Help with 3ct Upgrade!

[bobatea]

In the process of upgrading my Round solitaire 2.5ct to a 3ct. My jeweler says he has a nice one currently in store to view for $38k - here are the specs:

3.01 CT: 9.13 - 9.19 x 5.80 mm
Table: 55
Crown: 36
Pavilion: 40.8
Depth:63.3
Color: H
Clarity: VS2 (Eye Clean)
Cut: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Strong Blue (not milky/hazy)

I'm really concerned about the Strong Blue Fluorescence! Would this be a good option, or should I stick with none - faint Fluorescence when looking at 3ct diamonds with H color??

 

[Morenita21]

In the process of upgrading my Round solitaire 2.5ct to a 3ct. My jeweler says he has a nice one currently in store to view for $38k - here are the specs:

3.01 CT: 9.13 - 9.19 x 5.80 mm
Table: 55
Crown: 36
Pavilion: 40.8
Depth:63.3
Color: H
Clarity: VS2 (Eye Clean)
Cut: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Strong Blue (not milky/hazy)

I'm really concerned about the Strong Blue Fluorescence! Would this be a good option, or should I stick with none - faint Fluorescence when looking at 3ct diamonds with H color??

I used to worry so much about fluorescence and my first 3 diamonds didn’t have it. However, with my last upgrade I went with a fluorescent stone and it’s my absolute favorite. I did my research and only a very, very small percentage of stones with fluorescence are actually impacted by it. Go see it in person and take it out to the sunlight. Only your eyes can tell you if it’s milky/hazy or oily. I bet it will look perfect!

 

[lovedogs]

Do not buy this stone! Ignoring the strong blue fluor (which is sometimes an issue but not very often), the stone is not well cut. It is too deep (max depth we recommend is 62.4) and the crown is too steep (max we recommend is 35). This will face up small for it's ct weight and will not perform well.

 

[lovedogs]

Here is an infinitely better cut stone for less $$. The CT weight is less, but if you look at the face up mm dimensions (since that's what we see, not the weight), it's only .1 mm smaller than the one the jeweler is offering you (because that one is too deep). .1mm is not noticeable to the naked eye, especially in stones this big.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4129358.htm?source=pricescope
This also comes with a $1 upgrade policy if you ever want a different stone.

 

[bobatea]

Do not buy this stone! Ignoring the strong blue fluor (which is sometimes an issue but not very often), the stone is not well cut. It is too deep (max depth we recommend is 62.4) and the crown is too steep (max we recommend is 35). This will face up small for it's ct weight and will not perform well.

I was wondering about the quality of the cut as well! Thanks so much for your input!

 

[karylicious]

In the process of upgrading my Round solitaire 2.5ct to a 3ct. My jeweler says he has a nice one currently in store to view for $38k - here are the specs:

3.01 CT: 9.13 - 9.19 x 5.80 mm
Table: 55
Crown: 36
Pavilion: 40.8
Depth:63.3
Color: H
Clarity: VS2 (Eye Clean)
Cut: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Strong Blue (not milky/hazy)

I'm really concerned about the Strong Blue Fluorescence! Would this be a good option, or should I stick with none - faint Fluorescence when looking at 3ct diamonds with H color??

Will you be selling your current stone?

 

[Dancing Fire]

In the process of upgrading my Round solitaire 2.5ct to a 3ct. My jeweler says he has a nice one currently in store to view for $38k - here are the specs:

3.01 CT: 9.13 - 9.19 x 5.80 mm
Table: 55
Crown: 36
Pavilion: 40.8
Depth:63.3

Cut too deep! if this stone was well cut it would be closer to a 2.90ct.

 

[LLJsmom]

Here is an infinitely better cut stone for less $$. The CT weight is less, but if you look at the face up mm dimensions (since that's what we see, not the weight), it's only .1 mm smaller than the one the jeweler is offering you (because that one is too deep). .1mm is not noticeable to the naked eye, especially in stones this big.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4129358.htm?source=pricescope
This also comes with a $1 upgrade policy if you ever want a different stone.

