choice of 3! debating flourescence...

[online diamond noob]

Ok, I loved Blue Nile''s signature cuts so much I’ve decided to give em another shot. The last one I saw was marvelous, except it was a H color and I could see a hew of yellow. So I''ve taken what I''ve learned, and what I''ve seen; added them all up and this is what I have. A choice between 3 very similar diamonds with only minor differences, a tad difference between depth/table% ratio''s and also note ably fluorescence...
So now I need your opinions...

Carat weight: 0.93 (same for each one)
Cut: Signature Princess (same for each one)
Color: F (same for each one)
Clarity: VS1 (same for each one)

Stone 1
Depth %: 66.7%
Table %: 66%
Crown height: 12.2%
Symmetry: Very good
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.62x5.40x3.60 mm
Length/width ratio: 1.04

Stone 2
Depth %: 66.2%
Table %: 69%
Crown height: 11.1%
Symmetry: Very good
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Medium blue
Measurements: 5.57x5.42x3.59 mm
Length/width ratio: 1.03

Stone 3
Depth %: 66.5%
Table %: 69%
Crown height: 11.1%
Symmetry: Very good
Polish: Very good
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Faint
Measurements: 5.61x5.41x3.60 mm
Length/width ratio: 1.04

Surprisingly they are all similarly priced...

pro''s; con''s; idea''s; comments?

-=brian=-

 

[researcher]

Stone 1 is my choice by far!!!

 

[ganort]

Wow. Nice stone selections. I think stone 1 because its table is less than its depth. I dont think the flour will help it look better as its already a colourless grade. Ive never seen a princess with such a huge crown height, and actually it appears that it actually might be a bit too big (current ideal values of 9-12). Stone 2 has a bit nicer sturdyier girdle and a slightly bit better L:W ratio, but im not shure if the medium blue flour will effect its performance. Also stone 2 is hideing some weight somewhere as it is slightly less deep than the other two but dosn't show differences between dimensions or crown height. (must be in the pav?) Id say 3 is in last place in my eyes as its girdle is slightly thick and that is against my preferance though thats where the differences in crown heights carat hidden weight falls between 1 and 3. Also it polish is VG/EX.. though I dont think I could tell the difference looking at the two side by side. Then again you did say you had a keen eye.

just my opinion but I would choose 1 so long as the over tall crown didnt play some hidden role in its performance.

-=g=-

 

[moremoremore]

hubba hubba #1....it has nothing to do with the lack of flourescence...it looks like it could be a great stone!!!

 

[online diamond noob]

I favored stone 1 a bit too, but I plan on setting it between two saphires or maby blue diamonds as ganort had mentioned (sounds like a cool idea please dont hunt me down for stealing it) and I was thinking if stone 2's strong flourescence would maby look something feirce between some other blue stones...
was just a thought... anyone have an idea how medium blue flour would effect a -1carat stone (ive herd if it has too much flourescence then in larger diamonds it could look foggy or clouded. but ive also herd it could make a F look like a D...)

-=brian=-

edit... do you think that super high crown would matter on it much?

 

[moremoremore]

Actually, I believe Dave is going to raise the 1A crown height to 10...12.2 is good.

I don't think the med flourescence will have much impact...it's already a colorless stone...I does great things for slightly tinted stones...don't know about an F....

 

[researcher]

From what I've read, when you have med-strong fluorescence in a D-F stone, there's a good chance it will look oily. People such as AnA say they have yet to see this, but I would avoid it nonetheless. As I said before, the first stone looks amazing by the numbers! I'd call that baby in!!!

 

[moremoremore]

i agree....!

 

[online diamond noob]

We'll ya'll helped talk me into it, I sent back the super nicely cut H and this one should be waiting for me when I get back from my cruise to the southern Caribbean. Thanks all for the help... I'll let ya know how it "works"

-=brian=-

ya know.. i just did some massive search engin type tests and found that finding a princess cut with less than a 65% table is fairly rare in itself. Any reason why most princesses have huge tables?

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 6/2/2004 3:00:25 PM researcher wrote:

From what I've read, when you have med-strong fluorescence in a D-F stone, there's a good chance it will look oily. People such as AnA say they have yet to see this, but I would avoid it nonetheless. As I said before, the first stone looks amazing by the numbers! I'd call that baby in!!!----------------

Actually, that's a myth that has been pretty well debunked. There have been several threads in the past discussing the results of various studies on the effect of fluorescence in diamonds. Strong Blue Fluorescence MAY make a diamond appear oily or milking in direct sunlight. Each stone has to be evaluated on a case by case basis where the presence of strong blue flour is concerned. Don't just dismiss a candidate until you have it evaluated first.

 

[online diamond noob]

Yes, that’s why I wasn't sure about there being medium blue flour in stone #2 but all the stones are the same exact price, from what I've read a stone having a good amount of fluoresce are typically cheaper, not that I’m going cheap as such the price for the stones are a tad over 5.5k each (for sub 1c stones)

Also I think besides the fluorescence issue the depth: table ratio was more "ideal" and crown height was a tad over 1mm higher... not really sure how this will come into play until I see it for myself... any mathematical theorists or old school veterans who can confirm that the newer trend of a princess w/ a small table, huge crown and more depth 'outshine' the vastly abundant princesses w/ huge tables (usually 75-85) and crown heights of less than 8%.

Thinking geometrically I would think that the 'perfect' dimensions for depth: table% would be exactly 1:1 (stone 1 has this 66.7%:66)

also the more the crown height is stretched and table% is smaller its side view is really starting to resemble a round (only with this case square corners)..

anyone care to fill in the rest/ disprove it openly/ know that princesses with geometry of that closely resembling a round are SUPER performers?

-=brian=-