Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Critique my stone please?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
D

Diotima

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
7
Hi, everyone,

I''ve been combing through your archives, and it appears I have a lot to learn! I''d like to ask for a critique on a stone, but I think the information I have is going to be woefully inadequate for you. I''ll give you what I have, and if there''s stuff missing, I can get the rest tomorrow. This is an 18k yellow gold engagement solitaire in a 4-prong (white)setting. GIA. Price is $3400.

.73 carat

D color

VS clarity

Round brilliant cut

Depth 63.1

Table 57%

Medium faceted

Polish Very Good

Symmetry Excellent

Using what little info I''ve gleaned here, it looks like the depth might be high (?) which makes the cut not so good? If the stone is deep (unless I have this backwards), I''ll lose some diameter for the weight, right? This is not necessarily a problem, but won''t a poor cut also affect the sparkle?

If you were looking for a solitaire between .5 and 7/8ths carats with a budget of about $3000 for the stone, what would you pick?

Many thanks!

Diotima, the One Millionth Newbie
 
Hi Diotima,

You are correct, the stone is rather deep, and therefore will face up smaller for its ct. weight. Without the crown and pavillion angles, we couldn't say much more. The rest of the info you do have doesn't look bad at all really, but I have a feeling the other numbers may not be that great.


Are you shopping locally or online?

You asked what I/we would get, so here are some I would have no problem buying. You'll notice they are lower in color and possibly clarity. That's because I personally don't need the higher color, as color won't show near as much in a well cut stone (and you are totally safe down to G anyway, unless you are super color sensitive, but H should be fine too), and if it's eyeclean, then no need for higher clarity.

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-540897.htm#


http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-232063.htm If eyeclean.

These would be just under budget with the 5% off PS discount.



If eyeclean. 2795.85 with bankwire.

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/3626/
 
Thanks, Ellen, :)

I was up til almost 2 am reading the forums and searching WF and GOG! This is a dangerous site. :D

I''ll get my hands on the certificate today so I can list the rest of the angles.

Cheers,

Dia
 
Date: 12/22/2007 11:10:09 AM
Author: Diotima
Thanks, Ellen, :)

I was up til almost 2 am reading the forums and searching WF and GOG! This is a dangerous site. :D

I''ll get my hands on the certificate today so I can list the rest of the angles.

Cheers,

Dia
Click to expand...
lol Indeed.
9.gif


Sounds good, will wait to hear.

And you''re welcome!
 
Hmmm, I'm looking at the GIA cert, and it's a Diamond Dossier Grading Report dated August 5, 2003. It doesn't list the angles. Those are on the Sarin report, right? Is there a way to get that information starting from just a GIA cert?

For the geometrically inclined, can one infer the missing angles based on the measurements given?

Report Type: GIA Diamond Dossier®

Date of Issue: August 05, 2003

Laser Inscription Registry: 12825699

Round Brilliant

Measurements: 5.70 - 5.74 x 3.61 mm

Carat Weight: 0.73

Color Grade: D

Clarity Grade: VS1

Proportions:

Depth: 63.1 %

Table: 57 %

Girdle: Medium, Faceted

Culet: None

Finish:

Polish: Very Good

Symmetry: Excellent

Fluorescence: None

Clarity Characteristics: Crystal, Feather



The report does not include the cut grade. Does this automatically mean it's a poor cut?


Many thanks!

Dia
 
Yes, a Sarin report would give you the angles. But depending on who has this stone and whether they have a Sarin machine is the question. Not everyone has one. Is this stone with a local jeweler or an online vendor?

We can't tell anymore from the info you have here unfortunately. And the reason there is no cut grade is that GIA didn't start doing that (grading cut) until the very end of 2005.


To be honest, as I said before, I don't like that depth. It tells me the cutter was probably more concerned about the weight, to make more money, not to make a pretty stone. I really think you could find a better candidate.
28.gif


If you can tell me whether you're shopping locally or online, I can give you a bit more/better advice.
1.gif
 
Thanks, again Ellen. :)

We've been shopping both locally (Palm Springs/Inland Empire, CA) and online. When we visited several chain stores, we were severely underwhelmed. The stuff at Zales looked dead and boring. The stuff at Kay was better but not exciting, and Helzberg was "meh". I mean, we were shown a 6 grand stone that just left me cold. The whole thing made me feel like a picky diva when that's really not me at all. If I'm not happy at double our budget, either I'm just too hard to please, or maybe the diamonds just weren't that great?

