Is this diamond a good option?

[rsf]

I am a newbie and I have been researching to buy an engagement ring.

I am very concerned about size and appearance (in this order), but much less on quality features which raise the price but are not noticeable by the naked eye at a 1 feet distance. My budget is $1200 for the stone.

Given this, is the diamond below:

1 - at a fair price?
2 - a good fit for my preferences?
3 - Given that I do not have the Crown and Pavilion proportions, is there a high risk of getting a bad deal OR the price is already low, indicating that there is not much downside?

Certificate - EGL
Price - $1300
Shape - Round
Cut - Premium
Carat - 0.74
Color - G
Clarity - SI3
Measurements - 5.91-5.84-3.58
Depth - 61%
Table - 59%
Girdle - TK-M FD
Culet - None (Pointed)
Symmetry - Good
Polish - Good
Fluorescence - None (Inert)

I would appreciate any help, thank you

Rsf

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome to PS

An EGL SI3 is their own grade and generally will be an I1 clarity - there is a fair chance that it might not be eyeclean. EGL certed diamonds are almost always cheaper than GIA etc, this is because they are said to be softer on their grading at times. Which EGL is it, USA, Israel, Europe, Antwerp etc? This diamond might in actuality be a lower colour than a G too. There isn't enough info to determine cut quality, but from the info given it might be a nice make and look attractive but you could probably do better. The Premium cut doesn't mean much, just a label pinned on by a vendor, don't assume with these it means you are automatically getting a well cut diamond. The cert should provide crown and pavillion % which aren't as accurate as angles, but better than nothing.

Price ...not too sure but I would think it is very low for that size diamond. All in all it might be ok and look quite nice and it fits the budget. Best thing would be to check with the vendor if it is eyeclean and make sure you spend a little more on getting an independant appraisal during the return period to make sure the diamond checks out - also make sure you have a good return period. I would advise going smaller and better cut, perhaps lower the colour a bit to an H or I which would still look very white and go to an SI2 clarity if eyeclean.

For example this diamond would be a great choice, a bit smaller but within budget.

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2362018.htm

 

[rsf]

Thank you for the analysis, I feel more confident now. I will try to get more details on transparency and the missing dimensions, but unless I get a very bad surprise, I will make the deal.

Some years ago I read a business case about De Beers, at graduate school. I thought that I would never make this kind of investment in a monopoly-manipulated commodity (with actually is not scarce), but if my girl likes it, what can I do?!

Thanks
Rsf

 

[rsf]

I just got the missing info on this diamond (pavilion and crown). I checked with cut adviser and got 6.1 (see attached picture) but the Jewelry catalogue tool says it is "very good"... !?

Is it too bad or this is a fair option given the 1300 price and the 0.74 size?

Thanks!
Renato
Price - $1300
Shape - Round
Dimensions - 5.91 x 5.84 x 3.58
Cut - Premium
Carat - 0.74
Clarity - SI3
Color - G
61% depth, 59% table, 13.6% crown, 44.8% pavilion, 0% culet
Polish = good
Symmetry = good
Girdle is THICK TO MEDIUM, faceted.
Florescence = none
Certificate: EGL USA Date Oct/2005
CUT ADVISER
Selected: 61% depth, 59% table, 13.6% crown, 44.8% pavilion, 0% culet
The result is for a symmetrical diamond with a medium girdle and very good polish
HCA scores were adjusted Dec. 15, 2001 and Feb. 6, 2003.
Factor Grade
Light Return Fair
Fire Fair
Scintillation Fair
Spreador diameter for weight: Very Good
Total Visual Performance 6.1 - Fair
JEWELRY CATALOGUE
Jewellery Catalogue co.uk D.C.A RESULTS
Weight 0.74ct Calc 0.76ct Re-cut 0.72ct
Crown Angle 33.56o 33.6o Pavilion Angle 41.86o 40.8o
Spread 0.73ct -3.11% Reduced -7 0 7%
Symmetry: 1.20% Very Good 0<2%
Brilliance Est 85.33% Very Good 80-100%
Depth Ratio 60.94% Very Good 55.5-59.1-63.9%
Table Width 59.00 % Very Good 53-56.5-66%
Crown Height 13.60% Very Good 11-14.45-16%
Pavilion Depth 44.80% Very Good 41.5-43.15-45%
Crownavilion 1:3.29 Very Good 1:2.99
Girdle 2.54% Very Good 1 <1.5

 

[rsf]

this is the correct picture.

 

[JulieN]

for the price, I think you should expect something similar to this http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1944/ but for this one, at least you know it has good light return

Methinks you should drop color...very far.

 

[rsf]

Colleagues, do you concur? i.e do you think I will get reasonable fire for the $1300, given the size?

I am concerned about size and appearance (in this order), but much less on quality features which raise the price but are not noticeable by the naked eye at a 1 feet distance (SI3 doenst bother me). My budget is $1200 for the stone.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 5/30/2006 5:27:13 PM
Author: rsf
Colleagues, do you concur? i.e do you think I will get reasonable fire for the $1300, given the size?
you seem to be asking if you are getting "flash for the cash" or "bang for the buck?" or do you mean, "will this stone perform?"

