Beautiful stone, bad proportions

[DiamondsAndDior]

I saw a couple more GIA 3X stones in person yesterday and there was one that caught my eye. I thought it was beautiful, but when I saw the GIA report, it had proportions that were WAYYY outside of what's recommended on PS. In fact, it's one of those dreaded "steep deep" stones that I've read about on PS. If I hadn't looked at the GIA report (or if I had never been on PS), I probably would have purchased it. I even looked in multiple lighting conditions to make sure. But now that I know what I know, I can't help but question my eyes... Am I crazy to pass on this stone just because I can't get past the proportions? Can steep deep stones actually be beautiful?

 

[gm89uk]

what were the proportions?

 

[DiamondsAndDior]

56 Table
62.9 Depth
36.5 Crown
40.8 Pavillion
75 LGF

 

[whatamilookingat]

No expert here, but if I remember correctly, you are looking for a rather large diamond. It may be harder at brick and mortar stores, but is there any way you can do a side by side comparison with a diamond of similar size that has more ideal proportions? I'm faaaar from an expert, but when I was looking at diamonds, most of them looked great. Almost every diamond looked sparkly on its own. They weren't always graded by the recommended labs either. I did start to notice that some diamonds just looked better than the ones I thought were great at first, at different stores. Ones I had originally thought were clear and sparkly started to look dull in comparison. In the end we bought a diamond online more in line with recommended parameters because we didn't want to get ripped off, and I didn't trust my eyes completely. Our stone may not be a super ideal, but it's very nice so I know what you're getting at. However, you mention this stone you like is waaay out of parameters, so that gives me pause. If you are going to be spending this much money, it'd be best to really know what you are getting by being able to see in person, side by side, the difference between the performance of this diamond and that of a more ideal cut stone. That way you know for sure if you really understand what you are buying, and that you won't have to question your decision in the future. I'm sure people who have more experience will be willing to help you out with advice here. Hope you get the stone that's just right for you.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Can steep deep stones actually be beautiful?

Absolutely- may we know the weight and measurements of the stone ?

 

[kmoro]

56 Table
62.9 Depth
36.5 Crown
40.8 Pavillion
75 LGF

Ummmm - those proportions are not far off of ideal at all - what do you mean wayyy outside? This stone has the potential to be an excellent performer ... can you get light performance images? Yes, the crown is little bit steep,and yes it is slightly deep ... but only a tiny bit; nothing that says it’s an automatic reject ... can you run it through the HCA calculator?

 

[lovedogs]

Ummmm - those proportions are not far off of ideal at all - what do you mean wayyy outside? This stone has the potential to be an excellent performer ... can you get light performance images? Yes, the crown is little bit steep,and yes it is slightly deep ... but only a tiny bit; nothing that says it’s an automatic reject ... can you run it through the HCA calculator?

It's a 3.6 on the HCA. So not great. However, seeing with your eyes is the most important thing. The only reason I tell really new people not to just pick the first sparkly stone they see is bc they don't know what to look for and haven't ever seen an ideal cut stone.

If you've seen an ideal cut stone in your size range and prefer this one, that's 100% fine! You should get what you love. I just always recommend seeing an ideal cut in person before deciding on something outside of the recommended proportions.

 

[yssie]

Am I crazy to pass on this stone just because I can't get past the proportions? Can steep deep stones actually be beautiful?

Yes, you absolutely would be crazy to pass on a stone that your eyes choose because it has characteristics that fall outside anyone else’s preferences. If you’ve seen a variety of flavours of stones in a variety of lighting types... you’ve done your homework; diamonds are first and foremost visual spectacles - so the “right” choice is always to allow (educated) visual preferences to supersede all else.

Re. This particular stone - GIA averages proportions around the eighths of the stone and rounds some values non-trivially, so the numbers printed on the report lack precision by which to judge nuances. Info on cut grade:
https://www.gia.edu/sites/Satellite...goBlobs&blobwhere=1495879225234&ssbinary=true

Stones featuring higher crowns and steeper pavilion mains may tend to exhibit more coloured light output across a variety of lighting types than otherwise-similar stones with shallower pavilions. Discussion here:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/an-ags-view-of-gia-steep-deep-excellent.32764/
The AGS paper I usually link isn’t available at the moment - not sure why, but I can dig up a PDF copy when I’m home.

 

[Karl_K]

56 Table
62.9 Depth
36.5 Crown
40.8 Pavillion
75 LGF

Its may not be out as far as you think because of gia's gross rounding.
What was the table size?

