Hi all,
In looking at princess cut diamonds recently, I came across a new piece of information and wanted to see if anyone out there could verify this for me.
I was told by a jeweler that when GIA calculates the depth percentage of a rectangular modified brilliant, only the width is used (shortest side) in the calculation.
I looked at a diamond that measured 7.78 x 7.12 x 5.43 with the depth percentage listed as 76.3%. It looked too deep for a princess cut on first glance. However, if you crunch the numbers and take the average of the two sides (7.45), the depth would only be 72.8% would be better (BTW, the stone looked great, especially under my new ideal-scope toy.) I previously assumed that the depth was calculated based on the total square area of the stone. I went back and checked the numbers on some other stones and it seems to be right. This would mean that the actual depth percentage listed on the GIA report would be meaningful only if the stone were square. Is this correct? Some very rectangular stones could be dismissed too early as being too deeply cut when they are not.
Here are two more stones I looked at:
7.78 x 7.14 x 5.38, depth listed as 75.4%, take the average and the depth is only 72.1%
7.62 x 7.31 x 5.33,depth listed as 72.9%, take the average and the depth is only 71.3%
What about emerald and radiant cuts??? This could get confusing for those of us who want to look at stones with good "numbers" first and then see if they are brilliant, sparkly and appealing to the eye...
Another reason to look at stones in person.
The more I look, the more confused I am becoming!!
Thanks for any input!
Pfeiffer
In looking at princess cut diamonds recently, I came across a new piece of information and wanted to see if anyone out there could verify this for me.
I was told by a jeweler that when GIA calculates the depth percentage of a rectangular modified brilliant, only the width is used (shortest side) in the calculation.
I looked at a diamond that measured 7.78 x 7.12 x 5.43 with the depth percentage listed as 76.3%. It looked too deep for a princess cut on first glance. However, if you crunch the numbers and take the average of the two sides (7.45), the depth would only be 72.8% would be better (BTW, the stone looked great, especially under my new ideal-scope toy.) I previously assumed that the depth was calculated based on the total square area of the stone. I went back and checked the numbers on some other stones and it seems to be right. This would mean that the actual depth percentage listed on the GIA report would be meaningful only if the stone were square. Is this correct? Some very rectangular stones could be dismissed too early as being too deeply cut when they are not.
Here are two more stones I looked at:
7.78 x 7.14 x 5.38, depth listed as 75.4%, take the average and the depth is only 72.1%
7.62 x 7.31 x 5.33,depth listed as 72.9%, take the average and the depth is only 71.3%
What about emerald and radiant cuts??? This could get confusing for those of us who want to look at stones with good "numbers" first and then see if they are brilliant, sparkly and appealing to the eye...
Another reason to look at stones in person.
The more I look, the more confused I am becoming!!
Thanks for any input!
Pfeiffer
300x240.png)