Looking for the right Princess

[TechHead]

All,

After mucho research on Princess cuts, I am in the market for the following (High Quality/Bang for the Buck):

Cut: Princess
Carat weight: 1.00 - 1.33
Color: F - G
Clarity: VS2 - SI1
Depth %: 64% - 75%
Table %: 62% - 68%
Note: Depth > Table, with a target 5% delta (ex: D=68.25; T=65)
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent (or Very Good)
Girdle: Medium to [slightly] thick; or [slightly] thin to Medium
Culet: None to Very small
Fluorescence: Medium blue (or None)
Measurements: [~Square/Crown height: 9% - 10%

I believe the above can be had for -$8,500 (at carat = ~1.15).


*Notes/Understandings:*
First, if the lady likes it, it is a winner.

That said, I understand that cut is the key.

[Rough] order of importance (given basic cut choice and carat size as constraints; number of "+" indicate understood level of importance; above specs were influence by these understandings):
+++++ How the stone actually looks. Tough to do over the internet.

+++++ Squareness: The lady wants a square. (This seems to be more subjective; some feel squareness plays a moderate part in good light return. I'm bumping this by 2 or 3 "+" given lady's desire.)
++++ Depth > Table @ [5% delta] ratios
+++ Symmetry: [Facet] cut, cut, cut! Light return. Brilliance. Etc.
++ Clarity: Anything >= SI1 is [safe].
++ Crown height: This seems to be more important for durability (implied crown angles) and for visual size of diamond (too high and the diamond will look smaller than it is). Too far out of spec may also lead to nail heads and/or fisheyes.
+ Color: Heck, I'd go E or possibly D if the above were stellar.
+ Girdle: Primarily important for working with stone (too thin = chips, too thick = hard to work with, etc.); may also have a peripheral (no pun intended) impact on appearance. Avoid the "Very..." ratings.
+ Polish: At the end of the day, settle for a Good (or better). Has mild impact on sparkle/light level.
+ Culet: Has a small impact on visual. Stones I've seen just about all have a Very Small or None.
+ Florescence: I am not allergic to Medium Blue. Understand it may make a negative difference in the D-F range ("oily" or "cloudy"); avoid in D or E, but F is borderline/should be OK. I've also seen G stones with Medium Blue look better than F stones with None. So, given my ranges, I consider this as a bonus, not a detriment.

I also understand pavilion height can be/is important, but no one lists this. (Couldn't this be approximately derived from knowing the measurements, depth, table, and crown? (And possibly fudging for girdle and culet? OK -- I realize once we start fudging we loose relevancy.))


**** Question: Am I off in any of the above thinking? ****


So, here's the stone I've come down to:

Carat weight: 1.11
Cut: Princess
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Depth %: 67.4%
Table %: 65%
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Very good
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick
Culet: Very small
Fluorescence: Medium blue
Measurements: 5.73x5.70x3.84 mm (1.01)
Crown height: 13.2%
Price: $7,373 (no tax)

Notes/questions:
* Carat weight = 1.11. Happens to be the day of our first date (11 Jan 2003)! This rock is speaking to me.
Will the crown height impact the visual too much?
* Didn't quite get the D/T delta, but...
* Medium blue in an F. Have to see it to know.


Any comments appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
TechHead

 

[valeria101]

All sounds right and well and the stone you picked (the last posted) has nice dimensions.
There are two notes I would add to your collection of observations:

#1) Medium fluorescence has nil chances to look oily, and only slight chances to look at all (bar the test conditions with UW turned on and no other light).

#2) A high crown coupled with reasonable depth (which ~65% sounds like) is not a waste of material: the crown shows in the mounting -unlike the pavilion- and flat ones are not such a treat (the stone with low crown looks like a reversed pyramid, for better or for worse). It may be a matter o taste, but would not shy away from a stone with 15% pavilion height or so and not go below 9%.

Crown height cannot be implied from the table and depth measurements. All one could say is that a stone with smaller table (considered desirable) would have a higher crown than a stone with a large table - this for obvious geometric reasons - the crown angle cannot turn to 90 degrees for a high crown and 80% table, of course.

So? It may be a good idea to get those crown height, if you can, and look for smaller table measures, if getting the extra numbers hurts. The last stone you picked look promising from this point of view.

What else? None of these measures say much (if anything) about the optics (light return, fire, etc.) of the stone. You'd need some direct evaluation for this, since there is no formula to deduct it from numbers alone. Does this matter?
Also, do money matter? Look here: WWW and WWW . Finally, a F-VVS2,1.24cts matched your price.

At this point, I do not understand what do you mean about "bank for the buck"... at all. Also, top quality would also mean "sparkle" for me, not just skin-deep geometry (depth and table), I guess.

 

[TechHead]

Thanks very much for the input valeria101.

When I say "bang for the buck", I am referring to best return for the dollar, based upon visual appearance (or at least specifications at this point). Impressions separated over time may also contribute to this line of thought (viewing two different diamonds more than 15 minutes apart, which I've heard to be the average person's "near-photo" visual memory (or "impression")).

Much of the thinking is based upon the untrained but discerning eye. Hence, going with a G or F color instead of D or E and trading top-notch cut/proportions/symmetry ("Gee, that diamond really sparkles!") for top-notch everything else ("Hmmm, that G diamond looks good -- not yellow at all. Hey -- that E we saw yesterday [or earlier the same day] didn't look any better!"). The other specs should echo this thinking.

As for optics/light return/fire etc., most [large] vendors don't have these types of statistics. That is hopefully where the good cut/symmetry help. I understand that stones with better cuts will *generally* produce more brilliance/sparkle (but not always!). That is where my first point of importance "+++++ How the stone actually looks. . . ." plays a primary role. 30 day right of return is a must!

