Girdle Thickness

[yellowledbetter]

I found a diamond that I like the specs of except for one part: the girdle thickness. How important is this?

Specs of Princess Diamond

. Report: GIA
. Shape: Princess
. Carat: 1.41
. Depth %: 66.2
. Table %: 75
. Crown Angle: 34
. Crown %: 6.3
. Pavilion Angle: 38.8
. Pavilion %: 57.9
. Girdle: Extremely Thin to Very Thick
. Measurements: 6.41x6.28x4.16
. Polish: Good
. Symmetry: Good
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

It is being listed at 6600. Is this a good price for a diamond with these stats?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/11/2008 3:24:04 AM
Author:yellowledbetter
I found a diamond that I like the specs of except for one part: the girdle thickness. How important is this?

Specs of Princess Diamond

. Report: GIA
. Shape: Princess
. Carat: 1.41
. Depth %: 66.2
. Table %: 75
. Crown Angle: 34
. Crown %: 6.3
. Pavilion Angle: 38.8
. Pavilion %: 57.9
. Girdle: Extremely Thin to Very Thick
. Measurements: 6.41x6.28x4.16
. Polish: Good
. Symmetry: Good
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

It is being listed at 6600. Is this a good price for a diamond with these stats?

It depends with the girdle, sometimes an ex thin area can be in the microns in a non vulnerable area and not of concern, but it is always best to get a trusted expert to check it for you, especially with a princess shape with pointed corners. There is a bit of variance here however from ex thin to very thick, and although you can't tell that much from the numbers, it appears as if this stone isn't of top cut quality. If you want to pursue this diamond, ask the vendor for detailed pics and an ASET image.

Do you have any others in mind?

 

[yellowledbetter]

Well, I am having trouble finding a 1.3-1.5 for under 6500. These weights seem to be harder to find. I am open to other diamonds. Here is the ASET image?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Sorry, but I just wonder. If you say that you like the specs, aside from possibly the girdle thickness, which specs do you like?

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

yes - I am with Paul - please tell us because I have been struggling with princess proportions for a decade or so, and these ones seem quite left field.
The ASET draws a fair bit from the outfield too. And the girdle could be very interesting as long as you do not intend to set it in jewellery.

There is a very good reason why there are few 1.3 to 1.49ct stones. But there are plentyof 1.50ct plus stones.
Could you change your color clarity criteria?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I would add that there is a big difference between a dead and an alive princess.
The ASET shows this is way better than dead, and if the vendor will rsik setting it or send it to an appriaser for an opinion on the setting risk - then it could be a keeper. but it needs eyeballing

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Garry,

I would add that where there is only one level of ''dead'', there probably are a thousand levels of being ''alive''

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

By the way, you did not mention a color or clarity.

 

[yellowledbetter]

Sorry, I forgot the color and clarity. The color is G, and the clarity is SI1.

After looking at the specs more carefully I am a little concerned about the table % and the girdle. The crown seems a little high as well.

My GF has asked that I get a diamond bigger than 1.25 and as close to 1.5 as possible. I am not too picky on the clarity as long as it is eye clean. I just want a princess that has nice brilliance and looks colorless to the untrained eye.

I have spent the past month looking for a good dealer and a diamond that meets these criteria with staying under 6500. Is this possible?

 

[Porridge]

Date: 11/11/2008 6:11:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
yes - I am with Paul - please tell us because I have been struggling with princess proportions for a decade or so, and these ones seem quite left field.

The ASET draws a fair bit from the outfield too. And the girdle could be very interesting as long as you do not intend to set it in jewellery.


There is a very good reason why there are few 1.3 to 1.49ct stones. But there are plentyof 1.50ct plus stones.

Could you change your color clarity criteria?

Hi Garry, at the risk of sounding naive ... what''s the reason??

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/11/2008 2:12:02 PM
Author: Porridge

Date: 11/11/2008 6:11:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
yes - I am with Paul - please tell us because I have been struggling with princess proportions for a decade or so, and these ones seem quite left field.

