Help me find my perfect princess!

[LeeNYC]

This is the most amazing forum I''ve seen on the net in a while. I don''t think I''ve seen people helping out each other on this scale before. Some posters have over a thousand posts since the beginning of the year... Hurray for the global village.

Anyways, I''m buying an engagement ring this month, with hope for a proposal by June. We''ve been together for 3 years now, and the pressure is on to move ahead. Her younger brother was married last year...

Here''s the conundrum:

Princess #1:
 1.23 cts
 H 
 VVS2 
 5.94-5.90X3.98 
 71 Table
 67.5 Depth
 Excellent Polish
 Very Good Symmetry
$5.8k

Princess #2
1.24 cts
G
VVS2
Not sure of the size, but the lngt/wdth ratio is > 1.03
75 Table
74.4 Depth
VG Polish
Good Symmetry
$5.7K

What''s more important here, Table/Depth, or Color? Everything else seems the same to me... With the princess cut, there seems to be a divergence of opion on the "ideal" ranges. Which would you guys choose?

All the best,
Lee

 

[Nicrez]

LeeNYC, Welcome to the PS community! Congrats on your upcoming engagement!!

As for the pricess stone, it's a tough one. Many round stones have detailed proportions, and the demand for a perfectly proportioned round stone is much greater. Less studies have been done on princess and other shaped stones, so the demand for well cut stones is far less. Hence less well cut stones out there...But they ARE out there!

First, look at the AGA Charts which help a person see the most efficient cuts for princess stones. Tough numbers to find, but they tend to be spot on when you finally DO find them. AGA Princess Charts They make a great guideline to determine which ones to look at, and which ones are not as suitable.

Also, I generally have seen that consensus on this board has been that princes stones look best when they have a slightly smaller table than their depth. Princess stones are cut with larger tables and deeper depths than the average stones, so keeping that in mind, it's a trick subject!

Try looking at the tutorial stones at a website that is VERY useful, called www.goodoldgold.com, as seen Educational Stones at GOG

looking at all the various tests of these stones and the general dynamics of their numbers gives you a good clue as to how they will perform when you look for one.

Good luck, and I hope this helps!!!

 

[moremoremore]

#2 too deep. It's going to look small. #1 sounds like it could be quite lovely. You'll have to see it in person to know for sure. Princess stones can be a B*TCH!!! Depth and table are a function of cut and by no means the whole story. A good cut can even help a slightly tinted stone look whiter face up! Yeah!

I personally, would lose the VVS clarity. I'd prefer a Vs2 (dare I say even good si1!) and a better color (I prefer F or G).... D and E (to me personally is a waste of money ....but I totally appreciate people who go for D or E....) H, TO ME, looks tinted. That said, an H or I can be lovely too! Try to use #s as a guideline..dont get caught up in them....Also, I don't care what anybody says....table does not HAVE to be less than depth...I have found it should be PRETTY DARN CLOSE.....but just b/c it's the same or a teensy bit bigger, doesn't mean the stone is a loser. I saw a princess last night with a table a teensy bit bigger than depth and it had a great crown and the stone is a STUNNER! (it's also mine all mine now...lol).... Best of luck!

 

[moremoremore]

oops...nicrez- ya beat me too it....so my point about table less than depth wasn't aimed at you!

 

[moremoremore]

pet peeve "ya beat me TO it"

 

[Nicrez]

Hey More, I am personally wounded by your attack!

My radiant has a 62% table with a 58.9 (or is it 58.6%?) depth. I KNOW about big tables and it helps my stone look even WHITER, as the color snob, I am proud to be wasteful and have an E!!

Also, I put it next to a 1.86 box radiant, and my 1.73 looked BIGGER! WAHOO!

Actually, I saw a badly cut 2ct, and mine looked larger as well!!! So table being larger isn't always a bad thin, but when they are DISPROPORTIONATELY LARGER, then there are deadzones. Not everyone gets or wants a mathematically perfect stone, especially if they have appearance preferences and budgets!

Lee, I hope we haven't scared you or confused you yet!

 

[moremoremore]

I totally agree with that...it can't be disproportionately bigger....For ex, there was a princess I had been stalking...it has a 70 depth, 66 table (something like that) and the light return stunk! Then, I saw a 67.4 depth, 68 table stone and it blew me away! Tons of dark reds in the scope!

And my best gal has an E and it is stunning! I totally appreciate it...Just not where I prefer to put my $!

 

[LeeNYC]

Ha ha... As a former English literature major, "too" vs. "to" bugs me too -- although not as much as misuses of "it's", but this is probably meant for another forum.

So, if I read you guys correctly then, cut is still the primary determinating factor of quality. Color is important, but secondary. Interesting, but this spells trouble for me, who is a little color-blind. I hope I can see yellow better than green.

Back to the issue at hand, I was surprised to see SI1s with carbon deposits/inclusions yesterday (in the NY diamond distric). Some VS2s also had large diamond crystals that could be seen from the side. And yes, all these stones are GIA certified.Is this normal? The articles that I read seem to indicate otherwise.

You guys are great by the way! What do you all do for a living that you have time to be good samaritans to newbies?

