Marquise @ 56.5%Depth/62%Table - Should I Buy?

[BKG6053]

Question -- I am considering a 2.04 H/SI2 Marquise w/ very nice proportions @ $10,600. However, the Depth @ 56.5% concerns me. Is this Depth an automatic No Buy or do I indeed need to "see" the stone before rushing to judgement, etc? FYI - the stone specs are avail. here on PriceScope.

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/25/2007 5:17:40 AM
Author:BKG6053
Question -- I am considering a 2.04 H/SI2 Marquise w/ very nice proportions @ $10,600. However, the Depth @ 56.5% concerns me. Is this Depth an automatic No Buy or do I indeed need to ''see'' the stone before rushing to judgement, etc? FYI - the stone specs are avail. here on PriceScope.

As with all other fancy shaped Diamonds..., its a must see (with eyes).

56.5%..., if cut correctly could be a super spready Marquise.

 

[chrono]

The table is a little big and the stone a little shallow. That said, I cannot say that it is an automatic buy or disqualified stone because you cannot buy just based solely on numbers. The marquise has to be seen.

Here''s is a good chart to go buy to get you going:
http://www.gemappraisers.com/oldcutgraderules.asp

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 8:09:27 AM
Author: Chrono
The table is a little big and the stone a little shallow. That said, I cannot say that it is an automatic buy or disqualified stone because you cannot buy just based solely on numbers. The marquise has to be seen.

Here''s is a good chart to go buy to get you going:
http://www.gemappraisers.com/oldcutgraderules.asp

How big is the table?

 

[chrono]

The table at 62% is a little too big for me, but it may not be for the poster. It may also turn out to be a nice marquise but there''s no way to tell this without any pictures.

 

[oldminer]

It may be a pretty diamond, but I have not seen a stone of this depth without a slightly watery character in certain lighting and viewing positions. The table may not pose any problem, but the moderately shallow depth will allow more light leakage. You may find it exactly the right diamond for you to buy. The question of what any individual picks is happily not based on scientific criteria.

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 10:08:35 AM
Author: oldminer
It may be a pretty diamond, but I have not seen a stone of this depth without a slightly watery character in certain lighting and viewing positions. The table may not pose any problem, but the moderately shallow depth will allow more light leakage. You may find it exactly the right diamond for you to buy. The question of what any individual picks is happily not based on scientific criteria.

It depends on the pavilion facet structure...., if its a 8 fold or a 4 fold???

If its a 4 fold..., it could be just fine!

 

[oldminer]

8 fold, 4 fold, the decision about what suits a given individual is a personal choice I won''t make for them. If you like the 4 fold variety they may also find it better, too. Without knowing that level of detail we just can''t suggest more than looking at this diamond and making their own decision. Getter more technical with consumers isn''t going to give them a better tool for deciding, I''m afraid. They may not know how to even see what you are describing. As an expert, you probably have a valid point, but we are speaking in generalities, not knowing a lot more about how this one diamond is cut.

I always try to separate advising people from potentially confusing them. When we get to a certain level of expertise, a consumer usually shakes their head in blind acceptance without thorough understanding. I know I do this headshaking myself with experts advsing me in other subjects where they just know a lot more about it than I do. I do the same with my wife who often knows a whole lot more about a subject than I want to know. I agree out of blind faith, not based on my own level of knowledge. Whenever I can avoid going too far with technical advice, I try to keep it simple yet accurate.

Unless a marquise is very short or most unusually cut, a 56% depth leads to less light return than one of similar overall proportions with a 62% depth. I think I am going out on a limb with even this statement, because someone, somewhere has a single diamond which might disprove this assertion. As a generality, I would strongly believe I am correct.

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 11:37:53 AM
Author: oldminer
8 fold, 4 fold, the decision about what suits a given individual is a personal choice I won''t make for them. If you like the 4 fold variety they may also find it better, too. Without knowing that level of detail we just can''t suggest more than looking at this diamond and making their own decision. Getter more technical with consumers isn''t going to give them a better tool for deciding, I''m afraid. They may not know how to even see what you are describing. As an expert, you probably have a valid point, but we are speaking in generalities, not knowing a lot more about how this one diamond is cut.

