Girdle Questions - - on a diamond, not for me!

[JennyN]

How much does girdle thickness affect a diamond?

I''m looking at a princess stone that GIA says is "Medium to Very Thick." The Sarin shows the girdle is 5%. Some places I''ve researched show 5% is more of a "Medium to Thick" description instead of very thick.

Is the girdle thickness enough reason for me to bypass the stone? Other than that, the other specs (depth, table, etc.) show it to be close to ideal.

HELP! I need some guidance. Thanks for any input you may have.

 

[valeria101]

Not sure what value there is in labeling 5% in any other way but percentage points. This would be very much in a round. If the girdle thickness varies from 1-2% to 5% there better be some good reason, 'cause in some stones this does not happen. The girdle represents the widest section of a stone (the section with the largest area, that is), so the thickness of the girdle is best placed to take up weight.

What does this do to the stone? Well... just compare the size (area face up = LxW) of the stone with thick girdle with the same measure for a stone of any color&clarity, same weight (or very close) and depth and thin girdle and see what you get. Not an issue. What the particular cut does to sparkle - there is no receipe to let one deduce.

The point is, you could find a 'lighter' stone with the same size and a thin girdle - if this is imporatnt.

 

[JennyN]

Thanks! So you're saying that a thick girdle can "eat up" a lot of the carat weight? And the stone may not look as big as its actual carat weight? For example, a 1 carat with thick girdle may look considerably smaller than a 1 carat with a thinner girdle?

 

[valeria101]

Me and my theory...

Yeah... this is what I wanted to say, and in the meantime I run a little serach. It seems that to get 10% more 'size' (area face up) you'd need to loose quite a bit of depth: get a tad below 70% (68-69% depth, by a hunch) and a medium girdle.

All these variations are so small! Even if, in theory, 1% more in the girdle area mean more added weight than 1% more in the tip of the cullet, all this still reads in tenth of a mm in real life. Not all that important.

ADDED: example

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 4/4/2004 10:50:01 AM JennyN wrote:

Thanks! So you're saying that a thick girdle can 'eat up' a lot of the carat weight? And the stone may not look as big as its actual carat weight? For example, a 1 carat with thick girdle may look considerably smaller than a 1 carat with a thinner girdle?----------------

currect.
But you can go too far you want to stay close to medium on a princess for durability reasons.
On a round thin is ok.
Avoid vthin or extremely thin line the plague and in a princess thin is pushing it.
Also too big of a swing in girdle size say from thin to very thick can make the stone look lopsided the girdle thickness is an indication of the relationship of the other facets to each other so the girdle can show how well a diamonds facets are cut in relation to one another.

 

[valeria101]

Hm... How about : :2o8h065d]WWW

At 1.4cts & 67 depth, the thing is actually a bit larger than the 1.73 if you look at area and the stone does not bark from that picture - far from that

Summary: "95.7% size, same color, VVS instead of SI1, cheaper". With light return on both unknown... I'd ask for an ideal scope or something.

 

[JennyN]

Thanks aNa!

I'm finding out that you can really drive yourself crazy trying to get the best stone for the best buy! Of course, there's always something that seems a little better if you just look hard enough.

I think I may have been caught up in the carat weight, without actually paying enough attention to the actual dimensions of the stone. I'm going to investigate the stone you suggested tomorrow. Thanks again!