 

[DiamondsAndDior]

Ummmm - those proportions are not far off of ideal at all - what do you mean wayyy outside? This stone has the potential to be an excellent performer ... can you get light performance images? Yes, the crown is little bit steep,and yes it is slightly deep ... but only a tiny bit; nothing that says it’s an automatic reject ... can you run it through the HCA calculator?

@kmoro The suggestions on PS seem to be to stick with 34-35 crown, potentially 35.5 but only if the pavilion is 40.6 This stone has a 36.5 crown with a 40.8 pavilion, which is why I feel like it's way outside the recommended proportions. It's also 62.9 depth, when the general recommendation is to stay below 62.4. My local vendor does not have light performance tools, but I suppose I could buy a ASET viewer to confirm that the light performance is good.

If you've seen an ideal cut stone in your size range and prefer this one, that's 100% fine! You should get what you love. I just always recommend seeing an ideal cut in person before deciding on something outside of the recommended proportions.

@lovedogs I actually have not seen a super ideal cut stone in the size range that I want! I don't live near any super ideal vendors and the majority of them don't have available inventory in the size and color that I'm looking for, so even if I ordered one to view alongside this GIA 3x, I feel like it would be an unfair comparison if the colors or sizes are different. I have looked at GIA 3x stones with specs within the super ideal range though, but not sure how accurate of a representation that is given GIA's rounding.

Yes, you absolutely would be crazy to pass on a stone that your eyes choose because it has characteristics that fall outside anyone else’s preferences. If you’ve seen a variety of flavours of stones in a variety of lighting types... you’ve done your homework; diamonds are first and foremost visual spectacles - so the “right” choice is always to allow (educated) visual preferences to supersede all else.

@yssie You are totally right! I guess since I'm not very experienced when it comes to diamonds, I just don't feel super confident about my own judgment. But I have noticed throughout my search process that I consistently like stones with crown angles on the higher side more than stones that look "flatter". I think they look brighter to me, and I like the way they shine at various tilts, which might be due to the more colored light output that you mention.

 

[DiamondsAndDior]

Its may not be out as far as you think because of gia's gross rounding.
What was the table size?

The table is 56

 

[Karl_K]

The table is 56

Tiffany has sold a lot of diamonds in that range.
Spread is a bit down and the potential ags score is 1 due to spread.
0 to 1 border light performance if everything in the rounding comes together to work well.
Also in the gia rounding is an AGS4

 

[lovedogs]

I think if you've seen GIA stones with proportions in the recommended ranges and still prefer this one, then go for it! I think the biggest issue is people only having ever seen crappy stones with EGL certs, or from Kay/Jared/Shane, etc, and then not knowing how diamonds can look so much better.

If you've seen stones that fall into preferred ranges, are under 2 on HCA, etc, and prefer this one, I'd go for it!

 

[Karl_K]

Now for the biggest question what where the numbers for the other ones you were comparing it to?

 

[DiamondsAndDior]

Now for the biggest question what where the numbers for the other ones you were comparing it to?

Hmm good point, Karl. I hadn't thought about what I was comparing to, just that I saw this stone and thought it was beautiful. The other stones I saw yesterday were:
- 57 Table, 35 crown, 41 pavilion, 62.2 depth, 80 lgf
- 59 Table, 34 crown, 41.2 pavilion, 61.4 depth, 75 lgf

Now I'm wondering if it stood out to me because of the other stones that I was looking at. But it's also the first time since I started looking that I felt drawn to a stone.

 

[DiamondsAndDior]

I think if you've seen GIA stones with proportions in the recommended ranges and still prefer this one, then go for it! I think the biggest issue is people only having ever seen crappy stones with EGL certs, or from Kay/Jared/Shane, etc, and then not knowing how diamonds can look so much better.

If you've seen stones that fall into preferred ranges, are under 2 on HCA, etc, and prefer this one, I'd go for it!

I have seen stones that scored under 2 on HCA, but not alongside this particular stone. I should probably find a <2 HCA stone to compare side to side right?

 

[kmoro]

@kmoro The suggestions on PS seem to be to stick with 34-35 crown, potentially 35.5 but only if the pavilion is 40.6 This stone has a 36.5 crown with a 40.8 pavilion, which is why I feel like it's way outside the recommended proportions. It's also 62.9 depth, when the general recommendation is to stay below 62.4. My local vendor does not have light performance tools, but I suppose I could buy a ASET viewer to confirm that the light performance is good.

Yes, you’re totally correct ... but those parameters are very, very tight. And when you’re talking about half a percent ... I realize half a percent can make a difference, but unless it’s on a borderline, I’m guessing that it would not.

