Diamond advise

[ewalsh1575]

HI, I just purchased a diamond thinking I knew everything, but after doing some more research I am starting to second guess my decision. Basicly I was looking for a an eye clean diamond with a carot weight near 1.0, color grade H and up. The cut grade is the most important thing to me and based on the GIA report mine falls in the "Very Good" cut grade. That being said I purchased it. After looking deeper into the proportions I am a little concerned with the depth and other factors. Attached is the GIA report, let me know your thoughts and what you think the normal value for a consumer should be.

Thanks,

Eric

 

[ewalsh1575]

If anyone has any good knoledge of this please chime in. Im in a bad spot and feel like I got riped off!

 

[Dancing Fire]

If anyone has any good knoledge of this please chime in. Im in a bad spot and feel like I got riped off!

depending on how much you paid for the stone?

 

[ewalsh1575]

I paid alittle under 5K for the stone w/ tax included and the setting (only worth around $400.00). So basicly I paid around $4,250.00 for the stone alone.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I paid alittle under 5K for the stone w/ tax included and the setting (only worth around $400.00). So basicly I paid around $4,250.00 for the stone alone.

here is a H VS2 H&A ideal cut stone for the same price. notice the diameter is the same as your stone...

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.836-H-VS2-Round-Diamond-AGS-104062031058

 

[John P]

HI, I just purchased a diamond thinking I knew everything, but after doing some more research I am starting to second guess my decision. Basicly I was looking for a an eye clean diamond with a carot weight near 1.0, color grade H and up. The cut grade is the most important thing to me and based on the GIA report mine falls in the "Very Good" cut grade. That being said I purchased it. After looking deeper into the proportions I am a little concerned with the depth and other factors. Attached is the GIA report, let me know your thoughts and what you think the normal value for a consumer should be.

Thanks,

Eric

Hi Eric.

RE Performance Potential: The table and primary measurements receive VG due to the steep crown angle. This is a concern, because the pavilion/crown pairing will cause some dark areas under the table. AGSL predicts the combo to receive AGS5 in light performance.

RE Cut Geometry: Of greater concern is the thick girdle, which creates a 64.5% depth. What this means is that, with the 6.03mm average diameter, this diamond's width is the same as a well-cut 0.79 or 0.80ct round.

If cut is the most important thing to you I'd consider looking elsewhere. Angles necessary to create a strong level of light return are absent and although it weighs 0.90 ct it will appear like a smaller stone. Regarding the "Very Good" grade, it may interest you to know that well over half of today's commonly-produced RBCs can qualify for GIA VG.

Answering your value question: In my opinion, pricing of this diamond should be similar to an average-performing 0.80ct H SI1 of the same eye-clean level.

 

[yssie]

Is returning it an option?

My suggestions depend on your answer. If returning it is not an option I suggest you stop looking at proportions and simply enjoy your ring.

 

[ewalsh1575]

Thanks all for the help. I will see what I can do about returning it, I already left half down and am required to pay for the other half on pick up.

 

[ewalsh1575]

Ok so I went back to the jeweler who told me my deposit was refundable. For the same "negotiated" price he had another diamond which has the following specifications.

.92 carat, H Color, SI1 measurements 6.25-6.32 x 3.70mm

Proportions
Depth:58.8%
Table:60% (3.80mm)
Star length:45%
Crown Angle: 32degrees
Crown Height: 12.5%
Pavilion Depth 44% angle 41.4 degrees
Girdle: 2.3% (Thn-Med)
Lower Girdle 65%
Culet: None

Polish: VG
Symmetry: VG
UV Fluorescence faint light- blue

Side by side this one appears to look better but that could be in my head. What are your thoughts!?

Thanks

 

[Dancing Fire]

Ok so I went back to the jeweler who told me my deposit was refundable. For the same "negotiated" price he had another diamond which has the following specifications.

.92 carat, H Color, SI1 measurements 6.25-6.32 x 3.70mm

Proportions
Depth:58.8%
Table:60% (3.80mm)
Star length:45%
Crown Angle: 32degrees
Crown Height: 12.5%
Pavilion Depth 44% angle 41.4 degrees
Girdle: 2.3% (Thn-Med)
Lower Girdle 65%
Culet: None

Polish: VG
Symmetry: VG
UV Fluorescence faint light- blue

Side by side this one appears to look better but that could be in my head. What are your thoughts!?

Thanks

flat top with no crown height...

