How trustworthy is Fred Cuellar really?

[Kathristin]

I''ve found several diamonds at local "brick and mortar" stores, have gotten all necessary information, then called the number given at "My Gemologist" (DCI) Every diamond I have told them about they have said, "That is a warped stone" or its automatically a Class 4 and should be worth about $1,000 less than what the store is selling it for.

Is it really true that if the depth goes above 61%, the light reflected goes down to only 48%? Alot of labs say that up to 63% depth is ideal.

Can someone please help!! I don''t know who to believe!!

This is the latest stone that I''ve found:

0.61 Carat
5.44x5.46x3.33
E Color
SI1 Clarity
Faint Fluorescence
Very Small Culet (1.1%)
Excellent Polish
Very Good Symmetry
Medium girdle
Table 60%
Depth 61.1%
Crown 35.5 deg / 13.5%
Pavilion 41.3 deg / 43.5 %

Is this a well cut stone?
What should I be paying for it?
Should I worry about the faint fluorescence?

Thank you in advance for any light you could shed on this.

Kristin
New Jersey

 

[pricescope]

Kristin, you can do a search on this forum regarding Fred...

on this site regarding cut, depths, etc.

Basically, depth % alone doesn't tell much. One should also consider table size and crown and pavilion angles. diamond with 63% depth can still be an ideal cut if table size is small and have optimal combination of crown and pavilion angles.

Unfortunately, this particular diamond is not ideal cut because of the large table and, most importantly, steep/deep combination of crown and pavilion angles resulting in strong light leakage.

.[/u][/u]

 

[niceice]

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

Basically, depth % alone doesn't tell much. One should also consider table size and crown and pavilion angles. diamond with 63% depth can still be an ideal cut if table size is small and have optimal combination of crown and pavilion angles.

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

There is no way for Fred Cueller or anybody else for that matter to determine whether the diamond is "warped" or not without having all of the proporitons information available and we're not simply referring to the averages... You need a full facet report like this that provides the measurements for each of the Bezel Main, Pavilion Main and Lower Girdle facets:

You will note that the average crown angle measurement displayed on the graphic above is 34.6 degrees which is based upon the average of the low of 34.5 degrees and the high of 34.7 degrees... The average of 34.6 degrees could also have been the average of a much broader range... For instance, the number two facet could have been 34.0 degrees with all of the others being 34.5 degrees and then the number six facet could have been 40.0 degrees... Now that would be warped... Ask the seller to provide you with a full detailed Sarin or OGI computerized proportions analysis (not the little sticker) which will provide the facet-by-facet detail indicated above and then you can provide the dealers here on PS with the information that they need to truly provide you with some accurate insight into the diamond you mention.

Faint fluorescence is more of an "identifying characteristic" and nothing more... Our preference in terms of fluorescence is blue... Most of the personal stones that we wear exhibit medium to strong blue fluorescence because we like the effect.

 

[niceice]

----------------
Is it really true that if the depth goes above 61%, the light reflected goes down to only 48%? Alot of labs say that up to 63% depth is ideal.
----------------

Crack kills

Whoever told you this needs to know that

The deeper the total depth, the smaller the diameter of your diamond will be... And the steeper the crown angle and pavilion angles may be... We've seen many a very deep stone with wonderful light return, but buying such a stone means that you're paying for weight that you will never benefit from visually... Better to buy a diamond with a total depth between 59 - 61.8% and maximize the diameter you will see...

 

[Giangi]

Fred Cuellar thinks that every diamond is warped, except the ones he sells

!!
The cut sounds good -not the best, though- and the stone gets an HCA score of 5.1 - Good.
You shouldn't worry about the faint fluorescence. It isn't noticeable... Like R&T I think fluorescence is VERY cool and I also agree on the depth question. A diamond with 59 to 61.8% depth percentage will look considerably bigger than one with e.g. 63.5% depth...

Giangi

 

[dimonbob]

Hello Kathristin,

"Fred Cuellar thinks that every diamond is warped"

"Warped" is a word that only Mr. Fred Cuellar uses in relation to diamonds that someone else is trying to sell. Of course, he has never sold a "Warped" diamond.

Don't get me started on this guy.

Enough said.

 

[Sierra Nevada]

----------------
On 3/3/2003 2

6:25 PM niceice wrote:

Crack kills

Whoever told you this needs to know that

LOL, very funny!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hiya Kristin. I can't figure out how to do attachments on the PM system, so I'm posting my comments here.

