HELP! !! NEED ADVICE :)

[mjw3180]

Hey all, first let me say what a great website-it is very informative and has a great atmosphere in terms of people helping one another out. So I have been researching buying a diamond ring to propose to my G/F in the next couple of weeks. I think I have learned alot but still have some trouble with the whole dimension/depth/table numbers and how that relates to being a good diamond or not. I have found a diamond on Blue Nile (Seems like they have the best Rep on the web for selling diamonds).

Here are the stats for the diamond I am looking at (It is a Radiant Cut Diamond):



Stock number: LD01073694

Price: $5,279

Carat weight: 1.24

Cut: Very Good

Color: F

Clarity: SI1

Depth %: 65.2%

Table %: 70%

Symmetry: Very good

Polish: Excellent

Girdle: Thin to slightly thick

Culet: Pointed

Fluorescence: None

Measurements: 7.29 x 5.58 x 3.64 mm

Length/width ratio: 1.31


Does this look like a good deal/diamond for the money? Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. Also, in looking at settings, I have no idea which setting would make it look the biggest/best. My g/f has long thin fingers so it may look big to begin with but any suggestions on a setting? Regular/Cathedral? 3mm or 4mm band? THANK YOU ALL so much in advance!!! I am nervous and want to make her eyes pop outta her haed hehe!

 

[mjw3180]

Please Any info would REALLY be appreciated!!! I just need some input from other people with different knowledge bases/experiences. Thanks!

 

[gwendolyn]

I''m no expert, but I''ll bet a lot of folks here would tell you to go up to an "excellent" cut, drop down to a G in colour, and maybe check the depth?

As for where to get it, I''ve been shopping around for ages, and from what I found, WhiteFlash seems to have truly excellent deals, and you can get 5% off with the Pricescope discount, I think.

....but I''m pretty new myself, so you might want to wait until the more knowledgable folks show up.

 

[iwannaprettyone]

What shape is it?

 

[chrono]

IWPO, it is a radiant.

I don't know much about radiants other than they show body colour very easily, hence many coloured diamonds tend to be cut into radiant shapes. I'm thinking F is a good choice but would want to verify that the SI1 is eye clean to you. I have no idea about the rest of the cut information. Sorry.

 

[mjw3180]

Sorry if I wasn''t clear-the shape is radiant. And on BlueNile the highest cut for a radiant shape diamond is a Very Good.

I know everyone says you need to see a radiant to really decide but I am going to buy one on the stats alone and then check it out myself and bring to a jeweler and if I dont like it then send it back b/c there is a 30 day return policy.

Is the depth somethgin to be worried about? Obviously I dont want all the stats to be good/decent and then hate it because I didnt relaize depth would make it look horrible or small or whatever.

Also, FYI it is a AGSL cert. Thanks!

 

[mjw3180]

Chrono, thanks for the help-but maybe I am misunderstanding-shouldn''t an SI1 graded diamodn from AGSl be "eye clean"? Otherwise wouldn''t it be graded lower?

 

[gwendolyn]

Sorry, I still think of "round brilliant" when I see the term "radiant." This is why I told you to wait until the smart people arrived.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

MJW, I think it depends on the stone itself and where the inclusion is located. SI1 just means slightly included. The inclusion could be in a place under a prong and not be visable or it could be right smack in the center of the stone. It depends on the number of inclusions I believe, not their placement.

 

[chrono]

Date: 8/14/2007 3:37:23 PM
Author: mjw3180
Chrono, thanks for the help-but maybe I am misunderstanding-shouldn't an SI1 graded diamodn from AGSl be 'eye clean'? Otherwise wouldn't it be graded lower?

Not neccesarily. There are some eye clean SI1 and some that aren't based upon the location of the inclusion, type and colour, shape of the diamond, the diamond size and even how eagle eyed the viewer is. For example, it may be easier to see inclusions in a step cut stone than in a brilliant cut, and in larger stones as opposed to smaller ones.

I believe that while the setting of the clarity grade is mainly based on the view from the top, the grader looks at it from all angles to pinpoint the inclusion's location and then looks for that inclusion's influence in the face-up position. There's been talk here lately on SI eye clean grading. Each SI1 must be carefully inspected.

 

[mjw3180]

Thanks for the info Chrono. Basically I amjust tryign to decide is this is a good buy or not givne all of the stats. I am lookign to spend 5,500 or less on the diamond iteslf and my g/f loves Radiant cut, so this caught my eye with the F color, veyr good cut and SI1.

Would you say it is still a good purchase for the price overall? Here is th elink to the exact diamond-

https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/register/register.asp?mode=verify&uid=754630&username=mjw3180

This one costs 5,279.00


And here is another one with a lower graded clarity SI@ but the inclusions are more to the side than the center-what do you gusy think?



http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?__fun_frm=i&track=btntext_select&elem=img&pid=LD01064054&filter_id=0

This one costs 5,684.00

What are your gusy opinions? THANKS AGAIN! This is alto tougher than I anticipated!!!

 

[mjw3180]

Sorry, here is the link to the first one:

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?__fun_frm=i&track=btntext_select&elem=img&pid=LD01073694&filter_id=0


the link I have above is to this site

 

[chrono]

Eek! The first like is incorrect. It is directing me to PS registration welcome.

