Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Avoiding Benchmark Carat Weights?

W

William Preston

Rough_Rock
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
24
Hey everyone,

Since I've decided to move up in carat size (and budget:eek-2:) for my oval, I'm finding a couple of possibles at exact benchmark weights (a couple at 2.0). It seems every jeweler I've talked to has warned me against buying at benchmark weights, recommending that I go either up to 2.02 or 2.03 (to protect against chipping and losing the 2ct status) or down to 1.91 or 1.92 (to look nearly the same size, but cost a lot less).

I understand both of those considerations, but my question is whether I should have concerns about the cut of a 2.0ct just because it is exactly at 2.0. If the cut seems top notch (graded as excellent by all the retailers who have it as an option, and falls in the 1 designation of the AGS Light Performance Grade Cutting Chart), the video looks good, and the ASET looks decent, should I still avoid it?

Thanks, all!
WP
 
Are you buying online or at B&M?
 
I'm looking at both B&M and online. The options I'm looking at aren't priced unreasonably (~$1k higher for 2.0 from 1.77), so I'm okay with the prices. But, if there's something else I should be considering, I want to make sure I do.
 
I picked my diamond based on size (in my case, diameter of a MRB) rather than the weight. I knew I wanted BIG, and the 2.937ct that I picked was larger in size than many 3-3.1 carat diamonds I saw online. I probably saved a bit of $ too.
 
Pricing is more complex that simply the 4cs and weight. The type, location, and visibility of inclusions seem to inform pricing quite a bit. I suspect there are also pricing impacts based on rough and cutting costs. The underlying body tone (yellow, brown, grey) will also impact prices. I also suspect certain elements of the cut (elongation vs. not) also affect pricing -- let alone market driven factors.
 
We selected my EC by size, not carat weight. Clarity and color were the next two considerations. Performance in different lighting environments was another. My DH insisted on a diamond; l was open to other alternatives, but he insisted. To know what he felt comfortable with, we went to a B & M jeweler for size comparison (not carat wt). He compared 0.70ct to 1.07ct, and made his decision based on how the diamond looked in the setting he knew l loved! Once that had been determined, we braced for the price difference. It was over 1ct., but it was G color, and SI2 clarity graded. The price was MUCH lower than we expected, and he jumped on it.
There are many factors to consider, when purchasing a diamond, which is why having all of the information you can possibly have is so critical.
Spread is going to be your focus, not carat weight. You could find a 1.98ct stone at a higher color & clarity grade for less or the same amount as a 2.05ct diamond at lower color & clarity grades. It’s truly your preference. Which of the 4C’s is your priority? What are you willing to sacrifice for cost?
 
The problem with buying a 2.00 or a 2.02 or a 2.03 is that the cutters have an incentive to compromise cut to meet the target. So not only do you pay more, you get an inferior cut.

I'm not sure how this applies to ovals as cutting ovals is more complex, and a lot of it is a question of taste.
 
It is true that cutters find ways to hold on to weight to hit a "magical" number. You just need to be cognizant of it. I'm sure you have realized already
that size of 2.0 carat ovals can vary widely. I pay more attention to the mm size vs. the carat weight.
 
Fancy Cuts are a different breed; not so cut & dry. Many factors play into Ovals. Focus on Cut, and spread. Light performance, with very few disruptive inclusions. Brightness, without too much body color. Review the 4 main v. 8 main facet patterns to determine which you prefer, as each affects the cut tremendously, and how an oval performs.
Keep it simple, and don’t sweat carat-sweat the more important details, then determine what your budget can handle, and what is priority....
 
William Preston said:
Hey everyone,

Since I've decided to move up in carat size (and budget:eek-2:) for my oval, I'm finding a couple of possibles at exact benchmark weights (a couple at 2.0). It seems every jeweler I've talked to has warned me against buying at benchmark weights, recommending that I go either up to 2.02 or 2.03 (to protect against chipping and losing the 2ct status) or down to 1.91 or 1.92 (to look nearly the same size, but cost a lot less).

I understand both of those considerations, but my question is whether I should have concerns about the cut of a 2.0ct just because it is exactly at 2.0. If the cut seems top notch (graded as excellent by all the retailers who have it as an option, and falls in the 1 designation of the AGS Light Performance Grade Cutting Chart), the video looks good, and the ASET looks decent, should I still avoid it?

Thanks, all!
WP
Click to expand...

"Decent" is not how I'd want to describe my diamond's light performance, something I'm paying many thousands of dollars for lol. Why not find an actual AGS-graded stone? It sounds like you're looking at stones that have been graded in house by a B&M store. If this is the case, it's not a good plan IMO.
 
doberman said:
"Decent" is not how I'd want to describe my diamond's light performance, something I'm paying many thousands of dollars for lol. Why not find an actual AGS-graded stone? It sounds like you're looking at stones that have been graded in house by a B&M store. If this is the case, it's not a good plan IMO.
Click to expand...

Correct me, if I’m wrong, but aren’t AGS certified Ovals difficult to find? It’s my understanding that Ovals are more greatly certed by GIA, and others; I’ve seen so few AGS certed fancies, esp Ovals....
 
