Making New Purchase

[mmakc]

PS is a great place, I've learned a lot here and been reading for a long time. Now, I'm ready to make a purchase so I'm looking to all of you for any comments on my diamond (is the table too big and the depth too deep?):

Round Brilliant
1.51
7.36-7.39 x 4.58
Table - 58
Depth - 62.1
Color - G
Vs2
Excellent
Excellent
Flour - None
Culet - None
Medium to slightly thick, faceted
Pinpoints are not shown

The cost of the diamond is $10,400. I am purchasing from a jeweler who has been used by her family for years and came recommended by her father. The jeweler is fabricating a replica of the Tiffany setting with five diamonds on each side for a total of $11,200.

Thoughts?

Thank you.

 

[hoorray]

H&A are a function of perfectly symetrical cutting, not a brand. There are branded H&A stones such as A Cut Above and Hearts on Fire, etc... and there are unbranded stones that are cut with good to perfect H&A. A stone doesn't have to have perfect H&A to preform well, but it is a good thing. Check out the tutorial info on H&A on this site for more info.

You really should get the crown and pavilion angles. They drive much of the light leakage and light return of the stone. Too deep or too shallow of a stone (with poor angles) will really impact the stones overall sparkle, which is really what matters. The tutorial will also give you more info on these.

 

[mmakc]

Thank you for the info.

Any other thoughts on the price based on the info I have available to provide?

Thanks!

 

[hoorray]

The price seems to be in line with the others listed on the PS search engine above. There are a couple for less and a couple for more, specs depending.

Do a search there to get a feel for the range and options.

 

[mmakc]

Could anyone provide more detail on what these specific mesurements from the diamond listed above mean?

7.36-7.39 x 4.58

What significance do they hold/pertain to?

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/3/2004 5:50:20 PM mmakc wrote:





Could anyone provide more detail on what these specific mesurements from the diamond listed above mean?

7.36-7.39 x 4.58

What significance do they hold/pertain to?
----------------

The first two are diameter measurements of the diamond; the third is the depth measurement of the diamond.

 

[verticalhorizon]

... in millimeters, of course.

 

[mmakc]

Thanks.

So, is it correct to say that the first two numbers "7.36-7.39" should be identical for to make for perfect symetery? Why are there two numbers if there is only on way across the diamond?

I appreciate your help.

 

[Magnum]

----------------
On 5/3/2004 6:50:12 PM mmakc wrote:

Thanks.

So, is it correct to say that the first two numbers '7.36-7.39' should be identical for to make for perfect symetery? Why are there two numbers if there is only on way across the diamond?

I appreciate your help.

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

No, the two diamter measurements you listed do not have to be identical for "perfect" symmetry, i.e ideal symmetry as defined by AGS and excellent symmetry as defined by GIA. I don't think I've ever seen a diamond that is perfectly round. There's always a little deviation. The two measurements are the widest and narrowesy part of the round diaomond. As long as it's less than .1 mm difference for a diamond this size, it's totally normal, and shouldn't detract from the symmetry grade given by a major lab. There are two different ways symmetry is evaluated. The major labs evaluate "external" symmetry, like how the facets meet, whether they're all the same size, if the diamond is out-of-round, etc. A H&A viewer measures so-called "internal" or optical symmetry, which most would say is more important to the performance of a diamond than what the labs grade. Optical symmetry describes the pattern of light that the diamond reflects. Some prefer the more random/"broken glass" look of a non H&A type diamond, while others prefer the symmetry and contrast of a H&A diamond.

 

[mmakc]

So is one diameter on the top side of the girdle and the other on the bottom side of the girdle? Or is one the table diameter and the other, the diameter around the bottom of the pavillion?

Sorry for so many questions.

Thanks!

 

[Magnum]

They are both the exact same measurements of the diameter of the stone at the girdle, except that one is a min value and one is a max value. The reason they list two measurement is that a diamond is a lmost never perfectly round, which means that depending on where you measure the diameter, you will get slightly different measurements. So they list two measurements for the diameter, which are the max and min values for all the different times they've measured the same thing, just at different places, so that the consumer knows how much variation there is in the diameter of the diamond. The diamond you listed is almost perfectly round. 7.39 is the widest diameter that was measured and 7.36 was the smallest diameter that was mentioned, which means anywhere on that stone, if you measured the diamter, you would get a number somewhere between 7.36 and 7.39, which is pretty good. A poorly cut, out-of-round diamond might have a diameter measurement of say 7.2 and 7.39, which means that there's a much greater variation of the diameter and the diamond might appear to be a little more "ovalish" than perfectly round.

 

[Magnum]

Al already mentioned it, but to be perfectly clear, the third number that you listed, 4.58mm, is the measurement of the total depth of the diamond. it's a measurement from the highest "point" on the diamond, the table, to the lowest point on the diamond, the culet.

By the way, you don't have to apologize for asking questions. That's what this forum is here for. (thanks leonid) There are no limit on questions, there are never stupid questions, and people are always willing to help answer them. Please keep us updated if you're able to find out more info, like crown and pavilion angles, and such, or if you get to see it in person.