Interesting stone. This is a diamond which rates well according to the technical specs (1b on the AGA scale, 2 on the AGS scale), but doesn't perform too well on the Light Return Analysis. The problem is that the crown angle / pavilion angle doesn't work too well together (35.5' with 41.3'). This combination creates an area of leakage just inside the table which gives the stone a dark area just inside the table, along with a lesser amount of light leakage around the edge of the stone (paler pinks on IdealScope image).

This is not to say that the diamond isn't "pretty", but just that it will have more leakage than some combinations. In the end it is your eye that will determine if you like it or not.

Following is a simulated Idealscope image in which the white area illustrates the leakage I'm talking about. The photoreal image shows how it shows as a darker area under more natural conditions.

How much are they asking for the stone?

-----------
A possible image is recreated with the DiamCalc software with the following light return analysis:

Light Return (mono)…...: 0.88 Good to Very Good
Light Return (stereo)…..: 0.89 Good to Very Good
(Non) Leakage (mono)..: 0.52 Poor
(Non) Leakage (stereo).: 0.52 Poor
Contrast............................: 0.95 Very Good
(Non) FishEye Effect…...: 1.00 Very Good

I feel that "fair" is a more appropriate description than the term "poor" used in the DiamCalc program.

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated. The computer generates an image with “perfect” symmetry, which is rare. Also, the star/lower girdle facet lengths may be different from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or Sarin info is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in considering the major light performance aspects..
-----------

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Photoreal image...

 

[Mara]

I ran a Pscope search on pricing using .60c E SI1 and around a table of 60% and a depth of 61%...got a bunch of stones...which ranged between $1350-1800.

If you do not have your heart set on this stone, I'd continue looking...you can definitely find a better stone for just a little more money. I ran another search for H&A AGS0 stones with .60c E/F SI1 and found this stone on WhiteFlash.Com...it's an *excellent* cut stone (see the IdealScope image on the link below and compare the red IS image to the image that Rich posted for you on this stone below...)

.60 F SI1 A Cut Above SuperIdeal H&A Stone: $1975 (pscope price..be sure to mention it)
http://www.whiteflash.com/acut/diamond_details.asp?ItemCode=365082

F is still in the colorless range and this stone is a knockout. For $175 more than the most expensive non-ideal I found in the original search. Not bad!!

How much is your jeweler asking for this stone? If it is anywhere around $1800...definitely view the ACA stone instead!!

Good luck!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

By the way Kristin, I'm going to forego commenting on Fred Ceullar's site and advice, but I will say that you can't find a more helpful group of dealers and consumers than you will on this site.

Take Mara for example. She just plain gets a kick out of helping people find the right stone.

 

[lawmax]

----------------
On 3/3/2003 8

5:30 PM Richard Sherwood wrote:

By the way Kristin, I'm going to forego commenting on Fred Ceullar's site and advice, but I will say that you can't find a more helpful group of dealers and consumers than you will on this site.

Take Mara for example. She just plain gets a kick out of helping people find the right stone.
----------------

That was very diplomatically stated.

 

[Mara]

I *really* get a kick out of the Pscope tools and viewing the eye-popping stones out there...

The helping stuff is like a side benefit!

Nah..it's all great actually.

 

[fancycoloredfan]

Not to start something on fred cuellar (and don't get ME started on him) but did you see that he's now selling diamonds at www.fullybondeddimaonds.com? he says "i can't advocate and sell diamonds at the same time so my sister company is doing it" but the address for the company's are the same - it's the same thing. Besides, what the heck is a "bonded" diamond? I know what he claims them to be - but it's great how he can make stuff up. Haha - this guy is hilarious. I don't know anyone who talks like that. Weird terminology. This guy is a crook.

 

[quaeritur]

----------------
On 3/3/2003 2:02:48 PM niceice wrote:

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

Faint fluorescence is more of an 'identifying characteristic' and nothing more... Our preference in terms of fluorescence is blue... Most of the personal stones that we wear exhibit medium to strong blue fluorescence because we like the effect.----------------

OK, I realize this thread started long ago, but this mention of fluor caught my eye. All I want to know is, if Robin and Todd like blue fluor so much, why the heck can are there so very few stones in their inventory that have it?!?! (Can you tell I've obsessively searched for it?)

