Looking for feedback on this diamond (pic attached)

[scottie]

Been lurking here for a while, but now need some feedback on the following stone. Angles are not perfect, but looked intriguing enough to at least go in and take a look at it in person (tomorrow). Hoping the experts can chime in here and provide their input.

1.83 ct
7.87-7.90x4.81
Cut Grade: AGS Excellent (1)
Color: AGS 2 (h)
Clarity: AGS 4 (vs2)
Fluorescence: negligible
Table: 56.2
Crown: 34.4
Pav: 40.5
Depth: 61.0

Any input would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance.

 

[neatfreak]

Overall it looks quite nice, as you know not the creme de la creme, but certainly doubtful to be a dog either. If you do want it make sure to clarify whether it qualifies for WF's upgrade policy or not before purchasing...

 

[stone-cold11]

Looks good on the numbers and IS. I am thinking it score a AGS1 because of excellent symm instead of ideal symm. Should be a good buy.

 

[scottie]

Thanks neatfreak, will definitely check with them to ensure the WF upgrade policy applies.

 

[scottie]

Picture of the stone:

 

[scottie]

Sarin report shows slight differences from AGA report, is this just because averages are being used?

 

[stone-cold11]

What is it''s symm and polish score?

 

[scottie]

Not listed on the AGS certificate I have, but did pull down a report verifcation from AGS and both polish and symmetry show ideal.

 

[stone-cold11]

OIC, so it did score a cut grade of greater than 0.

 

[scottie]

Could it be the 40.5 pavillion that is pushing this to an AGS1?

 

[stone-cold11]

Looks like it, slightly shallower than a AGS0 cut. But the IS looks good.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 12/10/2008 7:15:22 PM
Author: scottie
Could it be the 40.5 pavillion that is pushing this to an AGS1?

That is my guess. We usually set the lower guideline at 40.6. But non-experts might not even be able to tell the difference. I imagine an AGS1 would be a very nice stone in most cases!

 

[scottie]

Thanks diamondseeker. Will get a chance to see it tomorrow, really hoping that it turns out to be a nice stone.

 

[agc]

pa 40.5 not my favorite but a 34.4/40.5 combo can be helped with longer lgf''s. Look at it in different light settings and check if it has some darkness from obstruction. Unless you are getting a really good price you could certainly do better but it is worth a look.

 

[scottie]

Thanks AGC. I''ve read that the 40.5 could cause some darkness, so I''ll definitely be looking for that in different lighting conditions. I also plan on comparing this stone to one in the ACA line to see how this one compares.

 

[DiamondFrEak]

It scores a rating of 0.5 which is GREAT (the lower the better) on the cut analysis calculator: https://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp

congrats! How expensive?

 

[agc]

Date: 12/10/2008 8:22:58 PM
Author: DiamondFrEak
It scores a rating of 0.5 which is GREAT (the lower the better) on the cut analysis calculator: https://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp

congrats! How expensive?

DiamondFrEak,

"the lower the better" is not an accurate statement. The cut advisor is used to eliminate less desirable combos and not to look for the lowest possible number. Anything under 2 is what we look for (and even under 2.5 in diamonds with superior optical symmetry). A 0.5 is not better than a 1.5

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/10/2008 8:31:22 PM
Author: agc

Date: 12/10/2008 8:22:58 PM
Author: DiamondFrEak
It scores a rating of 0.5 which is GREAT (the lower the better) on the cut analysis calculator: https://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp

congrats! How expensive?

DiamondFrEak,

''the lower the better'' is not an accurate statement. The cut advisor is used to eliminate less desirable combos and not to look for the lowest possible number. Anything under 2 is what we look for (and even under 2.5 in diamonds with superior optical symmetry). A 0.5 is not better than a 1.5

Thanks agc, nice description.

Scottie, that looks like a nice diamond you have there from the Idealscope!