Decision time! Need your help.

[zenit77]

After almost 2 months of research, I finally settled on a stone from David S. Diamonds (on 47th Street), left $1,000 deposit and ordered Tacori setting (see picture below). I wanted to hear your opinions while I am waiting for the setting to be shipped. In addition, I am slightly concerned about the AGS grading certificate I am getting from David S based on this article: http://www.niceice.com/ags_ideal.htm I am getting the older version of the report, even though the stone was graded on February 15, 2007. Is this really a problem, or should I let it slide

?

Thank you for all your help everyone, this forum is definitely a gold mine!!

Round Brilliant (Canadian Diamond)
7.25 - 7.29 * 4.59

AGS Grading Report

CW: 1.506
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
Cut: AGS Ideal 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Proportions: Ideal

TW: 63.2%
Table: 54%
Crown angle: 34.9
Pavilion angle: 40.8

Cost: $11,760

 

[whatmeworry]

Well you would want to get it checked out with an older version of the report. There was a poster here who had an old version AGS0 but had problems with the diamond because of digging. The old reports did not address this. There''s lots of posts on digging of girdles but it''s a technique use to retain extra weight. And since your diamond just barely gets over the 1.5 ct mark, it''s something worth checking out. NiceIce has good advice, why not look for an AGS0 with the newer report?

 

[zenit77]

The report that I am getting is the "older" version. Is it worth it (or at all possible) to ask the jeweler to provide another/new version of the grading certificate from AGS?

 

[gontama]

Date: 9/14/2007 2:57:36 PM
Author:zenit77

After almost 2 months of research, I finally settled on a stone from David S. Diamonds (on 47th Street), left $1,000 deposit and ordered Tacori setting (see picture below). I wanted to hear your opinions while I am waiting for the setting to be shipped. In addition, I am slightly concerned about the AGS grading certificate I am getting from David S based on this article: http://www.niceice.com/ags_ideal.htm I am getting the older version of the report, even though the stone was graded on February 15, 2007. Is this really a problem, or should I let it slide

?

Thank you for all your help everyone, this forum is definitely a gold mine!!

Round Brilliant (Canadian Diamond)
7.25 - 7.29 * 4.59

AGS Grading Report

CW: 1.506
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
Cut: AGS Ideal 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Proportions: Ideal



TW: 63.2%
Table: 54%
Crown angle: 34.9
Pavilion angle: 40.8

Cost: $11,760

Hi Zenit - Unless the diamond is extremely beautiful and you love it so much, I would like you to continue the search. C/P/T are good. But the diamond would look like 14+ct; it should look noticeably smaller in spread than average 1.5ct. I suspect the thick girdle holds weight. >63% depth is not that common in well cut diamonds. Just my 2cents. (The pic looks nice though).

 

[zenit77]

The Gemex and HCA scores for the stone are Excellent, and H&A look great (almost no leakage at all), so I am not really concerned about the 63.2% total depth. I am just a little skeptical about the older version of the AGS report and by how hard David S tried to push this particular rock (he showed me another GIA stone that was not cut by them, and that was it...)

 

[hearts-arrows_girl]

63.2 depth is deep. I would almost bet they got the old style AGS report because the stone wouldn''t have done as well on the new style. Check it out. If you are paying for an AGS 0, make sure it is a true AGS 0.

 

[zenit77]

Date: 9/14/2007 4:08:36 PM
Author: hearts-arrows_girl
63.2 depth is deep. I would almost bet they got the old style AGS report because the stone wouldn''t have done as well on the new style. Check it out. If you are paying for an AGS 0, make sure it is a true AGS 0.

Could be true, but the major difference between old and new versions is the light performance section on the new report. I asked them to run Gemex report for me, and it checked out very well.

 

[gontama]

 

[angeline]

I also vote on the too deep point. It might still perform okay, but you are paying for a 1.5ct stone (and there is a jump at the 1.5ct mark) and only getting a less than 1.5ct stone in dimensions.

Anyway if you are fine with that and love the stone, then congrats! Sounds like you do love it.

I think that setting is absoultely gorgeous by the way. I love it. I'm off to investigate Tacori now...

a


Edited to add: 63.2 is the cut-off for depth for AGS0 on the Price Comnparison tool above..