Honestly, if I could find the right stone, I'd pay more (up to that budget point -- ~$8,500). However, if this could happen for $4,500, I wouldn't mind!

Thanks again,
TechHead

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 2/9/2004 10:40:36 AM TechHead wrote:



As for optics/light return/fire etc., most [large] vendors don't have these types of statistics. That is hopefully where the good cut/symmetry help. I understand that stones with better cuts will *generally* produce more brilliance/sparkle (but not always!). That is where my first point of importance '+++++ How the stone actually looks. . . .' plays a primary role. 30 day right of return is a must!

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

I'd hope not to dissapoint you, but I must say that polish and symmetry have little to do with cut quality (meaning optical properties and the resulting "sparkle" of the stone). While some great light return can mask some clarity flaws and certainly a notch down in color grades, the opposite is not true: better color and clarity grades do not make a stone "sparkle" more.

Also, as the diamond industry workds, "large vendors" do not necesarily have either the best prices or the best stones. While this may defeat some generic rule of thumb about returns to scale, more detailed research on this particular market may well end up giving my word at least the benefit of doubt... Oh well...

 

[TechHead]

Thanks for the second response, valeria101!

To clarify, my understanding is that "cut quality" is a facet of the overall "quality" of the stone. My understanding is "cut" in "cut quality" refers to how well the stone was cut. And this is subjective, especially with the fancy cuts.

I used the specs outlined by the AGA (found at http://www.gemappraisers.com/chrt4.htm) as the basis for a good "cut". These specs reflect table, depth, crown height, symmetry (and polish), and girdle thickness.

It doesn't really matter to me where I buy the stone -- as long as the vendor is legitimate and the stone has credentials. I also value service. (See last paragraph.) I perused many small sites that specialize in fine cuts. The problem I encountered with the small sites had more to due with limited stock in the style (princess) and size in which I'm looking, along with their stones being divergent from the AGA recommendations. Once again, I understand that specs are not the end-all, be-all when it comes to the beauty of a diamond. However, since both types of venues (large and small dealers) are on the other side of the Internet, in the end I have to lean more heavily on the specs. That said, it was easy for me to weed out 4,980 out of 5,000 princess cuts from one of the large sites that did not fall within my parameters, then reduce the remaining stones to the one I've (just about) settled on.

I've had a chance to work with some very fine professionals at a local by-reference-only establishment. They have wonderful service and great prices (much better than retail and better than ANY Internet pricing I've found) along with access to (they say) 265,000 diamonds. (They started, and still operate, as a service insurance companies use to find an exact match for lost, stolen, or damaged diamonds.) I really wish I could buy the rock from them. They found the following (lovely!) princess for me, and it is still my #2 choice:

Carat weight: 1.04
Cut: Princess
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
Depth %: 66.8%
Table %: 65%
Symmetry: Good
Polish: Good
Girdle: Very Thin to Thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.71 x 5.61 x (n/a (could get...)) (1.02)
Crown height: (n/a)
Certificate: GIA
Price: $4,775 (+ tax)

Wouldn't mind saving the ~2,200 bucks.

They will also let me A-B the two stones (theirs and the Internet stone when I get it), side by side. Of note, they know they have the frontrunner setting, but talk about professionalism in letting me A-B the stones! Anyway, they are *winners* (read as giving them my future business, if possible).

Thanks,
TechHead

P.S. Thanks again for the initial comments about fluorescence and crown height!

 

[mountainrocks]

TechHead: Why do you want the table to be smaller than the depth? I've heard in some places that it should be the other way around.

I am also looking for a perfect Princess, (smaller, about 75 points) So I've been doing a lot of research on the topic. Most of the Bluenile signature Princess cuts have depths that are smaller than the table, but most of the Superbcert Princesses have tables that are WAY smaller than the depths.

I've also read that the two should be within 3%. Ahhhhh I'm so confused.

It sounds like you have done a lot of careful research, so I would really value your opinion, or any others on this matter.

 

[TechHead]

Hi Mountainrocks,

The 5% DELTA is something that I've seen a couple of places, including, I believe, this website. Note that this figure is delta, so, if you are looking at a table of 68%, you want the depth to be greater than 68% by a delta (comparative difference) of 5%. So, in this example, an ideal depth would be ( 68%*1.05% ) 71.4%. Notice that these are only different by 3.4% numerically. This may be where your ("3%") confusion is occurring. I've also seen several knowledgeable sources concerning depth being greater than table. (Sorry, I didn't document the actual sources; I just researched until I was happy with the validity of the ideas, and then documented the idea in a database I have.)

Anyway, as valeria101 has said, a lot (unfortunately for Internet buyers) depends on how the rock actually looks: use the numbers only as a guide to cull out the vast majority of available stones. 30 day right of return is essential.

From everything I've read (particularly from the experts, including Dave Atlas (who cooked up the AGA specs -- hmmm, this all may be self-serving)), the superb looking diamonds generally conform to the higher/highest specs (but not always!).

The problem is we have several tens of thousands (?) of princess diamonds to choose from. If we can't examine every diamond available, or at least within some subjective criteria (for me: [near] square, mostly colorless, ~1.1 carats) then we have to develop an understanding that allows us to pair down the remaining available choices to one. A trusted expert in the field would be helpful. Hence I value the local high-value/quality shop more than the Internet shop like Blue Nile or abazias. For the Internet shop to win my business, they need to meet my specs.

Good luck on your diamond hunt!
TechHead

 

[TechHead]

Well, I just plunked down the plastic for the pretty piece of glass. (The 1.11, that is. Sorry, I just started to rhyme and couldn't stop.)

It should arrive mid-Wednesday. I'll A-B the stones (with #2 -- the 1.04) Friday and post a reply.

Cheers,
TechHead