HOW DOES DEPTH EFFECT A STONE?

[YMA]

I am looking at two stones and I they both seem to have high depth #''s, which one would you go for?


Square Emerald: GIA cert 2.26, color K, VS1

7.31 x 7.30 x 5.25mm
Depth: 71.9%
Table: 62%
Girdle: Medium
Cutlet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Fluorescence: None


Square Modified Brillant: GIA cert. 2.24, color k, VS1

7.34 x 7.21 x 5.21mm
Depth: 72.3%
Table: 79%
Girdle: Extremely Thin to Slightly Thick
Cutlet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Flourscence: Medium Blue


I need help, how does the depth of a stone effect it''s beauty. All this tech talk is driving me crazy.

 

[belle]

yma,
it is not anyone number that defines the performance (or lack thereof) of a stone. you can't take just one piece of the puzzle and try to determine what the end result will be.
also, it should be noted that you are looking at two different cuts and styles of stones here.

 

[YMA]

I was just wondering b/c the depth of these stones really high from I have reading on this site,

I know these are two different cuts, but I guess the over all question is......... I wanted someone to explain to me how the depth of a stone effect the beauty of the stone.

Any help or opinions would be great

 

[Shay37]

I think what Belle was trying to help you with was that different cuts respond to different depths in just that way...differently. What is a good depth in one cut, might be really awful in another cut. You can''t compare depths on two different cuts, and depth is only one piece of the puzzle. It also has to do with how the table comes into play as well as crown height, crown angle, and pavillion angle. You must also compare two stones of the same cut to have any idea of what numbers might mean. With fancy cuts comparing numbers is tricky anyway. Most of them have to be seen to be evaluated. Hope this helps to clarify.

Shay

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 9/19/2005 2:03:40 PM
Author:YMA
I am looking at two stones and I they both seem to have high depth #''s, which one would you go for?


Square Emerald: GIA cert 2.26, color K, VS1

7.31 x 7.30 x 5.25mm
Depth: 71.9%
Table: 62%
Girdle: Medium
Cutlet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Fluorescence: None

Square Modified Brillant: GIA cert. 2.24, color k, VS1

7.34 x 7.21 x 5.21mm
Depth: 72.3%
Table: 79%
Girdle: Extremely Thin to Slightly Thick
Cutlet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Flourscence: Medium Blue

I need help, how does the depth of a stone effect it''s beauty. All this tech talk is driving me crazy.

An overly deep diamond will look small for its carat weight, even if it still looks sparkly.

I wouldn''t choose a K color for a fancy shape, personally, unless I had seen it in person and knew I didn''t mind the yellow. A princess or asscher is going to show color far more than a round diamond, no matter how well cut they are.

I wouldn''t buy any diamond with points or corners that has an Extremely Thin girdle, due to chance of chipping.

79% is a HUGE table.

 

[YMA]

I guess I am slow b/c I still don''t get it.

Does the depth show up as a big black hole, does it effect the sparkle, does a high depth means the stone sits high etc.... I guess this is what I am trying to figure out.

How important is the depth in relation to the "normal" other things we look at, cut , clarity, color, carat weight.

 

[YMA]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, now I get it. The depth effects how big or small the stone looks.

 

[YMA]

Right know I have a 2 carat J-SI1 radiant cut set in platinum and in my small mind I was thinking a K color couldn''t be so bad, but I am not over sensitive to color either.

I guess what I am going thru according to Pricescope is Diamond shrinkage !

Ideally I would love at least a 3 carat Radiant or Princess.

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 9/19/2005 3:51:46 PM
Author: YMA
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, now I get it. The depth effects how big or small the stone looks.

Right. You could get a 2.5ct Princess that has 70% depth and measurements of about 7.7x7.7. You could also get a 3ct Princess with an 80% depth, with the same 7.7x7.7mm. So you''d be paying the 3 carat premium for what looks like 2.5.

If size is really important, you may need to change from square to round. You could get a 2.5ct round diamond with a 60% depth that measures 8.7mm across. Quite a noticeable difference.

Ovals also look big, if you want a fancy shape.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/19/2005 3:51:46 PM
Author: YMA
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, now I get it. The depth effects how big or small the stone looks.

In a way. But you must give us more information to work from:

Proportions and finish details describe the outside of the diamond. Measurements in millimeters, depth, table, crown angle, pavilion angle (multiple PAs if looking at a princess) and girdle thickness taken together describe how the overall outside is configured. On a round there is useful minor facet info - if available - that can help narrow down what the character of the diamond may be.

By way of example here are 2 rounds. Both are 61.9% depth, but they have radically different ''looks.'' Neither are desirable.

 

[JohnQuixote]

2

 

[JohnQuixote]

This one has the same depth (61.9) and combined with the other proportions would be a good performer.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Depth is even less a predictor in princess cuts, as it is somewhat removed from the overall equation.

For instance, here are simulations of two princess cuts that would have the SAME spread and SAME carat weight, but completely different depths.

 

[JohnQuixote]

And much deeper with same face-up spread and carat weight.

Note that these are computer wire-frame simulations - not something a cutter would make as a rule - but possible configurations to illustrate how you cannot rely on just one number.

Actually, with princess cuts - all fancies - it is much more important to view a reflector image (ideal-scope/ASET) AND get a trusted expert's eyes on the diamond.

Paul wrote a great princess depth article if someone wants to link it. I am sans-bookmarks right now.

 

[oldminer]

Everything is a compromise. Moderation is almost always the best choice. A diamond of infinite depth would have no width or length. A diamond with no depth would be huge, but be just a transparent plane. In between the possibilities for beauty exist within a fairly narrow range dictated by the nature of diamond material, its cost and the norm in cutting styles.

A truly beautiful diamond is rarely thin, below a depth of 56%. An emeral cut or princess cut diamond may be very pretty at 80% depth, but people will look for equal beauty in a somewhat less deep diamond becuase less depth provides more visible length and width. Why accept a small "look" when it can look bigger without a visual problem?

Looking at a diamond is essential whjen it is not a round stone. I truly suggest that and also suggest more shopping.....

 

[YMA]

THANKS SO MUCH, I get it now. That explains why the girl at the jewelry store told me that I would have to get at least 2.5c in a princess cut to look the same size as a 2c round. It does make sense to me now.

Forgive me for being slow..........I am knew at this, but after studying this site I can go out in the diamond world armed(well just a little bit smarter)