diamond solitaire pendant

[jazzmin]

I need help as a newbie. I found a stone for a pendant. Is it adequate for a pendant? I understand it doesn''t have to be as perfect as for a ring.
So far I know:

round brilliant .72
diameter 5.68-5.76 x 3.58
total depth 62.3
table size 56.3
crown angle 34.9
crown height 15.3
pavilion angle 41.1
pavilion depth 43.6
Cut- Ideal
Color I
clarity VS2
polish -ideal
symmetry-ideal

I know Rounds aren''t perfectly round, but the diameter numbers aren''t very close on this one. Does it make a difference?

Also, I got a quote for an adjustable 16 inch white gold chain, basket setting, with single bale for $ 400. I think that is too much for the setting. Any advice would be helpful on the stone & setting.

Jazzmin

 

[chrono]

I believe this post belongs in Rocky Talky as it is diamond related. You can ask Ali and Andrey to move it there via the "report concern" button located at the very end of the post. The RT folks will be able to help you out with the HCA scoring.

BTW, is the stone certed? It'll be good to know the lab too, which I presume is GIA?

 

[FrekeChild]

Ditto Chrono. Also, gold''s price is around $900 per ounce, so I don''t think $400 sounds all that bad at the moment.

 

[stone-cold11]

The stone is borderline, pavilion angle is a little larger for that crown angle, will lead to light leakage through the pavilion.

Try finding one that a shallower pavilion angle, these might have obstruction issue if mounted on a ring but not likely on a pendant as no one will not be looking at it from that close. Also, these will look bigger, better face-up dimension than a ideal cut stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/3/2009 11:40:35 PM
Author:jazzmin
I need help as a newbie. I found a stone for a pendant. Is it adequate for a pendant? I understand it doesn't have to be as perfect as for a ring.
So far I know:

round brilliant .72
diameter 5.68-5.76 x 3.58
total depth 62.3
table size 56.3
crown angle 34.9
crown height 15.3
pavilion angle 41.1
pavilion depth 43.6
Cut- Ideal
Color I
clarity VS2
polish -ideal
symmetry-ideal

I know Rounds aren't perfectly round, but the diameter numbers aren't very close on this one. Does it make a difference?

Also, I got a quote for an adjustable 16 inch white gold chain, basket setting, with single bale for $ 400. I think that is too much for the setting. Any advice would be helpful on the stone & setting.

Jazzmin

Hi Jazzmin

Both crown and pavilion angles are not a good fit for each other, this is what we call a classic steep deep diamond. It will very likely leak light and not be the best looking stone. The diameter is acceptable, not as tight as we often see with the superideal cuts but still not an issue. Personally I would keep looking unless you really like this one.

 

[Lorelei]

edit

 

[jazzmin]

I''m confused. This stone has an AGS lab report that says cut grade is AGS0. Yet this stone is a steep/deep? The photocopy was hard to read on some of the numbers, maybe I read it wrong. The Holloway was 2. (something). Don''t remember, maybe 2.9.
So don''t get this stone because it will have light leakage, but do get a shallower cut because it doesn''t matter as much for a pendant (not viewing it as close). I''m not sure what a shallower cut means, but that kind of stone won''t have light leakage???

Is 18k white gold worth the added price over 14K white gold? I''m trying to decide for the chain and setting.

Thanks for your input.

 

[stone-cold11]

AGS0 has some stones that are cut in the steep/deep region, I have seen some in that region with leaky IS/ASET image. Could be good if other numbers, stars and pavilions are good and have good optical symm, but we don't know that. Best to just look at the IS/ASET of the stone if available.

Shallow pavilion angles. Read the HCA usage and warning page and aim for those numbers. Shallower pavilion will not have leakage issue but will have obstruction issue making them not suitable for ring stone. They are also usually graded lower, in the VG cut range, by the labs making them cheaper too. They are also spreadier. So you can get a bigger stone, weight in carat, that still looks bigger, face up dimension, and still perform great for the same budget as a ring stone.

HCA usage and warning page.
Click here to read usage warnings and information.

 

[stone-cold11]

Some examples. From BN, I choose these stones from what is available of a pendant stone.

Not totally apple to apple comparison as the ideal stone is a BN Signature Ideal, can''t find a cheaper near tolk stone.