So we actually bought the ring (online, Overstock) I've been describing, but we did so to see it, check it out, see if it appraises well for what we paid, etc. It's head and shoulders nicer than anything we saw in the stores. It has fire and life, it sparkles, and I love the setting. I'm a yellow gold person, and that's hard to find in the current market. It got a gasp out of me when I saw it, and nothing else so far has.

We'll be taking it to an independent appraiser in the next few days, so maybe the appraiser could give us the necessary info?

If it appraises well, we'll probably keep it because I'm sort of getting attached to it. (ooooh, sparkly!) But if the appraisal comes in low, it's going back.

As far as local options, Palm Springs has several high-end jewellers on a street called El Paseo that's sort of the local equivalent to Rodeo Drive - but I'm not sure I want to pay designer prices at full markup. Overstock has some beautiful Tacori settings, but they're all in platinum, and I've been reading here that there are drawbacks to plat. Just for your humor, when I first saw the Tacori rings, I kept thinking "What idiot thought these would sell? $2500 and the center stone is a CZ??! If I'm shelling out 4 digits for a ring, I want me some rock, dangit!" So then I read here that you're supposed to replace the CZ with the real thing. DOH!! *blush*

Here's the e-ring and band I like from Tacori:

http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/L10830273.jpg

http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/P10830272.jpg

(sorry for links instead of pics, I DL'd the pics and attached them, but they're either too big, or the file type is incompatible)

So, there you go. I don't want you to waste your time helping me search if we decide to keep the one we've got. I'll post again after the appraisal, ok? Here's a pic of the current ring, though the pic does NOT do it justice.

Thank you so much for helping out, btw. It is much appreciated. :)

Cheers,

Dia

DiaRing001.jpg
 
Diotima, first off, pretty ring! I am a fan of thicker bands, so it really appeals to me.


Now, I am not really surprised that you weren''t impressed with the stones at the stores you mentioned. They are not known for particularly well cut stones, so your eyes were correct. You''re not being a picky diva, there are rings out there for tens of thousands that would have the same affect. It''s not the price of the stone that makes it pretty, it''s the cut.
28.gif


Here''s my honest thoughts, for what they''re worth.

It''s quite possible that the stone in your ring is better cut than the ones you have looked at , and hence it appeals to you more. And if it makes you happy, that certainly counts a lot. However, I would suggest, before you truly decide to keep it, to go to high end stores that carry branded stones and/or AGS0 graded stones. (I''m not saying buy there, just compare) Branded diamonds (like Hearts on Fire, Lazare Kaplan, etc) will be very well cut for the most part, and comparing with these is a good way to see how your stone really performs. If you did that, and then told me you couldn''t find one that looked better, or made you as excited, I''d say you had done your homework and had found the one for you.

I just want you to end up with the best your money can buy.
1.gif
So, just a thought!


And lol about the CZ settings.
9.gif
You''re not the first.
2.gif



At any rate, let me know how things go and what you end up with!
 
You are correct that the stone is too deep. A diamond cut deep will not only look smaller but it will leak light out the bottom of the pavilion giving you less return of light back to your eye. The stone may also appear dark in the center around the table and star facets. This is due to the fish-eye effect caused by the depth of the diamond. The table is also a bit small. Your cert fails to list weather or not your diamond has any florescence. A diamond with moderate to very strong florescence will often look cloudy or dirty even if it is a "D" color. Since there I do not have the rest of the diamonds I can''t tell you much more.
 
Diotma - as others have said, the 57/63/med girdle implies that the diamond will have slightly steep or deep angles somewhere. It’s impossible to be precise without a scan but if you post a close-up photo of the diamond looking straight down on the table we can estimate pavilion depth (therefore PA if no culet) by viewing the table reflection.
 
Date: 12/24/2007 1:43:22 PM
Author: EstateJeweler

You are correct that the stone is too deep. A diamond cut deep will not only look smaller but it will leak light out the bottom of the pavilion giving you less return of light back to your eye. The stone may also appear dark in the center around the table and star facets. This is due to the fish-eye effect caused by the depth of the diamond. The table is also a bit small. Your cert fails to list weather or not your diamond has any florescence. A diamond with moderate to very strong florescence will often look cloudy or dirty even if it is a 'D' color. Since there I do not have the rest of the diamonds I can't tell you much more.
Click to expand...
Hi EJ,

Nice to hear cut comments from a new pro. A couple of ‘welcome’ questions for you
2.gif
– I presume you meant to say nailhead instead of fisheye, considering the PA is likely on the deep side? I’m also curious about why you would say a 57% table is a bit small: Certainly it’s on the smaller side of global cut for round brilliants, but in both the GIA & AGS grading metrics table sizes 55-56% have the most complimentary angle combos that earn the top cut grade. Interested in your take - and welcome to PS.
 