If you consider that the ideal spec’s you’re taking about are the ACA parameters, the following diagram shows where the center is ACA, the second circle is AGS0, and the outer circle is GIA excellent ... you can see there is room for lots of variation and, while super-ideal specs are great, the actual light performance - and what you prefer - is all that matters.



And this AGS chart for a 56 table .... you can see how you can still have excellent light performance outside of the ideal range:



All that and each stone will have it’s variations - many more angles than the ones we usually focus on ... so your eyes are the best thing for telling you what is beautiful to you!

From brilliance.com:
“Also, depth is deemed acceptable within a certain range, with any value between 56.5 and 65 percent considered good. However, the ideal depth is between 62.9 and 59.5 percent. For those of us also looking to get the largest size out of a diamond, depth matters in terms of where the weight of the stone is located.”
https://www.brilliance.com/diamonds/ideal-depth-table-round-cut-diamonds

You can see that 62.9 isn’t bad at all.

The thing with the super-ideal spec’s are that they are ideal (haha) for consumers that will never be access a superbly-cut diamond in real life. For me, for example, I felt safest buying a super-ideal because I could not see it in person (or any comparable diamond).

You are fortunate enough to see this diamond in person, and your eyes are the ultimate judge for what appeals to you ... this gives you more freedom to go outside the ideal specs and still end up with a diamond that you love.

Having said all of that, if it was me, I still would not buy this diamond without seeing an ASET image.

In the meantime, you could compare it to a different size ideal cut. The light should play around your diamond in roughly the same way as you turn the diamonds in the light. You can see if there are dead spots or if the flashes are comparable. And you can check to see if there are any spots where you can see through the diamond as that would be obvious light leakage.

Still, I hope you get that ASET scope before any final decision.

Good luck!

ps. Sorry that was so long. I’m trying to stay distracted from my own real life

 

[DiamondsAndDior]

@kmoro thanks for all the great info! I'm lucky to be able to see some stones in person, but I do agree with you that without an ASET, it may be risky...

And you can check to see if there are any spots where you can see through the diamond as that would be obvious light leakage.

This is really interesting...does this mean that I could potentially check for light leakage by holding a red piece of paper under the diamond and see if there are any spots where I can see through the stone into the red paper?

 

[lovedogs]

Hmm good point, Karl. I hadn't thought about what I was comparing to, just that I saw this stone and thought it was beautiful. The other stones I saw yesterday were:
- 57 Table, 35 crown, 41 pavilion, 62.2 depth, 80 lgf
- 59 Table, 34 crown, 41.2 pavilion, 61.4 depth, 75 lgf

Now I'm wondering if it stood out to me because of the other stones that I was looking at. But it's also the first time since I started looking that I felt drawn to a stone.

The 57 table one scores 2.4 on the HCA, so another "reject"
The 59 table one scores a 3.4, also not good.

Yes, my overall recommendation is to try and view something in the recommended proportions that scores under 2 on the HCA side by side with the one you like. Just to make 100% sure that your eyes prefer these proportions. If they do, that's great! You found a winner! But my biggest concern is making sure you are comparing to something that's more along the lines of what we'd traditionally recommend. That way you can be sure you are making an informed decision.

 

[DiamondsAndDior]

The 57 table one scores 2.4 on the HCA, so another "reject"
The 59 table one scores a 3.4, also not good.

Yes, my overall recommendation is to try and view something in the recommended proportions that scores under 2 on the HCA side by side with the one you like. Just to make 100% sure that your eyes prefer these proportions. If they do, that's great! You found a winner! But my biggest concern is making sure you are comparing to something that's more along the lines of what we'd traditionally recommend. That way you can be sure you are making an informed decision.

So I actually looked at a stone a couple weeks ago that was right in the recommended PS proportions. It had either a 56 or 57 table, 34 crown, 40.6 pavilion. I don't remember what the exact depth was, but it was 61.X. I didn't look at it alongside any other stones, but I didn't love it. I noticed that it looked dark in different areas when I looked at it at various tilts. I figured it was probably due to GIA's rounding that made it a not so great stone. I guess the best comparison would probably be to order a super ideal, even if in a smaller size.

 

[Karl_K]

The 57 table one scores 2.4 on the HCA, so another "reject"
The 59 table one scores a 3.4, also not good.

Not so fast within the gia rounding there are a lot of combinations that are correctly ags0 with the 57 table one.

Some thing else that may have been going on is you could have been drawn to the more dominant 3d effect of the first one with the high crown and smaller table. Some people are.

