Lazare Kaplan....$$$$$ and poor cut advisor score!!

[brandonb]

I just went to a local store to look at some lose stones. They had a Lazare Kaplan which is supposedly their best of the best as far as cut. It looked really nice. I jotted down the info and here it is:

1.53ct
SI1 G
Depth - 62.6
Crown - 15.5
Pavil. - 43.7
Table - 56
Cutlet - .7
Girdle - 1.5, 1.2

Price - $17,000!

Now it looked really nice, but I put the numbers in the cut advisor and it was rated a 4.6!! I just don''t understand. Also, while it looked nice, I couldn''t tell that much difference between it and their non-branded, well-cut stones. Any opinions?

Thanks,
-Brandon

 

[Dancing Fire]

here's the link about lazare kaplan

the reason it has such a poor HCA score is because of the pavil angle of 43.7º

aljdewey: i guess it's not a misprint on their brochure after all brandonb just saw one today.

 

[quaeritur]

Actually, I believe that's 43.7%, not degrees. Doesn't help the score though.

 

[aljdewey]

Yes, the pavilion figure is a percentage, not an angle.

 

[aljdewey]

Vtigger - it seems like you are resistant to this notion, but look at his post again.




The crown is 15.5.......that's *percent*, NOT degrees., and it follows that the pavilion express is ALSO *percent*. There's NO WAY any ideal diamond would have a crown angle of only 15.5.....that's a percentage. They both are percentages.




All this information is only good if you know how to read it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 6/24/2004 8:33:54 PM aljdewey wrote:


Vtigger - it seems like you are resistant to this notion, but look at his post again.


The crown is 15.5.......that's *percent*, NOT degrees., and it follows that the pavilion express is ALSO *percent*. There's NO WAY any ideal diamond would have a crown angle of only 15.5.....that's a percentage. They both are percentages.


All this information is only good if you know how to read it.

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

aljedwey
that 15.5 % is the crown height not crown angle ,their ideal crown angle is same as ags 33.7-35.8.

 

[brandonb]

Everything is listed in percents...sorry, I should have made that clear.

I just don't understand how this "prestigious" upper scale diamond has such a poor score. I guess, what I don't get is how is this diamond with such a low score so expensive and prestigious??

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 6/24/2004 8:50:41 PM vtigger86 wrote:






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

aljedwey
that 15.5 % is the crown height not crown angle ,their ideal crown angle is same as ags 33.7-35.8.
----------------

Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing, Vtigger?

I never said the 15.5 was an angle measurement.....it isn't. The 15.5 is the crown height - 15.5 PERCENT. And the 43.7 is pavilion DEPTH, not angle....43.7 percent.

Don't take my word for it. Why don't you ask Dave or one of the other appraisers here if LK stones have their OWN measurements for "ideal". Nevermind......believe what you want to believe. It's your money to burn.

I don't know how to say this without offending.....and I truly don't want to offend.....but either your brochure is wrong or you are reading it incorrectly, Vtigger. I'm just trying to help, but if you don't want it, that's fine.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 6/24/2004 8:56:34 PM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 6/24/2004 8:50:41 PM vtigger86 wrote:



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

aljedwey
that 15.5 % is the crown height not crown angle ,their ideal crown angle is same as ags 33.7-35.8.
----------------

Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing, Vtigger?

I never said the 15.5 was an angle measurement.....it isn't. The 15.5 is the crown height - 15.5 PERCENT. And the 43.7 is pavilion DEPTH, not angle....43.7 percent.

Don't take my word for it. Why don't you ask Dave or one of the other appraisers here if LK stones have their OWN measurements for 'ideal'. Nevermind......believe what you want to believe. It's your money to burn.

I don't know how to say this without offending.....and I truly don't want to offend.....but either your brochure is wrong or you are reading it incorrectly, Vtigger. I'm just trying to help, but if you don't want it, that's fine.

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

aljewey,

i just wish i had a digital camera then i could post a picture of their brochure. it still reads pavil angle 42.2-43.8 that's why i started the other thread. it didn't make any sense with that kind of specs.i'm not about to buy one anyway, couldn't afford the high premiun.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 6/24/2004 10:09:25 PM vtigger86 wrote:

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

aljewey,

i just wish i had a digital camera then i could post the picture of their brochure. it still reads pav 42.2-43.8 ----------------

vtigger......I'm not disputing that it reads pav 42.2-43.8.....what I'm trying to explain is that these measurements are not ANGLES. Yes, they *do* relate to the pavilion, but they are not angles. They refer to the pavilion depth as an expression of *percent*.

There are two ways of expressing crown and pavilion measurements. One is the give the specific angles - 34.5 and 40.7, for example. The other way is to express them in terms of crown height and pavilion depth, and those measurements are expressed as percentages.....the crown height is 15.6% and the pavilion depth is 43.2%.

For example, my diamond measurements are as follows: 60.6% depth, 56% table, 34.5 crown ANGLE, 40.7 pavilion ANGLE. The 34.5 crown angle equates to a 15.2% crown height; the 40.7 pavilion angles equates to 42.9% pavilion depth.

I believe you that the brochure says pavilion tolerances are between 42.2 and 43.8, but what I'm saying is that those are *not* angles, they are pavilion depth percentage parameters.

 

[Hest88]

I knew LKs had a markup, but that's pretty outrageous. You can't even brag that it's a Tiffany!

LK is one of the older branded diamonds and I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't quite kept up with the latest standards.

 

[brandonb]

That's what I figured...

I just can't tell though, do the ideal cut H&A diamonds and similar look that much better than well cut non-branded diamonds? Is it worth the extra money?

 

[daems]

First $17,000 for a 1.53 ct G-SI1 is to much money.
Second when you have a total depth of 62.6% with a table of 56%, crown height of 15.5% and pavillion depth of 43.7%, then you will have a low result ! This total depth is much to high comparing the other figures.
HAving a total depth of 62.6%, you need a crown of 15% together with a pavillion depth of 42.5% to become a perfect cutted stone with maximum results.

Third, never buy a diamond with a 0.7 culet.

These are just my remarks as a diamondmanufacturer.
Rgds,
Marc

 

[elmo]

----------------
On 6/25/2004 12:50:23 PM daems wrote:

Third, never buy a diamond with a 0.7 culet.
----------------

Why not?

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 6/24/2004 8:54:29 PM brandonb wrote:











Everything is listed in percents...

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

vtigger..take a look at what brandon wrote. 43.7 is the % not the angle and it makes a hell of a lot more sense as a % than an angle. your brochure may be misprinted.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 6/25/2004 3:09:32 PM Mara wrote:

----------------
On 6/24/2004 8:54:29 PM brandonb wrote:






Everything is listed in percents...

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

vtigger..take a look at what brandon wrote. 43.7 is the % not the angle and it makes a hell of a lot more sense as a % than an angle. your brochure may be misprinted.

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

Mara
its got be be a misprint ,because where it shows pavil depth it say appx.43%,where it shows pavil angle it say 42.2-43.8'