Date: 12/24/2007 3:02:22 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Date: 12/24/2007 1:43:22 PM

Author: EstateJeweler


You are correct that the stone is too deep. A diamond cut deep will not only look smaller but it will leak light out the bottom of the pavilion giving you less return of light back to your eye. The stone may also appear dark in the center around the table and star facets. This is due to the fish-eye effect caused by the depth of the diamond. The table is also a bit small. Your cert fails to list weather or not your diamond has any florescence. A diamond with moderate to very strong florescence will often look cloudy or dirty even if it is a ''D'' color. Since there I do not have the rest of the diamonds I can''t tell you much more.
Click to expand...

Hi EJ,


Nice to hear cut comments from a new pro. A couple of ‘welcome’ questions for you
2.gif
– I presume you meant to say nailhead instead of fisheye, considering the PA is likely on the deep side? I’m also curious about why you would say a 57% table is a bit small: Certainly it’s on the smaller side of global cut for round brilliants, but in both the GIA & AGS grading metrics table sizes 55-56% have the most complimentary angle combos that earn the top cut grade. Interested in your take - and welcome to PS.
Click to expand...



Hi EJ,

I just reread my post and noticed my mistake. I did mean to say "Nailhead" instead of fisheye. I''m replying to these posts between customers (Christmas Eve Day) and I should probably wait until I''m not so busy. I didn''t mean to imply that the table was too small and I should have said that it is on the smaller side. I tend to prefer stones with smaller tables but that comes from my background in Old Cut Diamonds.

Here''s a piece of trivia from the Old School:
The original diamonds were cut before the discovery of electricity. The angles are much higher, the tables are much smaller, and the stones are much deeper. They were cut to sparkle under candlelight at night. The theory was to make light bounce off the surface of the diamond (like a disco ball). Today''s diamonds are cut for the light to pass through the table, bounce off the inside of the pavilion and then back out the top of the diamond (greatly over simplified).

Russ
 
Date: 12/24/2007 5:02:17 PM
Author: EstateJeweler


Date: 12/24/2007 3:02:22 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


Hi EJ,


Nice to hear cut comments from a new pro. A couple of ‘welcome’ questions for you
2.gif
– I presume you meant to say nailhead instead of fisheye, considering the PA is likely on the deep side? I’m also curious about why you would say a 57% table is a bit small: Certainly it’s on the smaller side of global cut for round brilliants, but in both the GIA & AGS grading metrics table sizes 55-56% have the most complimentary angle combos that earn the top cut grade. Interested in your take - and welcome to PS.
Click to expand...
I just reread my post and noticed my mistake. I did mean to say 'Nailhead' instead of fisheye. I'm replying to these posts between customers (Christmas Eve Day) and I should probably wait until I'm not so busy. I didn't mean to imply that the table was too small and I should have said that it is on the smaller side. I tend to prefer stones with smaller tables but that comes from my background in Old Cut Diamonds.

Here's a piece of trivia from the Old School:
The original diamonds were cut before the discovery of electricity. The angles are much higher, the tables are much smaller, and the stones are much deeper. They were cut to sparkle under candlelight at night. The theory was to make light bounce off the surface of the diamond (like a disco ball). Today's diamonds are cut for the light to pass through the table, bounce off the inside of the pavilion and then back out the top of the diamond (greatly over simplified).

Russ
Click to expand...
Russ, thanks for the reply. Changes in lighting have definitely caused cutting changes - as an estate guy I imagine you see your share of antique cuts with a lot of weight in the crown. Along those "trivia" lines there is a great book just released by Al Gilbertson called "American Cut - the first 100 years" in case you had not heard of it. It's a terrific read.
 
Date: 12/24/2007 5:02:17 PM
Author: EstateJeweler

Date: 12/24/2007 3:02:22 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 12/24/2007 1:43:22 PM

Author: EstateJeweler


You are correct that the stone is too deep. A diamond cut deep will not only look smaller but it will leak light out the bottom of the pavilion giving you less return of light back to your eye. The stone may also appear dark in the center around the table and star facets. This is due to the fish-eye effect caused by the depth of the diamond. The table is also a bit small. Your cert fails to list weather or not your diamond has any florescence. A diamond with moderate to very strong florescence will often look cloudy or dirty even if it is a ''D'' color. Since there I do not have the rest of the diamonds I can''t tell you much more.
Click to expand...

