Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Is this an Ideal cut?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

sandystone1

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
51
Hello experts,

I came across this stone. Would you consider this as an Ideal cut or something better than an ideal cut? I am confused.

1.51 ct Round HCA 1.9 (No images available)
Ideal
G
VS2
Depth: 60.4
Table: 57
Crown: 33
Pav: 41.2
Gri: Thin-Med
Pol: Ex
Sym: Ex
Cutlet: None
Fl: None

Thanks
Sandy
 

Allison D.

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,282
Sandy, the numbers look promising, but your data doesn''t say which grading lab has graded the stone (if any).

The two most stringent and reputable grading labs are AGS and GIA. AGS uses the cut grade term "Ideal" (which is reflected as AGS0) to denote their top-ranking stones. GIA doesn''t use the term "Ideal"; their best grade is Excellent.

The numbers look promising enough to request images for the stone.
 

DrDiamondsGG

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
11
Hi, Sandystone1!
With the information you listed for that particular stone, it would be considered a GIA Excellent cut and could also be referred to as a "triple excellent" (meaning Excellent cut grade, Excellent proportions grade, and Excellent symmetry grade). You can quickly check the estimated cut grade of a RB through GIA''s website (www.gia.edu). Go to Lab Services and use the Facetware Cut Estimator. This is a powerful tool for consumers and industry members alike.
As far as "Ideal" is concerned, the label of "Ideal" is subjective and is more of a marketing ploy. It is something I refuse to use because there is a range of proportion combinations that can result in an Excellent cut grade.
However, with any diamond purchase, do a reality check. Look at the stone. Does it look "ideal" to you? That''s all that matters at the end of the day.
Hope this helps!
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
Sandy, this one is cheaper than the diamond I suggest you.
It is a VS2 instead of a VS1 like the 1.46.
Pavilion angle is higher than 41.2 and that''s not my personal taste in matter of scintillation.
No information about star/lower girdle length.
No inclusion plot, no information about what is said in the comments part.

Of course Allison is right saying that this diamond could be nice.
It''s GIA certed, I found it by a search.

Yet I still prefer the 1.46.
One more thing I forgot to say about the 1.46: you have a diamond priced in the 1.00-1.49 but it will look like a 1.5 that is in another price range.

Also the fact that the 1.51 is cheaper than the 1.46 makes me suspect something is wrong, VS2 doesn''t justify that it is cheaper than the 1.46 because diamonds in the 1.50-1.99 are much more expensive.
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
It would also help us if you keep your diamond search in only one thread, so everybody could compare all the diamonds you are interested in.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
lower girdles can make or break that combo.
Need an IS image to tell.
 

Lula

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
4,540
Date: 4/16/2009 7:02:40 PM
Author: strmrdr
lower girdles can make or break that combo.

Need an IS image to tell.
Just curious -- what range would the lower girdles need to be in to make the crown/pav numbers work?
Thanks.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 4/16/2009 11:43:14 PM
Author: sarap333
Date: 4/16/2009 7:02:40 PM

Author: strmrdr

lower girdles can make or break that combo.


Need an IS image to tell.

Just curious -- what range would the lower girdles need to be in to make the crown/pav numbers work?

Thanks.
around 76+ all the way around not 76 average.
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
Date: 4/16/2009 6:11:21 PM
Author: DrDiamondsGG
Hi, Sandystone1!
With the information you listed for that particular stone, it would be considered a GIA Excellent cut and could also be referred to as a ''triple excellent'' (meaning Excellent cut grade, Excellent proportions grade, and Excellent symmetry grade).
Hi DrDiamondsGG!
GIA triple excellent is EX cut grade, EX symmetry and EX polish.




Date: 4/16/2009 6:11:21 PM
Author: DrDiamondsGG
However, with any diamond purchase, do a reality check. Look at the stone. Does it look ''ideal'' to you? That''s all that matters at the end of the day.
Hope this helps!
Nicely said!
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
This diamond doesn''t have the best proportions to me but it could be an attractive diamond, it depends if you want good or if you want great!
 

DrDiamondsGG

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
11
Date: 4/17/2009 2:28:36 AM
Author: QueenMum
Date: 4/16/2009 6:11:21 PM

Author: DrDiamondsGG

Hi, Sandystone1!

With the information you listed for that particular stone, it would be considered a GIA Excellent cut and could also be referred to as a ''triple excellent'' (meaning Excellent cut grade, Excellent proportions grade, and Excellent symmetry grade).
Hi DrDiamondsGG!

GIA triple excellent is EX cut grade, EX symmetry and EX polish.


Ah, quite right! Thanks for catching that slip!


Date: 4/16/2009 6:11:21 PM

Author: DrDiamondsGG

However, with any diamond purchase, do a reality check. Look at the stone. Does it look ''ideal'' to you? That''s all that matters at the end of the day.

Hope this helps!
Nicely said!
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
Sandy,
I do not know why I get involved so your quest for the perfect diamond.
Perhaps I recognize myself in you, you seem to be impulsive and I like that!

Please, keep us informed!
 

sandystone1

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
51
Stephan & other experts, I appreciate all your suggestions and comments on this stone. I realized that table:depth of 56 or 57:61.6 or 61.7 is usually expensive and comes under an super ideal cut. I tried searching for both the combinations and I always landed up with a higher price.