The ASET draws a fair bit from the outfield too. And the girdle could be very interesting as long as you do not intend to set it in jewellery.


There is a very good reason why there are few 1.3 to 1.49ct stones. But there are plentyof 1.50ct plus stones.

Could you change your color clarity criteria?

Hi Garry, at the risk of sounding naive ... what's the reason??

Hi Porridge,

I am not Garry but I suspect he means that many diamonds are cut for maximum weight retention rather than cut quality, if you think about it there are greater profits to be made from larger finished diamonds which hit or go over ' magic weights' such as 1 carat, 1.5 cts etc than ones which fall below and which might be better cut in some cases. You can lose more weight by cutting diamonds to the highest standards so this can be the difference between the finished weights Garry mentions above. So some prefer to skimp on cut at times, produce perhaps a pretty stone which hits the 1.5 ct mark for example, rather than one of top cut quality which falls below that weight.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/12/2008 4:23:25 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/11/2008 2:12:02 PM
Author: Porridge

Date: 11/11/2008 6:11:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
yes - I am with Paul - please tell us because I have been struggling with princess proportions for a decade or so, and these ones seem quite left field.

The ASET draws a fair bit from the outfield too. And the girdle could be very interesting as long as you do not intend to set it in jewellery.


There is a very good reason why there are few 1.3 to 1.49ct stones. But there are plentyof 1.50ct plus stones.

Could you change your color clarity criteria?

Hi Garry, at the risk of sounding naive ... what''s the reason??

Hi Porridge,

I am not Garry but I suspect he means that many diamonds are cut for maximum weight retention rather than cut quality, if you think about it there are greater profits to be made from larger finished diamonds which hit or go over '' magic weights'' such as 1 carat, 1.5 cts etc than ones which fall below and which might be better cut in some cases. You can lose more weight by cutting diamonds to the highest standards so this can be the difference between the finished weights Garry mentions above. So some prefer to skimp on cut at times, produce perhaps a pretty stone which hits the 1.5 ct mark for example, rather than one of top cut quality which falls below that weight.

Thx L - like the new avatar - but can we wait ti December please?

see the chart to the right in the ct wt tutorial
http://diamonds.pricescope.com/carat.asp

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/12/2008 4:46:09 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/12/2008 4:23:25 AM
Author: Lorelei

Thx L - like the new avatar - but can we wait ti December please?

see the chart to the right in the ct wt tutorial
http://diamonds.pricescope.com/carat.asp

LOL!!
It would appear not!!

 

[Porridge]

Ah, I see, that does make sense. I''m looking for a diamond around 1.1-1.3 ct. I tried on about a million solitaires and that was just the size that I thought suited my finger and that I was comfortable wearing (until DSS sets in!). So does that mean that I''ll find less diamonds, but that they will more likely be well cut? Sorry for threadjacking!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/12/2008 5:03:11 AM
Author: Porridge
Ah, I see, that does make sense. I''m looking for a diamond around 1.1-1.3 ct. I tried on about a million solitaires and that was just the size that I thought suited my finger and that I was comfortable wearing (until DSS sets in!). So does that mean that I''ll find less diamonds, but that they will more likely be well cut? Sorry for threadjacking!

Not at all P
You will find about a 10% price jump at 1.20ct - and there will be better availability - the charts says about 1.5% of diamonds on Pricescope.

 

[Porridge]

Date: 11/12/2008 6:08:39 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/12/2008 5:03:11 AM

Author: Porridge

Ah, I see, that does make sense. I''m looking for a diamond around 1.1-1.3 ct. I tried on about a million solitaires and that was just the size that I thought suited my finger and that I was comfortable wearing (until DSS sets in!). So does that mean that I''ll find less diamonds, but that they will more likely be well cut? Sorry for threadjacking!

Not at all P

You will find about a 10% price jump at 1.20ct - and there will be better availability - the charts says about 1.5% of diamonds on Pricescope.

ok great info Garry thanks for the help