feedback on this diamond

[apianoman]

Have a deposit on the following diamond and I''m wondering if this diamond is of good quality, specifically with respect to cut. I''ve consulted the AGA cut advisor (this stone rates as a 3A overall, which does not impress me much) and have read numerous posts. I''m aware of the dangers of relying only on numbers, but I would appreciate general impressions.

Shape PRINCESS
Cert EGL
Weight 0.92 ct.
Shape RECT. MOD. BRILL.
Color F
Clarity VS1
Measurements 5.4 x 5.16 x 3.97 mm
Depth 76.9
Table 71.0
Crown 11.6
Pavilion 59.7
Girdle EX. THIN TO THICK POLISHED
Polish GOOD
Symmetry GOOD
Fluorescence NONE
Culet NONE

In particular, I''m troubled by the diamond''s ex. thin girdle. I''m also worried about the EGL cert. The price I''ve been quoted is approx. $4600. Thank you in advance for your help.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You can compare the prices on the front page to the lowest you will find anywhere for yourself and decide if it is OK or not.

As for the cut details - a thin girdle is risky particularly in a sqaure shaped stone (more likely to chip than rounded shapes).

It may be the girdle that is making it class 3 and if you wish to set it in a rubbed in encased setting the thin girdle might not be an issue.
Also the girdle might only be ext thein in one tiny spot. But then it is thick everywhere else. It will appear smaller than a well cut .70ct round diamond.

 

[Giangi]

I, too, would like to get more info about the girdle. As Garry noted, it could be ext.thin only in a very small portion. But we can't know that without a full OGI report or visual observation by the seller.
From the paper, I can tell you it's not really square neither rectangular... Do you like that look?
Lastly, be sure to have the stone appraised, should you decide to take the plunge and buy it. EGL has not the best possible reputation on this board. BTW, from the data you've posted, it looks like the stone was graded by EGL-USA, which is a good start. EGL-Israel and EGL-Antwerp have a reputation for being liberal and soft in their grading.

 

[apianoman]

Thank you for your quick feedback! I really appreciate it.

One bit of information I left out: I physically viewed the stone at a brick and mortar jewelry store, so I have seen the diamond in person. As an untrained, yet educated consumer, the stone impressed me more than others I've seen, so that is one more pro I forgot to mention.

Regarding the girdle, yes, I agree that if the extreme thinness is only in one place, it would be less of an issue. The seller tried to downplay my concern with this feature, and I'm not sure whether to trust her on that or not. Maybe it is only ex. thin in a small portion, but perhaps not. I would have to pay better attention before making a final decision.

As far as the dimensions not being exactly square nor rectangular, the stone at least appeared square to my eye. I'm rather sensitive about this sort of thing, but I did find the dimensions curiously NOT square. I'm interested that you picked up on this as well. I do want a square diamond, so this is something else that worries me in this case.

I'm also surprised to learn the diamond would appear smaller than a .70 ct round stone. Indeed, I would say this was not the case with this diamond. Since a thick girdle would indeed produce this effect, that it did not leads me to believe the thinness predominates more than the thickness. Am I right in coming to this conclusion?

Finally, the price is a good $500 - $1000 US higher than stones that on paper appear to have more desireable dimensions/features listed on the front page.

My general impression is that I should keep searching since I'm not 100% in love with this dimamond (as echoed by your concerns).

 

[moremoremore]

Good decision...I also want to add that b/c the depth is really high, the stone certainly won't look like a .92...it will look much smaller!

 

[apianoman]

Thank you all again for the great advice. I have decided against this diamond and have received my deposit back. Hopefully, I'll have better luck next time. I also hope I will continue to benefit from all of your advice when I post info. on the next one.

 

[headlight]

Keep in mind, also that prices at B & M stores will be a bit higher than those posted on PS, so it isn't exactly comparing apples to apples.

 

[slyons29]

New poster her, but after looking at the specs, the depth and table are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off for a square princess cut, (remember the 65/65 rule) which will effect every other measurement. I believe the crown height is way off too -- glad to hear you going to continue search!

"Not an expert but a passionate ameteur."

sl

 

[moremoremore]

the 65/65 rule is nothing more than fred's propaganda and has NO credibility here!

Not to mention that if you find a 65/65 princess, I will personally buy it for you...

You'll see that us princess lovers have lots of "warped" diamonds that perform like CRAZY!!!!!

 

[apianoman]

I agree that the 65/65 rule is silly. Although I have read Fred's book (prompted by a sort of "know and respect all points-of-view, even if you don't share them" attitude), I do understand that much of what he writes is not held in high regard amongst the posters here. I tend to agree with what I've seen posted here and not with Fred, so I'm not personally out to find any 65/65 diamonds. I do, however, respect AGA's guidelines as to cut for fancy shapes and have been using those as a guideline.

 

[moremoremore]

Now THAT'S a great first step!!!