Here is an example. I am seriously considering about this one. Also I personally checked with one of the jewellers and saw that their is no much of a visual diff in size for 1.33 v/s 1.5. Do you guys feel the same? Please let me know your thoughts.
1.33 ct Round HCA 1.5 (No images available)
Ideal
F
VS2
Depth: 61.6
Table: 56
Crown: 35
Pav: 40.8
Gri: Med faceted 3.5%
Pol: Ex
Sym: Ex
Cutlet: None
Fl: None
7.07 x 7.05 x 4.35
Thanks
Sandy
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
This one is a deep diamond.
35 crown with 40.8 pavilion is not my favorite combo.
Why do you think that 61.6 depth is ideal?
I really prefer 59-60.5 depth...
 

sandystone1

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
51
Hi Stephan,

From literature Ideal cut is 53 - 57% right? Also the price diff between both the stones is about 2000. And I checked amlost all the online buying websites and whenever I put depth of 61.6 or 61.7 with table of 56 or 57, prices shoot like anything and they become SIgnature Ideal or Super ideal whatever they call it better than ideal. Their has to be something in there right? Just wondering.

Thanks
Sandy
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
Just marketing.
Yield issue.
Sellers brand their diamonds as ideal even with a 61.5-62.0% depth.
But that is almost to deep.
As for the 58% table, I have an EightStar, I had cut by Infinity diamonds, 1 ACA diamond and they all have 55-56% table.
But my favorite diamond is not branded, and it has a 58% table.
If well cut, a 59.5% depth diamond with a "big" table (58%) will look bigger and more scintillating than an "ideal" marketed diamond.
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
And if friends ask you, tell them the GIA certificate of your 1.46ct is triple EX.
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
Date: 4/18/2009 12:14:51 PM
Author: sandystone1
Also I personally checked with one of the jewelers and saw that their is no much of a visual diff in size for 1.33 v/s 1.5. Do you guys feel the same? Please let me know your thoughts.
Your 1.33ct is 7.05 - 7.07 mm
My 1.46ct is 7.36 - 7.39 mm
That''s not a big difference, yet the second one will look bigger.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 4/18/2009 12:53:30 PM
Author: QueenMum
The cut adviser

https://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp

also seems to appreciate the 1.46ct.
That is abusing the cut advisor.
It is a rejection tool not an acceptance tool.
The lowers are not optimal on that stone and hca doesn''t account for it.
It is outside the AGS0 box for a reason.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 4/18/2009 12:28:35 PM
Author: QueenMum
This one is a deep diamond.

35 crown with 40.8 pavilion is not my favorite combo.

Why do you think that 61.6 depth is ideal?

I really prefer 59-60.5 depth...
61.6 is well within the ideal range.
There are a lot more reasons than yield and marketing to cut them in that range.
A larger table with a flat crown has higher yield anyway. ie: 60/60
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
?!?
To my eye, this lower girdle should work good with the upper girdle.
Why do you say that?
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
I don''t say 61.7 is not in the ideal range (which one???).
I just say it is not in my ideal range.
I just say that the beautifulest diamonds I saw had a depth < 60.5%.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 4/18/2009 1:59:33 PM
Author: QueenMum
?!?

To my eye, this lower girdle should work good with the upper girdle.

Why do you say that?
The numbers arent there to claim that.... that combo has a much better potential with a gia rounded 80 for the lowers.
To say they will work together using the rounded numbers is bogus.
The table/CH/lowers interaction is much more of an issue than lowers/uppers.
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/68/1/Do-the-pavilion-mains-drive-light-return-in-the-modern-round-brilliant.aspx
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
I think relationship between lower and upper girdle is well important: if this combo is bad, there will be no life on the perimeter of the diamond and it will make it look smaller and dull.
 

elle_chris

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
3,153
Date: 4/18/2009 12:48:07 PM
Author: QueenMum
Just marketing.
Yield issue.
Sellers brand their diamonds as ideal even with a 61.5-62.0% depth.
But that is almost to deep.
As for the 58% table, I have an EightStar, I had cut by Infinity diamonds, 1 ACA diamond and they all have 55-56% table.
But my favorite diamond is not branded, and it has a 58% table.
If well cut, a 59.5% depth diamond with a ''big'' table (58%) will look bigger and more scintillating than an ''ideal'' marketed diamond.
Hi-
I''m wondering why a larger table give you more scintillation? I just thought it gave you more glare and personally, I prefer to keep tables as small as possible.

Can an expert chime in? Is there truth to this?
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
Date: 4/18/2009 2:07:11 PM
Author: strmrdr
To say they will work together using the rounded numbers is bogus.
To say they won't is bogus too.
As we only have rounded numbers in this case, we have to try to work with.
I thought that the 1.46ct with a 42.06 lower girdle and 40.19 upper girdle will work for a crown with minimum leakage, even if it is true that I would prefer a 61% star length that would give us a 42.22 upper girdle what would, with the same lower girdle, result in good light return too, but also for more fire and contrast in the diamond.
 

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
Date: 4/18/2009 3:12:36 PM
Author: elle_chris
I'm wondering why a larger table give you more scintillation? I just thought it gave you more glare and personally, I prefer to keep tables as small as possible.
Can an expert chime in? Is there truth to this?
I didn't say that a larger table creates a more scintillating diamond.
I said that a 58% table with a 59.5 depth, well cut as one diamond I owned, outshines the EightStar, the ACA, and the Infinity diamonds I also owned, without talking about all other "ideal" diamonds I saw.
Of course, experts (sellers) will probably tell you that nothing is above there 40.9-34.9 diamonds.
Their tool to say that?
IdealScope.
IdealScope is a nice tool, but should only be used to eliminate poor diamonds.
Why? I saw a lot of diamonds with a perfect IdealScope image, but almost without fire.
But I also saw shallow diamonds with a perfect IS picture, and also a lot of fire.
Problem of the experts is that they can't measure fire or scintillation.
They only can with their eyes, no tool can do that today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    Memorial Day Jewelry 2020
    Memorial Day Jewelry 2020
    Van Cleef & Arpels Perlee Clovers Bracelet
    Van Cleef & Arpels Perlee Clovers Bracelet

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.

New posts

Top