Dave..., I (personally)wrote enough on the subject of 4-8 fold pavilion facet structure in the "many" Cushion threads on PS.
If someone is willing to invest time in reading..., this someone will get answers explaining exactly the difference between 4-8 folds!
Some of the threads (which you are involved) here on PS are MUCH/MUCH more technically sophisticated than this!

I always try to separate advising people from potentially confusing them. When we get to a certain level of expertise, a consumer usually shakes their head in blind acceptance without thorough understanding. I know I do this headshaking myself with experts advsing me in other subjects where they just know a lot more about it than I do. I do the same with my wife who often knows a whole lot more about a subject than I want to know. I agree out of blind faith, not based on my own level of knowledge. Whenever I can avoid going too far with technical advice, I try to keep it simple yet accurate.

Unless a marquise is very short or most unusually cut, a 56% depth leads to less light return than one of similar overall proportions with a 62% depth. I think I am going out on a limb with even this statement, because someone, somewhere has a single diamond which might disprove this assertion. As a generality, I would strongly believe I am correct.

Allow me to strongly disagree!!!

I purchase Marquise shaped Diamonds day in and day out! I always prefer the spready/shallow types that possess the 4 fold pavilion..., many times I would recut them to 8 fold facet structures (depending on my clients needs)..., but I always find a good proportioned shallow Marquise very bright and full of life!

You are right..., there is no way we can call this specific one mentioned in this thread without seeing it first..., but would strongly suggest not to drop it based on its shallow numbers!

 

[oldminer]

The fact that you buy them has a lot of merit in showing what YOUR preferences are.

If you have a few photos which demonstrate what you see as the benefits of the faceting arrangement you suggest as beneficial to shallower depths I believe this wou;ld be truly a learning experience. I appreciate your input....!!!! Everyone here should be open to new knowledge. Me too.

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 1:21:51 PM
Author: oldminer
The fact that you buy them has a lot of merit in showing what YOUR preferences are. It also might be seen as a bias that you have.

If you have a few photos which demionstrate what you see as the benefits of the faceting arrangement you suggest as beneficial to shallower depths I believe this wou;ld be truly a learning experience. I appreciate your input....!!!!

Imagine this: (but this will be hard for a lay person to envision)

If you have the depth..., you have no problem inserting four main pavilion facets (or two in a six fold) facets in the left and right "curve" area of the Marquise shape. (Some cutters iD this as the ''belly'' area)

If you are in the shallow depth design..., you can eliminate the main curve (belly) facets..., and use as base a four fold main facet structure stretching from wing to wing diagonally..., splitting the "rather shallow" curve (belly) facets into numerous facets (usually four splits acting as a type of brillianteering).

I hope you can understand this...

 

[oldminer]

Here is a wire diagram of what I think is an "8" style of marquise pavilion.

Can you draw what the 4 style looks like for us?

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 1:21:51 PM
Author: oldminer
The fact that you buy them has a lot of merit in showing what YOUR preferences are.

Not mine..., but my numerous clients!!!

If you have a few photos which demonstrate what you see as the benefits of the faceting arrangement you suggest as beneficial to shallower depths I believe this wou;ld be truly a learning experience. I appreciate your input....!!!! Everyone here should be open to new knowledge. Me too.

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 2:07:41 PM
Author: oldminer
Here is a wire diagram of what I think is an ''8'' style of marquise pavilion.

Can you draw what the 4 style looks like for us?

I cant find a sketch with the 4 fold..., I am sure you or someone else can help finding and posting one...

Thanks in advance if you can,

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 2:07:41 PM
Author: oldminer
Here is a wire diagram of what I think is an ''8'' style of marquise pavilion.

Can you draw what the 4 style looks like for us?