I am concerned about size and appearance (in this order), but much less on quality features which raise the price but are not noticeable by the naked eye at a 1 feet distance (SI3 doenst bother me). My budget is $1200 for the stone.

Ok, size. I understand that. "Appearance" needs to be clarified. Do you mean "presence" (which may be sort of is the same thing as size...) or do you mean "performance?"

 

[sunkist]

Ok, for size and appearance and price as the biggest factors, may I suggest this stone.

http://www.abazias.com/database/NewDiamondInfo.asp?stock=30542404&flag=ps

It is a .76 K SI2, depth59.8%, table 57%.

Price is right around what you''re looking for. It is a virtual stone, meaning no one has it in house. If you search for it here on PS under Price Comparison you''ll see that several vendors have it listed and for even cheaper prices. But if you contact one of them you can get a copy of the GIA cert to see if the cut will allow it to be a great stone! It''s always a bit of a gamble calling in stones cause you don''t know if it will be eyeclean, etc. until someone takes a look at it. But if you''re not really worried about eye-cleanliness you should be fine.

Now about color. If the cut on this stone is ideal (which Abazias says it is, but you can''t tell untill you get more numbers on the stone) then it will face up very white! Do you enjoy a warmer color of white? Also this stone has medium blue flouresence! Which will make it look even whiter! I have a K color stone with neglibile flouresence and it is ideal cut and it is absolutely gorgeous and faces up soooo white

I''d say consider it!

 

[rsf]

Thanks Julia. It is size, so the order is

Size -> performance -> things you dont see over 1 foot : within $1300 budget

Now I tried the GIA FACETWARE and got a "Very Good", which goes in line with the "Jewelry catalogue" analysis. See picture

I am more puzzled than ever, because the Holloway Cut Adviser gave me only 6, exactly between "good" and "fair".

 

[JulieN]

You will see that the X on the HCA is right on the big dotted outline. That is the outline for the GIA Excellent cut grade candidates. You see that it is huge compared to the solid white outline, which represents the AGS Ideal cut grade candidates (just because the numbers fall into that outline does not mean that it has ideal light performance.)

Also, the EGL data you are working with is not precise, and when using that in HCA, it will give even more "off" results. However, with an HCA score of 6, even if I gave the precision to +/- 2, which would give it a best score of 4, that is still a no-go stone for me.

 

[JulieN]

also, I''m very confused...where are you getting the 33.5 CA 40.8 PA and the minor facet numbers.

 

[rsf]

Crown angle was calculated based on the %s, and was given automatically by the Jewelry Catalogue tool.

Star % was set at the middle of the range because it is not available. If I put star % in the worst figures (extremes in the range) overall the diamong drops to "good".

I have just read this part of the whiteflash FAQ, which renewed my hopes on this rock being sold at a fair price and on the GIA Estimator and the Jewelry Catalogue analysis.



"The GIA cut estimator uses a scale of 5 levels. The top grade, “Excellent,” overlaps several AGS grades. This wider range allows for configurations farther away from Tolkowsky’s and a broader range of taste. The other grades in GIA’s system are Very Good, Good, Fair and Poor.
The Holloway Cut Advisor is a discriminating tool and will identify those diamonds predicted to be highly beautiful (the top 5% of known performers). It is a useful tool for rejection, but should not be used to select one good diamond over another. The best use of HCA is a final check on your selection to ensure it is a good performer."

http://www.whiteflash.com/info/faq7.aspx

 

[JulieN]

Yes, so, where did you get the PA of 40.8? Because on your stone it's somewhere around 41.9

What WF is saying about HCA is that it is a rejection tool, anything above 2 (or 2.5, depending on what you're looking for) should be eliminated, but you should not use HCA to distinguish among stones that score below two. That is exactly what HCA is meant to do.

 

[rsf]

True, its 41.9. I put the wrong number in there. (I got it from the Jewelry Catalogue anaylsis, but picked from the wrong place)
I algo put 60% as depth when it is 61%

Now I put the corretions into the GCA and it didnt change - got "Very good"!

Thanks for all the help

 

[JulieN]

Yes...it is still "very good," but it is a MUCH worse "very good" than if it were 40.8

 

[JulieN]

RSF, you know... if you could swing the 1400, I sort of like the GOG stone just because it's very shallow, which makes it face up huge (6.20, which looks like a .9 ct, vs 5.8 and you can tell by the reflector image it has good light return. I worry that such a steep PA on yours will make for a very leaky stone.

 

[rsf]

Date: 5/30/2006 7:18:52 PM
Author: JulieN
RSF, you know... if you could swing the 1400, I sort of like the GOG stone just because it''s very shallow, which makes it face up huge (6.20, which looks like a .9 ct, vs 5.8 and you can tell by the reflector image it has good light return. I worry that such a steep PA on yours will make for a very leaky stone.

I checked out the possible combinations in the GCA and we still get several "very good" ratings for even higher PAs (up to 42.4), indicating that there is a fair room to go up while maintaining quality.

I already made up my mind about this purchase, and as you read this I will have already acted. I would like to thank all for the help, for the very technical explanations and, above all, for the unbiased opinions. This is a incredibly interesting industry and I have learned a lot in the last days.

Best

 

[JulieN]

congratulations!