I just did a quick search on radiants and it looks like you just can't eliminate any by just the numbers. This is so difficult. I would suggest finding an in-house radiant (where light tests are already done) or getting a stone from a vendor who has that capability. This way may save you a lot on the cost and hassle of shipping back and forth until you find THE radiant.

 

[fleur-de-lis]

Hi MJW-- I took a quick look at bluenile and it appears that your stone is the one graded by AGS, report here, http://www.bluenile.com/pop_int_cert_view.asp?pid=LD01073694 , right?

Taking a quick look at the selections there shows just how much radiants have changed since I learned about them; using the old cut class guidelines for radiants, which I'll link for you here: http://www.gemappraisers.com/oldcutgraderules.asp and my own experience would make me think that a table of 70 is overlarge, since a traditional 1A stone would have a depth of 60-65 and a table of 60-65.5. But gosh, how times have changed... perhaps someone more knowledgeable can weigh in on whether AGS has changed the cut standards for radiants as they have for princesses? (Here's one of the more scholarly deabtes about it: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/paul-on-ags-new-cut-grading-of-princesses.24271/ )

On the pluses, if it's the stone I linked above, 5200 seems a like a pretty good price on an AGS 1.24 F/SI1, and I see that bluenile uses 3 categories for cut and includes this stone in its top (Very Good) category. MJW, I wish I was more of an expert for you, but hopefully adding this link to the stone's report with the angles and shared the added info that its been graded by AGS will help others.

Chrono made an excellent point about the radiant cut showing more color than most other cuts; it explains in part the popularity of using the radiant cut in yellow diamonds. I personally think you chose a sweet spot for radiants-- you should go higher in color (DEF if you want it looking very white) and can typically go a little lower in clarity due to the "crushed glass" faceting pattern (SI1 or even SI2), and it looks like you've done that.



(EDITED TO ADD: I take too long to type, because another 6 posts, including those with links, went up since I started my reply. )

 

[chrono]

I don''t think AGS is grading anything other than RBs and Princess stones for light performance, so this is a tough one.

 

[mjw3180]

Fleur De-Lis Thanks for the in depth response. Yes, that is the correct link to the report of the diamond I am looking at purchasing. Here it is again:


http://www.bluenile.com/pop_int_cert_view.asp?pid=LD01073694


Glad to hear that you think that it is a good price/value. The question I have for you though is that if you say a table of 70% is "overlarge" what does that exactly mean? It wont sparkle as much? it appears smaller than other diamonds of the same carat weight? etc...

 

[fleur-de-lis]

MJW, as you probably came across in your research (esp. if you''ve been reading the postings of the many cut nuts here

), the cut proportions play a very large role in how sparkles-- both in the ways/directions from which it can pick up light sources, and the ability to bounce off the various angles to shoot light outwards through the top of the diamond. A good explanation (and illustration using an RB) can be found here: http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/Cut/Proportions/

Until fairly recently, the common consensus was that the best performing stones had approximately equal depth and table-- that''s why you here of tolkowski 60-60 diamonds in round brilliants, or 65-65 in classic princess cuts. But in relatively the last few years, a greater deal of mathematical principles and computer imaging extrapolation has led to "the best" cuts changing, and giving off a better light return. (For a cool diversion about this, check out JohnQuixote''s image post in the following thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/a-pricescopers-guide-to-the-galaxy-astronomy-thread.66108/ ) For instance, AGS Ideal cut RB now are more like depth 61ish and table 58ish (table smaller than depth), and AGS Ideal princess cuts are now around table 70ish depth 74ish... just to simplify. It''s not just those two measurements that has a stone perform well, but crown angle and height, pavilion angle and depth, girdle thickness... each little bit plays its role in light properties.

As I think I mentioned earlier, I know a bit more about princess and round cuts. For each of those, when I said the table seemed overly large it''s because I noticed both that it was large enough to be demoted to a 2B cut if it had been a classic cut, and an extrapolation based on the observation that the new AGS standards for other cuts have the tables becoming smaller relative to the depth. In the princess cuts I have seen, it seems logical that the cut benefits from a smaller table, because the "small dancing light" properties of the cut are most noticeable where you have the additional bezel facets et al (the cuts on the top of the stone other than the table)/the individual chevrons are hard to identify, whereas through the table you can clearly see both the "X" and the chevrons. But then again, radiants have very different visual properties -- it''s about creating that "crushed glass" look in the center -- and I don''t know whether there have been new studies done to show that that visual property actually *does* perform better with a larger table.

Onto your radiant, I see that it doesn''t fit the old cut class (which to be 1A would have similar % table and depth), but that doesn''t mean it''s a bad thing-- it (VERY) likely means its a different thing, ESPECIALLY since it''s paired with an AGS report. The fact that it''s AGS is telling. (Oh, and as for price, EGL stones in your specs. are going for around 5100 and GIA for around 5900 online, and AGS is typically considered to have the same stringent grading standards as GIA. Ergo, 5200 seems like a pretty good deal if the cut/light return is right as well.) I''m afraid that I personally don''t know what AGS has determined as it pertains to radiants recently, and hopefully someone in the biz can weigh in with the missing piece of the puzzle?