 

[Karl_K]

So I actually looked at a stone a couple weeks ago that was right in the recommended PS proportions. It had either a 56 or 57 table, 34 crown, 40.6 pavilion. I don't remember what the exact depth was, but it was 61.X. I didn't look at it alongside any other stones, but I didn't love it. I noticed that it looked dark in different areas when I looked at it at various tilts. I figured it was probably due to GIA's rounding that made it a not so great stone. I guess the best comparison would probably be to order a super ideal, even if in a smaller size.

It may have had some pavilion mains that dip below ~40.45

 

[Karl_K]

From brilliance.com:
“Also, depth is deemed acceptable within a certain range, with any value between 56.5 and 65 percent considered good. However, the ideal depth is between 62.9 and 59.5 percent. For those of us also looking to get the largest size out of a diamond, depth matters in terms of where the weight of the stone is located.”
https://www.brilliance.com/diamonds/ideal-depth-table-round-cut-diamonds

That is another example of internet drivel that makes no sense.

 

[kmoro]

@kmoro thanks for all the great info! I'm lucky to be able to see some stones in person, but I do agree with you that without an ASET, it may be risky...



This is really interesting...does this mean that I could potentially check for light leakage by holding a red piece of paper under the diamond and see if there are any spots where I can see through the stone into the red paper?

Yes - you could potentially try that. I believe it’s only true for round brilliant cut (that you should not be able to see through it), but perhaps for some other cuts as well. I think it would have to be a straight-on face-up view, no tilt.

 

[lovedogs]

Not so fast within the gia rounding there are a lot of combinations that are correctly ags0 with the 57 table one.

Some thing else that may have been going on is you could have been drawn to the more dominant 3d effect of the first one with the high crown and smaller table. Some people are.

Good point. I just wanted OP to know what the HCA scores were for the stones she saw. But you are totally right that given the rounding it's hard to tell.

 

[kmoro]

That is another example of internet drivel that makes no sense.

What part, @Karl_K? All of it or just the size part? Are the statements about depth wrong (the part I was focussed on)? It would be nice if you could expand on that so I/we can learn something.

 

[Karl_K]

Yes - you could potentially try that. I believe it’s only true for round brilliant cut (that you should not be able to see through it), but perhaps for some other cuts as well. I think it would have to be a straight-on face-up view, no tilt.

Works with any diamond, interpreting the result for some shapes can be problematic.
Rounds are easy.
I used to carry a business card in my wallet with bright red Mylar on one side and bright blue on the other to use for this test.
Hold the diamond parallel over the paper and look strait down at the table and where you see red/blue is leakage.

 

[lovedogs]

So I actually looked at a stone a couple weeks ago that was right in the recommended PS proportions. It had either a 56 or 57 table, 34 crown, 40.6 pavilion. I don't remember what the exact depth was, but it was 61.X. I didn't look at it alongside any other stones, but I didn't love it. I noticed that it looked dark in different areas when I looked at it at various tilts. I figured it was probably due to GIA's rounding that made it a not so great stone. I guess the best comparison would probably be to order a super ideal, even if in a smaller size.

The (potential) issue with 34 crown and 40.6 pav angles is that they aren't "complementary". Generally speaking a 34 crown would go best with a 40.8 pav angle (imagine it like as one gets steeper the other one should get shallower). Obviously sometimes 40.6 and 34 can be great, it's just not quite as "safe" as 34 and 40.8.

That said, there are some people who just genuinely don't like 'ideal' cut stones within the proportions that we recommend. I forget the thread, but we recently talked about how "super ideal" stones have this dark look under certain viewing conditions due to the contrast. I personally love it, but can understand that others dislike it.

The other week I compared an "ideal cut" unmentionable stone (not allowed to be discussed here) vs. a super ideal diamond. the crafted by infinity is on the left (in the halo), and the unmentionable is on the right. Another unmentionable is on top (unset). I was trying to show that the two "ideal" cuts had a "spot" in the middle that made them easy to spot vs. the less ideal cut. I personally prefer the CBI because it has the biggest "spot". I'm sure there's a technical term for this, but to me it gives the stone extra depth and this weird extra 3-d look. But there are some people who think it looks overly dark and oddly "contrasty", and therefore prefer stones with different proportions.

All this to say that people have different preferences, and you shouldn't feel badly if your preference isn't for a stone we would "typically" recommend. At the end of the day, your eyes need to love it.

 

[lovedogs]

EDIT. Meant to add this pic to my previous post bc it shows the stones without the writing/markings.

 

[Karl_K]

What part, @Karl_K? All of it or just the size part? Are the statements about depth wrong (the part I was focussed on)? It would be nice if you could expand on that so I/we can learn something.

The numbers are drivel.
65% for a mrb really? on what planet?
All of the numbers are opinion stated as fact without any logical justification for using those specific numbers.