Concerns about fluorescence

[lefty]

I''m trying to decide on this stone

EGL USA cert.
1.33 ct.
Round
Color: G
Clarity SI2
Measurements: 7.16-7.12 (is that correct?) x 4.2mm
Depth: 58.8
Table: 61.0
Crown 12.0
Pavilion: 42.9
Girdle: Med. - Thick faceted
Polish- Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Fluor: Med. Blue
Culet: None

Should I be concerned with the Med. Blue fluorescence?
I have read the articles on this site and it sounds like it will add to the beauty and reduce the cost.
In your opinions is this worth the $5300 price or should I keep looking?
Thank you

 

[moremoremore]

hhhhmmmm, the flourescence is the LEAST of your issues with that stone, sorry

and btw, med flour in a G colored stone- that's awesome imo..

 

[DiamondExpert]

Also, check to make sure it''s eye clean (trade definition -

).

 

[lefty]

I don''t understand moremoremore''s reply-What should my concerns be with this stone?
Should I keep looking? I haven''t seen the stone so I don''t know if it''s eye-clean. Is it too much money for what I have described?

 

[bluedawg]

Hmm, the proportions seem a bit strange to me-- but I''m no expert. Seems like a very large table and shallow stone?

I think the MB fluorescence will be beautiful (but I have a D with MBF and I like its characteristics-- not everyone will). If you feel funny about your diamond looking bluish under UV lighting (the blacklights in clubs, for example) than stay with faint or less fluorescence.

Can anyone comment to the proportions?

 

[Kaleigh]

Not liking the depth or the table. Have you seen this stone?? Medium Blue fluorescense is nothing to worry about in a G colored stone. I have it in mine and mine is an E, and I love it.

 

[lefty]

No I haven''t seen the stone. If the depth and table is undesirable would I be able to see that? Would it affect the reflection or
brilliance? Would it weaken the stone?

 

[jigri2003]

I think the concerns are:
EGL-USA certificate, despite studies available on this site, are still percieved as being less strict. So many would tell you that the G should be marked down to H or even less, that the SI2 is unlikely to be eye-clean, etc. This may not actually be the case, but you have to check out the stone itself to check on the eye-clean nature or not.
The crown angle seems way out of ideal proportions. The depth at almost 59% is also way outside ideal proportions. Sure the depth and table numbers aren't switched? Even if that's the case, still unlikely to be a beautiful stone by the numbers.
The price at $5300 seems high for the combination that you are getting.

How about checking out the following stone available under the price search on PS:

1.38 F SI2 59.9% 57% EGL m- no vg vg ft 7.18x7.2x4.31 $3299 $4553*SP

Even better, I would say, pay about $650 more and try a GIA stone like the one below:

1.30 G SI2 61% 57% GIA tn-m f no ex vg no 7.05x7.09x4.31 $4574 $5946*SP

 

[lefty]

When I input the information into HCA in came back with a 2.2 score.
Light return - very good
Fire- excellent
Scintillation- v. good
Spread- excellent

Would it still give that score if the table was too large and the depth too shallow?

 

[bluedawg]

Lefty, if the proportions are off, your diamond just won''t sparkle as an ideally cut one will. Light will leak out and not be reflected... you will have a dull stone. If a stone is shallow, it will often look larger than it is... but not have good properties for fire and brilliance. Same if it''s too deep-- only you''ll have a diamond that doesn''t appear as large as ideally cut stones of the same carat weight.

Is it possible to get more information from the diamond''s vendor? Such as... a Sarin report (EGL certs have percentages rather than angles which are less accurate when plugging numbers into the Holloway Cut Advisor) and an image of the IdealScope view (which will show you if light leaks from the stone).

And SI2 grades are tricky... sometimes, they are clean to the eye or are located in a spot where the inclusions can be hidden behind a prong. I have also seen some SI2s with very unattractive inclusions, obvious to my naked eye.