Yeah Way too deep. Prefer WF.

 

[sledge]

My guess is you are utilizing an existing trade up program with your local jeweler to make this happen. If so, ask him to limit stonea to the following criteria:

• 54-57 table
• 60-62.4 depth (prefer < 62)
• 34-35 crown, maybe a 35.5 if paired with a 40.6 pavilion
• 40.6-40.9 pavilion, maybe a 41 if paired with a 34 crown
• 75-80 LGF's
• Ensure the crown and pavilion have an inverse relationship, meaning steep crown/shallow pavilion or vice versa.
• Assuming you do the above you will likely land in a HCA score of 2 or less, but under Tools you can enter the proportions (or cert number) to verify. Again, you want to be at 2 or less. Depending on the precision cut you may be able to exceed 2 a smidge.

Also, since you are shopping locally I would encourage you to buy an ASET scope as proportions just get us in the range. An ASET image/view will confirm light performance and/or identify leakage, etc. If hearts and arrow (H&A) precision is important to you then a H&A viewer may also be useful.

Obviously if you aren't tied to your local guy, we can point out some good online options including super ideals some have already mentioned.

 

[CareBear]

Agree with others here. A well cut 3.01ct round should have an approx diameter of 9.3mm. Also a 36 crown would only work with a 40.6 pav. This stone was purposely cut deep to hit the 3ct mark.

 

[sledge]

Agree with others here. A well cut 3.01ct round should have an approx diameter of 9.3mm. Also a 36 crown would only work with a 40.6 pav. This stone was purposely cut deep to hit the 3ct mark.

Bingo.

And the cutters and retailers know they can sell a poorly cut 3ct stone for more than a well cut 2.9x carat stone because of "magic weights".

Send the stone to GIA who will slap a triple X cert on it and sell to an uneducated customer and you have a vicious circle of cutting stones primarily for profit and not beauty.

I'm all for a company being profitable but doing so in a less slimy way doesn't seem like too much to ask.

 

[With Clarity]

Hello, everyone here is fairly on the money with this. The only thing we'd add is narrowing the table potentially to 55-57% and the depth 62.3% or less. The pavilion ideally 40.8 or 40.6 works nicely, but entirely depends on its relationship to the crown angle.

Also, for a diamond of this size and quality, the symmetry at VG is concerning... Not worth sacrificing facet misalignment or another reason way the symmetry is a little off.

Thank you,
Alex

 

[lovedogs]

Hello, everyone here is fairly on the money with this. The only thing we'd add is narrowing the table potentially to 55-57% and the depth 62.3% or less. The pavilion ideally 40.8 or 40.6 works nicely, but entirely depends on its relationship to the crown angle.

Also, for a diamond of this size and quality, the symmetry at VG is concerning... Not worth sacrificing facet misalignment or another reason way the symmetry is a little off.

Thank you,
Alex

Since I assume you are with the company "with clarity" you need to mark yourself as a trade member.

 

[sledge]

Hello, everyone here is fairly on the money with this. The only thing we'd add is narrowing the table potentially to 55-57% and the depth 62.3% or less. The pavilion ideally 40.8 or 40.6 works nicely, but entirely depends on its relationship to the crown angle.

Also, for a diamond of this size and quality, the symmetry at VG is concerning... Not worth sacrificing facet misalignment or another reason way the symmetry is a little off.

Thank you,
Alex

As noted, please register as trade member.

Also, I wouldn't agree a 36/40.8 works. Theoretically it could but you'd want ASET and H&A image to further confirm. Also a detailed SARIN report might be nice.

A 36/40.6 could work but again is more likely to not make ideal.

I should clarify we are shooting for ideal, not "excellent".

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I love flurorescence, but I agree with the others that the cut would not be acceptable.