Hi EJ,


Nice to hear cut comments from a new pro. A couple of ‘welcome’ questions for you
2.gif
– I presume you meant to say nailhead instead of fisheye, considering the PA is likely on the deep side? I’m also curious about why you would say a 57% table is a bit small: Certainly it’s on the smaller side of global cut for round brilliants, but in both the GIA & AGS grading metrics table sizes 55-56% have the most complimentary angle combos that earn the top cut grade. Interested in your take - and welcome to PS.
Click to expand...



Hi EJ,

I just reread my post and noticed my mistake. I did mean to say ''Nailhead'' instead of fisheye. I''m replying to these posts between customers (Christmas Eve Day) and I should probably wait until I''m not so busy. I didn''t mean to imply that the table was too small and I should have said that it is on the smaller side. I tend to prefer stones with smaller tables but that comes from my background in Old Cut Diamonds.

Here''s a piece of trivia from the Old School:
The original diamonds were cut before the discovery of electricity. The angles are much higher, the tables are much smaller, and the stones are much deeper. They were cut to sparkle under candlelight at night. The theory was to make light bounce off the surface of the diamond (like a disco ball). Today''s diamonds are cut for the light to pass through the table, bounce off the inside of the pavilion and then back out the top of the diamond (greatly over simplified).

Russ
Click to expand...
Welsome Estate Jeweler.

You are free to put your business name and a link (but not an email) on as a tag line. You can enter the details under the personal section above the posts.

I am sure you will enjoy participation here and you will bring your own particular expertise. But do not get disheartened by people correcting you with more recent and up-to-date knowledge (it will happen).

You can also use the little quote button that you can see when you are posting to add the quote you wish to respond too. You must reply to the quote you want though.
And images must have a unique name and be less than about 95kb - e.g brilliant cut roundxxsb by adding the xxsb or other gibberish after the name
 
Wow, thank you for all of the suggestions and cut discussion, everyone. :)

BTW, Re: Flouresence - None.

Re: photos: I will see what I can do to get a well-lit straight-on pic for you, but it may take several days due to holiday madness.

Re: viewing an AGS0 cut for the sake of comparison - excellent idea!

Question - when we take the ring for an appraisal, is the appraiser likely to have any of the scopes you folks favor and/or a Sarin machine?

Oh, and if I walk into a high-end store and say "Show me an AGS0 cut." - will they know what I mean? Is that ok to say?

Cheers!

'Tima (b/c I saw someone else on here called Dia)
 
Date: 12/25/2007 2:26:46 AM
Author: Diotima
Wow, thank you for all of the suggestions and cut discussion, everyone. :)

BTW, Re: Flouresence - None.

Re: photos: I will see what I can do to get a well-lit straight-on pic for you, but it may take several days due to holiday madness.

Re: viewing an AGS0 cut for the sake of comparison - excellent idea!

Question - when we take the ring for an appraisal, is the appraiser likely to have any of the scopes you folks favor and/or a Sarin machine?

Oh, and if I walk into a high-end store and say ''Show me an AGS0 cut.'' - will they know what I mean? Is that ok to say?

Cheers!

''Tima (b/c I saw someone else on here called Dia)
Click to expand...
I think it is fine to go into a store and ask for an AGS0 cut. If they don''t know what you are talking about, they are probably not the store you want to buy from!
I think a good independent appraiser should have some of the scopes that people have mentioned!
I also have admired the tacori settings on overstock - they have some nice styles and I think they are a good deal although I haven''t comparison shopped!
I''m not a diamond expert, so I know that I personally will only purchase AGS or GIA ideal cut stones from here on out, with some guidance from an experienced sales person/gemologist. It is a "mind clean" thing for me. Otherwise I would be constantly second guessing myself. However, I know there are other beautiful stones out there for those willing to take a risk or learn a whole lot more than I know about what makes a stone perform well. For example, my e-ring stone is well cut but not ideal cut, and I am quite fond of it!
 
Date: 12/25/2007 2:26:46 AM
Author: Diotima

Question - when we take the ring for an appraisal, is the appraiser likely to have any of the scopes you folks favor and/or a Sarin machine?
Click to expand...
It''s possible. However, as far as a Sarin goes, the stone would have to be loose to run it.




Date: 12/25/2007 2:26:46 AM
Author: Diotima

Oh, and if I walk into a high-end store and say ''Show me an AGS0 cut.'' - will they know what I mean? Is that ok to say?
Click to expand...
They should know, as Gail pointed out. It''s absolutely fine to ask. If you look them up in the yellow pages, their ad may say they are a member of the American Gem Society, that''s what you want to see, it means they are very famliar with and carry a good inventory of their stones.


Good luck!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top