You need to have more info before you plunk money down on this diamond, IMO

 

[bluedawg]

Also, not sure if you''re concerned with the AGA Cut Class but this diamond isn''t "ideal" by those standards.

http://www.gemappraisers.com/chartFrameset.htm (choose "round")

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/16/2005 3:20:44 PM
Author: moremoremore
hhhhmmmm, the flourescence is the LEAST of your issues with that stone, sorry

I disagree with this, and I have to say that I see this happen frequently here. I know MMM''s comment is meant to reflect that the stone is not within AGS 0 proportions, but that doesn''t mean it may not be the right pick for THIS shopper. We don''t know that......we haven''t asked enough questions yet.

Not everyone who comes to PS wants an AGS0 or "top-cut" stone. Some folks don''t want to pay the premium for AGS0. Some may be fine with an AGS2 stone. Some may not desire H&A. I think it''s important to find out what a buyer''s priorities are before assuming what fits for them and what doesn''t.

 

[lefty]

I want a larger stone that looks good and has alot of brilliance and fire.
My biggest question is whether (in your opinions) this particular stone is worth $5300 based on the proportions on the cert.
Will the fluorescence compensate for what might be lacking in the other areas?
I appreciate all your comments

 

[bluedawg]

OK, Lefty, I think your stone above is going to fit as more of a "premium" cut rather than ideal. Have you looked at a site like BlueNile-- maybe search "Good" cuts in your color/clarity and see what prices pop up.

Fluorescence might help with color just a bit (if it''s lower than the cert grade, for example) but it won''t improve or detract from the cut characteristics (like brilliance or scintillation).

 

[moremoremore]

Actually, my comment is not meant to mean that it's not within AGS proportions...tio be honest, I'm not a round gal and don't even know for sure what the AGS proportions are...and I'm not the least bit interested in an AGS 0 or even a H&A for that matter, but more along the lines of a brilliant and firey stone for the best price possible...and due to all the factors with this stone, including the thick girdle, the good symmetry, the table more than depth which is a red flag...not for sure, but could be, and the EGL Si2 (which isn't bad per se but would need to be confirmed)

could be a better stone for the money out there.

That's what I meant

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/16/2005 5:48:44 PM
Author: moremoremore
Actually, my comment is not meant to mean that it''s not within AGS proportions...tio be honest, I''m not a round gal and don''t even know for sure what the AGS proportions are...and I''m not the least bit interested in an AGS 0 or even a H&A for that matter, but more along the lines of a brilliant and firey stone for the best price possible...and due to all the factors with this stone, including the thick girdle, the good symmetry, the table more than depth which is a red flag...not for sure, but could be, and the EGL Si2 (which isn''t bad per se but would need to be confirmed)

could be a better stone for the money out there.

That''s what I meant

Apologies for misinterpreting about the AGS0,......but I still maintain that these factors you mention above aren''t reason enough to carte-blanche say "the fluor is the least of the worries". It really depends on what her priorities are.

If her priorities are to find the stone with the most spread for $5300, this might be the stone. That was my point.....we don''t know that the girdle, the "good" symmetry (tons of diamonds are sold with good symmetry, by the way), table, etc. are necessarily a problem for her, because (until now) we didn''t know what her priorities were in selecting a stone.

Her concern, to me, appeared not to be "is this a good stone" but more "is this stone worth $5300".

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/16/2005 5:23:02 PM
Author: lefty
I want a larger stone that looks good and has alot of brilliance and fire.
My biggest question is whether (in your opinions) this particular stone is worth $5300 based on the proportions on the cert.
Will the fluorescence compensate for what might be lacking in the other areas?
I appreciate all your comments

i would be more concern with the flat top at 12% "no crown height" ,large 61% table.i once had a stone like that,it had no fire,until i had it recut into ideal proportions.

 

[moremoremore]

aldjewey- that's cool...I understand what you're saying and I agree to a certain extent...but, when someone posts a thread asking for opinions, I respond with my own opinion even if it's a little off topic...those issues are my issues and "enough" for me to formulate my opinion...that's the point of this wonderful board! I still definitely think that of all the potential red flags with that stone, the flourescence is the least of that stone's worries!

 

[pyramid]

An independent appraiser (not a jeweller) would be able to tell you if the stone is worth the money. Ofcourse, you would need to factor in some money to pay the appraiser so it depends how much it is worth it to you.