Hi David...,

Here ya go..., it''s a bad image..., but maybe you understand me now and you could post a better one!

Thanks,

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 2:07:41 PM
Author: oldminer
Here is a wire diagram of what I think is an '8' style of marquise pavilion.

Can you draw what the 4 style looks like for us?

Plus a short explanation

BTW..., this example also avoids the unwanted butterfly effect!!!

 

[oldminer]

Not the greatest symmetry, but my artistic ability is limited.

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 5:16:18 PM
Author: oldminer
Not the greatest symmetry, but my artistic ability is limited.

Thanks David, I fixed it up a bit..., and added a split (into 4) on the two curve facets.
Now..., do you see the common sense in using this type of pavilion (in harmony with the correct CA combination) on shallower depth Marquises?
In this structure you avoid the watery appearance you mentioned + eliminating the butterfly effect most people dislike!!!

And get a great looking Diamond which is super bright and full of fire/life...

I will try to post some face-up appearance photo''s tomorrow from my office.

 

[diagem]

Here you go..., another try

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/26/2007 5:32:52 PM
Author: DiaGem
Here you go..., another try

not that it really applies here but iv seen a zircon cut with that pavilion pattern and it really does wake up the center area with a chipped ice look and tons of sparkle.

 

[diagem]

Here is another version which exist!
A six type division in the curve facets...

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 5:30:43 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 12/26/2007 5:16:18 PM
Author: oldminer
Not the greatest symmetry, but my artistic ability is limited.

Thanks David, I fixed it up a bit..., and added a split (into 4) on the two curve facets.
Now..., do you see the common sense in using this type of pavilion (in harmony with the correct CA combination) on shallower depth Marquises?
In this structure you avoid the watery appearance you mentioned + eliminating the butterfly effect most people dislike!!!

And get a great looking Diamond which is super bright and full of fire/life...

I will try to post some face-up appearance photo''s tomorrow from my office.

I am going to try to post some images for comparisons:

A face up image of a (4 fold) 1.09 carat GIA F-VVS1 10.31x5.69x3.40mm. > 59.75% TD.

 

[diagem]

Same stone in the tilt position:

 

[diagem]

Now two stone for comparisons:

The 4 fold 1.09 carat (on the right) vs. the 8 fold (on the left).

The 8 fold is a 1.09 carat GIA D-VS1 10.37x5.50x3.35mm. >60.90% total depth.

 

[oldminer]

I understand the four fold and , to a lesser extent, the 6 fold, allows the limited depth to be spread down toward the pointed ends more than the design of the 8 fold which flattens the stone more along its long axis. I''m not at all sure the photos of the stones show the improvement of cutting in this way, but no one is going to say the sample diamonds look bad. They really are lovely shapes.

I hope people are gaining an appreciation of the craftsmanship involved with cutting diamonds. There is a lot more to it than just going for some standard cut which is "ideal" in fancy shapes.

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/27/2007 7:15:01 AM
Author: oldminer
I understand the four fold and , to a lesser extent, the 6 fold, allows the limited depth to be spread down toward the pointed ends more than the design of the 8 fold which flattens the stone more along its long axis. I''m not at all sure the photos of the stones show the improvement of cutting in this way, but no one is going to say the sample diamonds look bad. They really are lovely shapes.

I hope people are gaining an appreciation of the craftsmanship involved with cutting diamonds. There is a lot more to it than just going for some standard cut which is ''ideal'' in fancy shapes.

Exactly..., thats why a shallow MQ can still be cut to super face appearance...

 

[diagem]

Date: 12/26/2007 5:48:30 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/26/2007 5:32:52 PM
Author: DiaGem
Here you go..., another try

not that it really applies here but iv seen a zircon cut with that pavilion pattern and it really does wake up the center area with a chipped ice look and tons of sparkle.

Then imagine what it would look like on the real McCoy..., Diamonds.

 

[diagem]

Here is an example of a 57% total depth Marquise 4 fold:
Not the best images..., but you can clearly notice it is still a lively Diamond.