Best,
-Lee

 

[Nicrez]

Well clarity is the pricier grade. Plus to me, color is the more visible between the IF-VS2 grades (SOME SI1's), and still comparitively LESS expensive than a H color IF stone...

I don't think anyone would truly complain about a G in general. Some would prefer whiter, but generally a F or G is the way to go in SHAPED stones.

Rounds have a totally different color tolerance. More is right that the better cut and more light return you get from a stone, the better it will be to face up whiter than the color grade. At least from what I have seen!

Have you considered investing in an IdealScope? AS they are really helpful in seeing where light leask from a stone, and how much is really returned to your eyes, even in shaped stones!!!

 

[Nicrez]

FYI, GIA grades clarity from the TOP of the stone, looking down, never from the side. So a VS1 and VS2 MAY have inclusions you can see from the side, but when it's set, you won't likely be looking at your stone from that angle.

Also, with an SI-1 it means that inclusions can be visible with thenaked eye. If it has few inclusions, but darker or larger ones, it can still be a SI-1. Remember that GIA is not one person, and everyone interprets grades differently, but GIA is STILL one of the most CONSISTENT labds for grading, hence it is so widespread and respected.

Also, More and I are Diamond Hunters. We get paid to help you...(but don't tell my boss that!)

He expects all these silly reports and such, but I told him, "Hold on! I'm on the internet helping people with DIAMONDS!" Actually, I just mutitask, and wear two hats.

 

[moremoremore]

LOL....hey, I'm trying to find my own princess!

But actually, I just found it and it's in the works!!! You'll find yours too Lee!

 

[LeeNYC]

Guys,

Check out this Princess 1.126 E SI1 74.6/74 on g.o.g:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/princess_1_16ct_e_si1.htm

The brilliance scope rating is surprising for a 74/74 isn't it? I was operating on the assumption that as you get closer to ideal, the scope ratings should get better. What happened here?

 

[moremoremore]

case in point! You just CAN'T tell with princess stones by the #s. That's why it's so hard to buy princess stones off of the internet unless you go to a co that has the analysis posted. I think it's a very pretty stone. For me, it's a bit deep only b/c it will look smaller than it actually is in carat weight. That said, it could be so amazing in person that who cares! you could also give them a call if they don't have exactly what you need and they can get it for you!

In fact, I'm going tomorrow to pay for my new pretty...which I asked them to get in for me off of the net! Yippee!!

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/7/2004 4:45:52 PM LeeNYC wrote:




I was operating on the assumption that as you get closer to ideal, the scope ratings should get better. What happened here?


----------------

You got yurself in trouble

The 'ideal' (actually, I do not know what you mean by that for a princess cut) may be defined by some table x depth x pavilion height but these numbers do not pretend to give a predictio of brilliance. If you are prone to researching this to death

it may help to go through the FAQs at http://www.gemappraisers.com... if you have not aleady.

I think that most princess cuts at GOG have depth % up to the table % (really, equal or a bit less). Discussing about the perfect angles for a princess cut would mean taking eight of them into consideration (roughly)... so no one cared to produce some accessible research on that.

As a rule, princess cuts may get close to rounds in brilliance, but not in fire - as Nicrez prefered for her stone and I would not. There is a nice factoid on where one top brilliant princess would rank among rounds down this LINK.

As for what "life" fits with 3000 PS posts... don't ask

 

[moremoremore]

some people just don't like rounds. myself included.... Love your princess and be proud of it!

I know you'll find a great one!

 

[LeeNYC]

Yea, I definitely got myself in trouble. But even if I'm still confused about the depth & table, I think I got a better idea of what I want now (thanks to you guys): a 1.2+, F/G, VS1/VS2 stone. While obvious to some, it hadn't occured to a slower guy like me that color might be more perceptable than clarity...

Thanks also for the tip about the relationship between depth & face size. Makes sense.

----------------
On 5/8/2004 2:54:59 AM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
On 5/7/2004 4:45:52 PM LeeNYC wrote:




I was operating on the assumption that as you get closer to ideal, the scope ratings should get better. What happened here?


----------------

You got yurself in trouble

The 'ideal' (actually, I do not know what you mean by that for a princess cut) may be defined by some table x depth x pavilion height but these numbers do not pretend to give a predictio of brilliance. If you are prone to researching this to death

it may help to go through the FAQs at http://www.gemappraisers.com... if you have not aleady.

I think that most princess cuts at GOG have depth % up to the table % (really, equal or a bit less). Discussing about the perfect angles for a princess cut would mean taking eight of them into consideration (roughly)... so no one cared to produce some accessible research on that.

As a rule, princess cuts may get close to rounds in brilliance, but not in fire - as Nicrez prefered for her stone and I would not. There is a nice factoid on where one top brilliant princess would rank among rounds down this LINK.

As for what 'life' fits with 3000 PS posts... don't ask

----------------

 

[moremoremore]

Keep looking and you'll find a beauty. Just be sure to trust your eyes. I find myself trusting #s, analysis, etc., but not my eyes. That's how you'll REALY get into trouble!