 

[TC1987]

Hi, ewalsh. That second one is shallow. More like a 60:60 diamond. see https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/60-60-proportioned-diamond


Pricescope suggests to stay within these ranges for best light performance.
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-cut

depth 60 - 62% (some allow up to 62.4%)
table 54- 57% (I like 55%-56%, some people say go to to 58%)
crown angle 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle 40.6 - 41 degrees
girdle: Look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium, etc. (Avoid extremes)
polish and symmetry - very good and above

 

[JulieN]

Ok so I went back to the jeweler who told me my deposit was refundable. For the same "negotiated" price he had another diamond which has the following specifications.

.92 carat, H Color, SI1 measurements 6.25-6.32 x 3.70mm

Proportions
Depth:58.8%
Table:60% (3.80mm)
Star length:45%
Crown Angle: 32degrees
Crown Height: 12.5%
Pavilion Depth 44% angle 41.4 degrees
Girdle: 2.3% (Thn-Med)
Lower Girdle 65%
Culet: None

Polish: VG
Symmetry: VG
UV Fluorescence faint light- blue

Side by side this one appears to look better but that could be in my head. What are your thoughts!?

Thanks

Where is this report from?

Lower girdle of 65% is quite unorthodox.

 

[ewalsh1575]

This is from the GIA report.

The cut is a European if that means anything?

 

[yssie]

This is from the GIA report.

The cut is a European if that means anything?

Do you have any pics of the stone?
Short LGF + shallow crown + steeper pav could make for a really interesting stone.


ETA: I just reread - the numbers are from the GIA report, not a scan?
So GIA called it an MRB. The European label is coming from the jeweller. Which is also okay, but now I want to see the GIA report and definitely pictures of the stone.
Can you post hte GIA report number?

 

[TC1987]

"European Cut" is a big table, low crown angle, low crown, and shallow diamond. Cut more for brilliance than fire but can be a sleek and pretty stone. If it's not a "head shadow" diamond, I'd except it to look very silvery with some fire that's possibly more at the outer edges or is seen more when the diamond is viewed at an angle. Shallow, spready.

Old European Cut is kind of the opposite of European Cut.
eta links:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/european-cut-diamond.3875/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/european-cut-diamond.3875/[/URL]
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/eulitz-historical-diamond-cut-studies.56725/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/eulitz-historical-diamond-cut-studies.56725/[/URL]

 

[ewalsh1575]

Unfortunately I did not take any photos. I just saw the GIA reports of both stones. I was told by the jeweler that the second stone was an older cut "European". Does the European cut have anything to do with the weird proportions?

Again side by side the second stone looks better, but who I am lol.

For the money I am paying which is the better stone, and is it worth the price?

 

[yssie]

For the money I am paying which is the better stone, and is it worth the price?

You ask a question that we simply cannot answer without more information.
Remember, we don't know anything about these stones besides what you have told us, and GIA numbers are rounded and averaged.

The links TC posted will answer some of your questions re. proportions and naming conventions.

 

[TC1987]

I don't know exactly what threads I snipped this from, but it's all info from Rich Sherwood and I found it on PS. Here's a summary:

European Cut characteristics - Lower crown, larger table, larger star facets, medium
to large culet, smaller (but larger than modern RBC) lower girdle facets,
symmetry usually better (fair to very good).

Old European Cut characteristics - High crown, small table, short star facets, very
large to extremely large culet, very large lower girdle facets,
symmetry poor to good.

Old European Cut stones (round, with small table, high crowns, and large to very large culets) are typically circa 1900-1920.

European Cuts (larger tables, lower crowns, medium to large culets) are typically circa 1920-1940.

* Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
* Sarasota Gemological Laboratory
* http://www.sarasotagemlab.com

 

[ewalsh1575]

Thanks TC. That makes sense because everything I was looking at regarding the European cut was deep, small table etc... which this one doesn't have. So I would guess this is a European no Old European cut.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My advice is to thank the jeweler, return the diamond, and come here for some help finding a great stone. You are working too hard while being shown stones that just aren't that great.

 

[ewalsh1575]

Agreed, this is exhausting and I am making no progress. Seems like every Jeweler I go to has diamonds which proportions don't fall in what everyone considers the proper range. To be honest I may just pick what I think looks the best and call it a day. Don't think she will notice or care. Thank you all for your help!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Almost all of us who are regulars here originally came here when looking for a diamond. Most of us looked locally and were unsure about quality, prices, etc. I am sooo thankful I found PS because I ended up with a much higher quality diamond for less than I was quoted locally. It is just a shame to me to spend so much money and not get the best quality for the budget. I wish you luck in your search!