Near-Tolk stone, $3.2k, 5.72mm diameter.
http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-or-less-signature-ideal-cut-e-color-vs2-clarity_LD01322736?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=1

Pendant stone, $2.7k, 5.80mm diameter.
http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-or-less-good-cut-e-color-vs2-clarity_LD01207545?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=1

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/4/2009 5:37:11 PM
Author: jazzmin
I'm confused. This stone has an AGS lab report that says cut grade is AGS0. Yet this stone is a steep/deep? The photocopy was hard to read on some of the numbers, maybe I read it wrong. The Holloway was 2. (something). Don't remember, maybe 2.9.
So don't get this stone because it will have light leakage, but do get a shallower cut because it doesn't matter as much for a pendant (not viewing it as close). I'm not sure what a shallower cut means, but that kind of stone won't have light leakage???

Is 18k white gold worth the added price over 14K white gold? I'm trying to decide for the chain and setting.

Thanks for your input.

AGS0 cut grade are not created equal, occasionally steep deeps which show leakage on ASET and Idealscope images come along. That is why I never assume anything even with this cut grade.

Some believe shallower proportioned diamonds make excellent pendant stones which you can look for, or alternatively some just have the usual well cut diamonds of Near Tolkowsky proportions.

Shallower stones behave differently to the NT type mentioned above, due to their proportions they handle light differently. Because of this they can show obstruction when set in a ring especially if the wearer holds the stone close to their face or bends over it to admire it. This is because the viewer's head/body obstructs the light to the diamond so the stone visibly darkens, however not everyone is bothered by this. Of course when the ring is held away from the body it is bright and sparkly which is typical of this proportion type. Because of this they make great pendant or earring diamonds as they are not viewed the same way as a ring, so no obstruction issues.


See this page on the HCA to learn more about shallower proportioned diamonds. Usually these score well below 2 on the HCA and often under 1.

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/ideal.asp

I would think 14ct gold would be fine for a pendant chain.

 

[jazzmin]

Thanks for your input. So I''m either back to square one looking for a stone or I''m going to get the afore-mentioned one. It looks beautiful to me. Doesn''t that count for something? I still don''t get the endorsement of a shallower stone since I thought those can leak light as well as a too deep stone. Although I have a ring with very white, bright diamonds, it does not have as much fire as the stone I''m considering. For my pendant I''d like a little more fire (although I am looking for a good balance). I just want a beautiful pendant, not a perfect one. Even if I get a different stone I still think I would want an ideal cut and not a shallower stone. Seems like a lot of people on this site have solitaire pendants that have an ideal cut stone. Anyway, I think I understand the critique of the stone I''m considering and I''ll take it into consideration.

Jazzmin

 

[stone-cold11]

If you like it, sure. We only see the numbers, you see the actual stone. Just take a look at the stone outside of the jewelry store, the lighting conditions in there are known to make lesser cut stone look at their best.

Shallower stone, but not too shallow in the pavilion that it leaks light.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/6/2009 3:09:33 AM
Author: jazzmin
Thanks for your input. So I'm either back to square one looking for a stone or I'm going to get the afore-mentioned one. It looks beautiful to me. Doesn't that count for something? I still don't get the endorsement of a shallower stone since I thought those can leak light as well as a too deep stone. Although I have a ring with very white, bright diamonds, it does not have as much fire as the stone I'm considering. For my pendant I'd like a little more fire (although I am looking for a good balance). I just want a beautiful pendant, not a perfect one. Even if I get a different stone I still think I would want an ideal cut and not a shallower stone. Seems like a lot of people on this site have solitaire pendants that have an ideal cut stone. Anyway, I think I understand the critique of the stone I'm considering and I'll take it into consideration.

Jazzmin

Hi Jazzmin,

If you like the original one then thats fine, standard advice - check it out away from the store lights to see how it looks in natural lighting. What to look for, a dark ring around the table and or any darkish areas on top of the diamond - watch to see if it does ' dead' in any lighting. By this I mean that the diamond looks dull with dark areas. Diamonds don't sparkle all the time but even in ' rest mode' they should look attractive even if not exploding with light.
Also it isn't an absolute rule that you have to get a shallower stone for a pendant, this is something that is often advised here but not something that suits everyone!
Let us know what you decide and I hope this helps!