 

[zenit77]

I do have to agree with you guys on the depth issue

, especially after taking another look at the HCS spread (see attached).
I still think that it''s a good deal for $12k, but will give it a good thought before plunging it on this particular stone

.

Thank you all for your help!!! Much appreciated

 

[whatmeworry]

Just another thing to consider, the depth is high because the table you are looking at, 54%, is relatively small. Small tables normally have higher depths. I think the girdle is probably fine because even in the older AGSL reports it would not have gotten a 0 for cut with a thick girdle.

 

[gontama]

Date: 9/14/2007 5:41:54 PM
Author: whatmeworry
Just another thing to consider, the depth is high because the table you are looking at, 54%, is relatively small. Small tables normally have higher depths. I think the girdle is probably fine because even in the older AGSL reports it would not have gotten a 0 for cut with a thick girdle.

True. The relatively smaller table coupled with relatively high crown angle would contribute to the total depth. An AGS report (even old one) should have c/p % as well as well angles. It should also show have the informaiton on girddle thickness. Worth looking at them.

Yes the price is good. It is probbaly good even for a 1.4ct diamond. I just want Zenit to make an informed decision.

I "personally" do not care much about the spread, if I have not paid for the premium for certain thresholds (1ct, 1.5ct, 2.0ct ...). I can be very happy with a 1.7ct diamond which only has 1.6ct spread if it is more beautiful than those with better spread. I can be convinced that I have purcahsed an excellent 1.6ct diamond. But at 1, 1.5, 2ct thresholds, I would be more conscious about the spread.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

This has been pretty much covered, but a well cut 1.5 ct. stone should have a diameter of 7.4mm. This stone has a diameter of 7.25+mm. So you are buying a stone that has the appearance of a 1.4 ct. stone. I''d honestly rather have a 1.4 that was not so deep. But I think the small diameter is the explanation for the price on this stone, at least partially.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

he is buying locally right? Even online that seems to be a pretty decent price for a 1.4ct, especially one with a clear hearts pattern and an excellent IS image and even an older AGS0. looks like a pretty good deal to me, especially from a local store. but anyway, it sounds like it might have a pretty nice character and unique light performance?

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 9/15/2007 12:16:58 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
This has been pretty much covered, but a well cut 1.5 ct. stone should have a diameter of 7.4mm. This stone has a diameter of 7.25+mm. So you are buying a stone that has the appearance of a 1.4 ct. stone. I'd honestly rather have a 1.4 that was not so deep. But I think the small diameter is the explanation for the price on this stone, at least partially.

I have a 1.5 carat and it has the following
Measurements: min 7.29 - 7.38 max x4.55 62.1% depth

Would 7.4mm versus 7.25mm make that much difference??? Just curious

 

[gontama]

Date: 9/15/2007 12:55:27 AM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 9/15/2007 12:16:58 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
This has been pretty much covered, but a well cut 1.5 ct. stone should have a diameter of 7.4mm. This stone has a diameter of 7.25+mm. So you are buying a stone that has the appearance of a 1.4 ct. stone. I''d honestly rather have a 1.4 that was not so deep. But I think the small diameter is the explanation for the price on this stone, at least partially.

I have a 1.5 carat and it has the following
Measurements: min 7.29 - 7.38 max x4.55 62.1% depth

Would 7.4mm versus 7.25mm make that much difference??? Just curious

7.29 - 7.38 -> average 7.335. The spread is not super for a 1.5ct. But it would be very difficult to see any difference between a 7.4 and 7.34, especially when mounted on a ring. The beauty of the diamond is far more important than the spread in this case. For a 1.5, I would not hesitate to purchase one with 7.32 mm diameter, if it is beautiful, where the girdle often plays a big role for the weight. So to answer your Q, I would not worry at all as far as the diamond is beautiful which I think it is.

The reason I questioned about the spread is, you begin to see the difference of 0.1mm (for a 1.5 diamond). If it is 0.15 - 0.2 mm, Most would see the difference. I myself can instantly see 0.1mm diff up around 2.0ct. A great cut cannot help.

 

[zenit77]

Thank you all!!!

Do you think this could be similar or even better stone for me?

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-395204.htm

 

[zenit77]

Excellent discussion on different types of AGS reports:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-about-different-ags-certificates.69054/