 

[chialea]

NiceIce had a few with blue flour in the range I was looking in before, iirc. They might well sell faster

 

[moremoremore]

According to Fred, there is some magical 65 depth and 65 table princess out there...All others are warped. The only thing warped is that line of his..which is total bs. I'm sure the same applies to everything he has to say.

 

[ep6585]

I think NiceIce said they don't have fluor diamonds on their site because people are conditioned to think it's a bad thing. I think they sell more with mb fluor to their local clients because they actually see them and like it.

 

[WinkHPD]

I am having great success with medium to strong blue fluorescense that is not "overblue". Stones that change to a light powdery blue out of doors and look really killer! The hard part is finding one in an great cut.

Often if you will call the vendors that are also B&M's they might have one that is not listed, or they can get one for you. We all know who to call for stones that may not be listed all over the net but that are available to those who like the beauty of the unusual. Heck, before the big investment craze of the late 70's we used to pay and charge a premium for such stones.

Wink

 

[Jennifer5973]

Wink, I second that emotion! I love blue flourescence. I wish my new stone had it but alas--that's what upgrades are for!

 

[KittenKat]

My Old European cut is an F with strong blue flourescence.

And it is STUNNING!! It almost looks like a light blue diamond in the sun. And the sparkles are much more beautiful. There is nothing milky or cloudy about it.

I didn't think I'd be into the strong blue, but once I saw it in the sun I was completely sold.

The flourescence seems to give it some extra 'pop'.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/3/2003 10:03:59 AM Kathristin wrote:



Is it really true that if the depth goes above 61%, the light reflected goes down to only 48%? Alot of labs say that up to 63% depth is ideal.


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

This is not a complete statement - there is simply no way to asess brilliance based only on depth!

There is no research available from Fred to make an educated judgement of his statements. It is great to find such simple rules, but they are very, very rarely correct

The one above does not mean much to me. Especially since competing cut grading guidelines (AGS, GIA's and Pricescope's versions) come with reasonable technical detail and do not support Fred's claim - to say the (diplomatic) least.

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Group:

In my quest for the perfect diamond, I have stumbled upon the "bondable" diamonds of Fred Cuellar. What a creep! To espouse that he is endorsed by the National Fraud Bureau or some crap is just ridiculous. I don't know how he can get away with being such a crook and dooping poor unfortunate souls into thinking that his way is the only way period. People like him have made what otherwise should have been a wonderful experience in diamond buying a miserable experience. I am still looking for a diamond, but now I am looking with my heart, eyes, and not just ears. Thanks to this forum for being helpful.... Here is another site that is affiliated with Fred Cuellar, I would stay away from it.

http://www.for-everdiamonds.com/index.html

 

[denverappraiser]

‘Bondable’ is an interesting phrase that sees to be repeated often on this and other sites and I kind of doubt that the shoppers on these sites understand it. A bond is an agreement by a company to pay out some money in a limited set of conditions where you’ve suffered a loss in exchange for a premium. In more common vernacular, this is called ‘insurance’.

The bond being promoted in the site you provided is an offer to replace with a comparable stone in case of a broken stone or if it falls out of the mounting. Fair enough, nice add-on. This service costs 1.2%/year of the purchase price after the first year. I see no discussion of who the bonding company is but I can’t help but notice that Jewelers Mutual, Chubb, Fireman’s Fund and many others will offer similar or better programs for about this same price. These companies all include coverage for many other potential problems as well, like fire and theft that aren’t mentioned in the ‘bondable diamond’ program. Any one of these companies will be happy to write you a bond on pretty much any diamond you buy and without regard to where you buy it and without any messy restrictions like requiring you to go back to that same jeweler every 6 months or suffer cancellation. Perhaps I’m missing something but the only benefit I see to your stone being ‘bondable’ is the potential for a 1.2% savings on the first year’s premium and even that seems debatable because of the restricted coverage that is apparently being offered. It may be necessary to buy another policy anyway.

Neil Beaty, GG ISA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[Todd07]

Ouch!! Looks like the bonded jeweler gets you coming and going. As noted by Neal, they charge normal insurance rates with difficult restrictions. Plus they sell you on a 15% purchase price premium.

"Expect to pay an initial premium for the cost of a bonded diamond of approximately 15%"