First Time Purchase: Please Help!

[jbenning]

I am very close to making my first diamond purchase of any significance. I intend to get engaged within 1 month. I am working with Greg at www.ringdesigner.com and I have found him to be very knowldegable and friendly. If anyone has had any poor experiences, please tell me. I'm currently looking at two stones... and I would appreciate any advice that anyone had about them. (both are GIA cert'd)

1)
H
VS2
1.08 ct
6.71 x 6.74 x 4.02
59.8 depth
59% table
Thin-to-medium girdle (how much does this matter?)
very good polish and symmetry
no culet
no flourescence
$4850

2)

h
vs2
1.01 ct
6.28 x 6.31 x 3.97
63.1 depth
57 table
medium to very thick girdle
very good polish and symmetry
no culet
no flourescence
$4250

Does anyone see anything out of line? I know one is slightly larger, and that seems especially true in the dimensions. Is one much better of a cut than the other? #2 has a medium-to-very thick girdle.... is this something I should be concerned about? I'm looking at a 6-prong "solstice/tiffany" style setting... will any of the extra size help, because I have heard that 6 prong settings may overpower the diamond itself. Has anyone found this to be true? I'm only looking at platinum settings, so should I be okay with an H color? How do these prices look? Fair?



Thanks!!

 

[valeria101]

Welcome to Pricescope!

Number one could be ok-ish (not much one can say about cut quality with the given specs (the Pricescope's tutorial on cut would explain what I mean) but #2 is almost certainly of the barking type (sorry)! That kind of variance in girdle thinckness ("very thick" is literally out of scale) indicates a sloppy cut - so much so that I would not want to know more. There would be hundreds of diamonds better than it at one click.

For #1, depth is already as low as a good cut may still allow. This is not a bad thing. I only hope the stone is not completely dull because of it. What would make a difference? The proportions of the cut: at least pavilion and crown depth (or angles) and other such details (same tutorial as posible reference).

These are not stones cut for optical properties ("beauty") but for retaining weight and creating spread (size given weight). Not that this is a bad selection: however, I would make sure to know what exactly well-cut diamonds are before buying any. Some people (PS posters) did end up turning away from their initial selections after learning about such cut-quality. It takes about 15 min to go through the essentials and decide what cut quality (the only thing that your current selection of stones did not seem to take into consideration) is worth (if anything) to you. Instead of 30 min of reading diamond tutorials, you might want to try the small video on the preciousmetals.com.au site (LINK ). It is the quickest intro to these issues I know of.

If, in the end, cut is not a concern, than I can see no problem with the first stone. However, diamonds can look quite awful, and it is a good thing to know why could this be the case with yours beforehand. For some brands, the difference is worth up to 50% of the price you have been quoted for your stones, but most internet sellers beg to differ, fortunately...

Hope this helps, for starting

 

[jbenning]

Thanks Valeria! I had no clue #2 was such a dog. Other than the girdle, what about it is so off?

 

[aljdewey]

It's too deep.

 

[diamondsman]

sorry double post.

 

[diamondsman]

as a rule of thumb,1.00ct. stones should have a diameter of around 6.45-6.5mm. the second stones has a diameter of a 0.90+cts.(why pay for a 1.00ct. that looks like 0.90+)
the first one is much better given all the dimentions,
number one is my choice.
price is ok if it is g.i.a,
if it is an e.g.l cert than it is a bit over priced.