eye.

 

[Mannolino]

John,

That was great info. I did not realize what the typical classification was for small, medium and large tables.

Based on the numbers I posted, would you guess that the "overall configuration" worked with the table size? In other words, should I even bother with this stone or do you suggest I keep looking?

Thanks for your help!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/30/2007 12:42:11 AM
Author: Mannolino
John,

That was great info. I did not realize what the typical classification was for small, medium and large tables.

Based on the numbers I posted, would you guess that the 'overall configuration' worked with the table size? In other words, should I even bother with this stone or do you suggest I keep looking?

Thanks for your help!

The numbers you've provided work well. If this is a GIA graded stone you should be able to plug the report # and carat weight into report check to get the minor facet data within 5%, which is a bit more info.

Bear in mind that having numbers-only is like getting a verbal description of a blind date. It can be promising but it's largely what your mind makes of it (which is why consumers are so hopeful/feaful about feedback on the 'numbers'). Seeing magnified and reflector images is like seeing a picture of her. Getting the diamond in-person is when you finally go on the date. Once that happens the numbers and still images fade - and you can concentrate on the real deal.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

The HCA makes it pretty clear that it is worth taking a look at. But I believe you said you dont have any other information right? I would probably search for similarly price diamonds from other vendors, maybe even paying a very slight premium for the additional information. But, if you cant find soemthing priced close enough then it looks very promising. The HCA gives you the recommendation to keep looking at it, and that recommendation is based on running the numbers you have given us, thus if anyone here knew of something that was causing a problem it would probably have already mentioned by the HCA. It is graded as an Excellent cut by GIA as well, so they also say that its cut worth looking at and the angles work well together, so it seems to me its very well worth looking at.

It is on the shallow side which is probably great in this case to help enhance spread but can cause some potential problems, however if you have a guy you trust, as you seem to,looking at it then you shouldnt have any worries in that department. They have a return policy anyway so if he turned out not to be as trustworthy as you think you can always send it back.

The only thing left to really do on your part is NOT to decide if the angles work together well, but to figure out exactly what kind of light return qualities you are looking at. to do that you could use the LGF and Star numbers, but just looking at the crown angles and the table size I would speculate it is probably slightly more inclined towards white light return over dispersion,but I also dont think you would notice a difference, and all evidence points towards your FF being very pleased with her diamond.

 

[Mannolino]

Hahahaha! What a great analogy! I can definitely understand your point.

Here is the info from the check in case it shows anything interesting:

Round Brilliant

Measurements: 7.12 - 7.15 x 4.30 mm

Carat Weight: 1.32

Color Grade: H

Clarity Grade: VS2

Cut Grade: Excellent

Proportions:

Depth: 60.3 %

Table: 57 %

Crown Angle: 33.5°

Crown Height: 14.5 %

Pavilion Angle: 40.8°

Pavilion Depth: 43 %

Star length: 50 %

Lower Half: 80 %

Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted

Culet: None

Finish:

Polish: Excellent

Symmetry: Excellent

Fluorescence: None

Let me know if the minor facet data doesn''t seem to work. Thanks again for your help!!

 

[Mannolino]

Workinghard - Thanks for the great insight. The good advice is really pouring in now!

 

[Mannolino]

Any thoughts on the minor facet data with respect to the table?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Those averages all look great Mannolino. You''re at the point where actual photos - reflector images in particular - will show how consistent the measurements are; light performance, patterning, etc.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

of course blind dates can work out witout a photo as well. Of course if she comes strolling in looking like myself you might have a problem...though fortunately most of my flaws would be fairly apparant on paper. Just cross your fingers there isnt some big mole or major tooth problems

 

[AdaBeta27]

Date: 8/30/2007 12:02:18 AM
Author: DiamondExpert
I can''t see that the comment that 57% is a ''pretty big'' table is useful to a potential buyer in any way...

...there are plenty of stunning ''Ideal'' cut rounds with 57 tables.

I''m swayed by that vendor that prefers "tables in the low to mid 50''s on rounds." There are plenty of recent critique-the-stone discussions on here that adhere to that party line. I know b/c I read them all before I made my purchase.