 

[ewalsh1575]

Well my money is not refundable (bullshit). Kind of interesting, I spoke with my fathers appraiser who told me that the second stone does not sound anything like a European cut but more like a transitional based on the proportions. Don't know anything about them, actually never heard of them before in my life. In any case I will probably go with the second stone as it got better numbers on the HCA. Will post pics and GIA report when I get it.

 

[John P]

Well my money is not refundable (bullshit). Kind of interesting, I spoke with my fathers appraiser who told me that the second stone does not sound anything like a European cut but more like a transitional based on the proportions. Don't know anything about them, actually never heard of them before in my life. In any case I will probably go with the second stone as it got better numbers on the HCA. Will post pics and GIA report when I get it.

I imagine the second cut is either a 60/60 with extremely odd lower half lengths, or the 65% could be a typo and it could actually be 85% (ewalsh?). If it's 65% the sharp on-off quality many people like in RBC scintillation will not be nearly as vivid in normal lighting - away from the jewelry showroom lights.

RE European Cuts: None of the early 1900s cuts would qualify for GIA EX. Those described in GIA materials were largely influenced by German gemological minds and had tables ranging from 46-56%, extremely high crowns and notable culets. After the rotary saw was invented other "European Cuts" emerged, still with high crowns (CA near 45 degrees) but with tables closer to 60-70%. Logical, when following the "outline" of rough octa after sawing. It wasn't until the later 1900s that lower crown heights came into being, in the USA as well as Europe, in the form of 60-60s. That was largely influenced by the advancement of electric lighting.

The lower halves are reminiscent of a transitional. But the primary attribute of OECs, authentic early ECs and transitional cuts is the high crown appropriate to the societal lighting of the day.

Can I ask why the money is not refundable? Or refundable minus a courtesy fee?

 

[chrono]

I would request a copy of their policy to be 100% sure they aren't trying to hold on to your money without just cause. The stone you posted the stats on is highly usual with the short lower half combined with a low spready top. It is definitely not a transitional stone because those also have a small table and steep crown, just less so than an OEC. If the store's policy is indeed to not provide a refund, you MUST persist in finding a well cut stone, or at least as well cut as possible. Personally, I know I will regret giving up so soon and not getting my money's worth.

 

[John P]

I would request a copy of their policy to be 100% sure they aren't trying to hold on to your money without just cause. The stone you posted the stats on is highly usual with the short lower half combined with a low spready top. It is definitely not a transitional stone because those also have a small table and steep crown, just less so than an OEC. If the store's policy is indeed to not provide a refund, you MUST persist in finding a well cut stone, or at least as well cut as possible. Personally, I know I will regret giving up so soon and not getting my money's worth.

Chrono - I am wondering if you meant highly unusual - which I find it to be - everything else you mentioned was in-line with my thoughts.

 

[chrono]

John,
You caught my typo before I was able to correct it discretely. Yes, I did mean highly unusual.

 

[John P]

John,
You caught my typo before I was able to correct it discretely. Yes, I did mean highly unusual.

Woops. There I go again, breaking glasses and blowing up skirts. I'll try to use my indoor voice more

 

[ewalsh1575]

So heres the update. I Ended up taking the stone to my fathers gemologist who appraised it for me. Turns out it is a newer european cut. He also mentioned that I cannot compare the proportions based on todays modern cut standards. Below are the number he came up with.

.917 CRT. Color G, SI1 (eye clean) 6.24min 6.39 max

Table-60
Crown angle 32.5
Pavilion angle 41
Crown height 13
Total depth 59.2
Girdle 2.5
Lower half 60

He told me it was a nice stone (not spectacular), but nice and that the price was about right which made me feel better. He also said to stay away from the 1st stone I mentioned way above.

 

[nkc]

Dear ewalsh1575,

Quality: I really like John Pollard replies. He provides valuable information and knows what he's talking about.

Price: I would buy online. I have done that before and got a better quality than I would get from local jewellers for a better price. The jewellery stores add a very high markup. There are many online diamond sellers that have a 30 days return policy if you don't like the stone. I personally prefer Blue Nile. They have a website that allows you to look at many options and prices. I cannot tell you much about other online sellers because I have not bought from them.