Matthews1127 said:
Spread is going to be your focus, not carat weight. You could find a 1.98ct stone at a higher color & clarity grade for less or the same amount as a 2.05ct diamond at lower color & clarity grades. It’s truly your preference. Which of the 4C’s is your priority? What are you willing to sacrifice for cost?
Click to expand...

Without getting into astronomical pricing, I think my spreads are pretty good. Not the largest, but I think I have a good balance of cut quality and size. The 1.77 I have was 9.28 x 6.96 (1.3 ratio). The 2.0s I'm looking at are around 9.55 x 7.12 (1.4 ratio) and 9.58 x 7.14 (1.34 ratio).

ChristineRose said:
The problem with buying a 2.00 or a 2.02 or a 2.03 is that the cutters have an incentive to compromise cut to meet the target. So not only do you pay more, you get an inferior cut.

I'm not sure how this applies to ovals as cutting ovals is more complex, and a lot of it is a question of taste.
Click to expand...

Got it. So it's possible for a cutter to save a 2.0 on a stone that should really be a 1.95 or 1.96 by saving weight and compromising cut.

tyty333 said:
It is true that cutters find ways to hold on to weight to hit a "magical" number. You just need to be cognizant of it. I'm sure you have realized already
that size of 2.0 carat ovals can vary widely. I pay more attention to the mm size vs. the carat weight.
Click to expand...

I think my spreads are good here, especially given the ratio I'm aiming for and the depth I think I want - 9.55 x 7.12 (1.4 ratio) and 9.58 x 7.14 (1.34 ratio).

doberman said:
Why not find an actual AGS-graded stone? It sounds like you're looking at stones that have been graded in house by a B&M store. If this is the case, it's not a good plan IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm admittedly have just enough knowledge to be dangerous here, but I don't think AGS or GIA grades the cut or light performance of Ovals. After looking at the retailer "grades" of cuts (which mean very little, I know), videos, certs, and ASETs (where available), I checked out the AGS cut guidelines to see if any were way off (which is pretty neat for a bookworm like me to use).
http://www.agslab.com/light-performance-cut-grade.php
http://www.agslab.com/members/conte...mer_Charts/1.35/Oval_8_main_60_table-1.35.pdf
 
Last edited:
MollyMalone said:
AGS has been issuing cut-light performance reports on ovals for I think about 10 years.
https://www.americangemsociety.org/page/agslabsdiamondtra
But ovals on the market with those AGS lab reports seem to be mighty rare; out of the nearly 27,000 ovals in the PS Diamond Search database, Whiteflash has the only in-house oval with such a report: a 2.202 cts, I - SI2:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut-loose-diamond-3893924.htm?source=pricescope
Click to expand...

So, it begs the question: if the reports exist, why are they so difficult to find?
 
I know that AGS grades ovals for light performance. I have some ideas about why there are so few on the market, and I think it has to do with the nature of the cut itself. Hopefully someone with greater knowledge will see this thread.

@William Preston Can you post the ASET?
 
I did a search on JA, Adiamor, BN, and Enchanted. To my surprise, each had 1 or 2 AGS ovals, but none were clarity-rated higher than SI1. Some were DQDs (with light performance mapping) and some were DQRs (without). I have no idea why there are so few.
 
2 reasons:
1: weight if the rough will produce a 1.9ct ags0 and a 2ct well cut diamond but not ags0 it will be cut to 2ct every time.

2: with the ags cutting guide for rounds you follow the guide your good. With fancies it takes trial and error to consistently get the grade because the guidelines do not take into consideration everything you need to know.
I know of cutters who trial cut one, got a ags1.
Then tossed the paper and sent it to gia and likely will never look at the ags guides/reports again.
Then some have found they liked the looks of their old designs better.
They could be right that their old designs are better looking.

Using diamcalc can shorten the trial and error period.
The still level of interpreting it will determine how much but can not totally eliminate it.
Any design has to validated by cutting it.
 
Last edited:
Matthews1127 said:
So, it begs the question: if the reports exist, why are they so difficult to find?
Click to expand...

The answer is partially in the statement of tyty3333, 'Cutters find ways to hold on to weight'. Few people however realize how far this leeway can go.

In rounds brilliants, there are many cut-grading-systems (aside from AGSL's) and there is a decades-long history of some understanding of cut-quality. As a result, the 'freedom' to hide weight is relatively limited. Still, compared to the 'average GIA-EX', I see that the weight-loss to create our cut-quality is around 7%. When there is the extra motivation however for the 'average cutter, cutting for GIA-EX' of a serious price-jump, due to the higher weight-category, the extra weight can generally be pushed up by 15%, still making GIA-EX. Mind you, I am stating conservative figures.

These figures apply to round brilliants, where there is some reward for supplying a decent cut, or for obtaining GIA-EX, or at least some understanding that certain cut-parameter-combos are less attractive. In fancy shapes however, there is a historic absolute freedom. Aside from AGSL, there is no lab grading Cut-quality in these shapes, and assessing cut-quality with other info is extremely complicated. Logically, the freedom to hide a lot more weight is far higher than in round brilliants. As a result, producing exquisite cut-quality, confirmed by the AGSL-lab-grade, is often economically hard, as very few consumers will wish to pay the so-called 'premium' for the better cut-quality.

I hope this was clear.

Live long,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top