My First Diamond. Can somebody please help?

[boopfm523]

I''ve attached a screenshot of the diamond report. Does anything standout as being "not-good". I''m a little hesitant to purchase it without somebody''s advice. I have no experience (other than what I''ve read) on purchasing a diamond. I just want to make sure I don''t get swindled on my first purchase. The asking price is 5,500 (with taxes) give or take a few bucks. Any help would be great.

thanks all
jeff

 

[aljdewey]

It looks beautiful from the numbers........!

 

[Stephan]

... but the Sarin seems to be a little out of round.

 

[hoorray]

and the sarin shows an extremely thin (0.0) girdle. That could be prone to chipping. Have you seent his stone? If so, examine the girdle through a loop and get your jeweler's opinion.

 

[elmo]

Look at the GIA report - if you believe the GIA, the stone is not out of round and no part of the girdle is extremely thin. So assuming you like the way the stone looks, the question is basically whether the Sarin or the GIA report is closer to reality. The advice to evaluate the stone along with a trusted jeweler is good. The Sarin gives you some hints about what to look for e.g. was some small part of the stone repolished after the report was issued. Otherwise I'd question the accuracy of that Sarin and want one run on a different machine.

Adding: as to your original question about something standing out as "not good"...I personally don't like any stone that is exactly at the weight category like this one is e.g. 1.00 1.50 2.00 etc. Should the stone ever need minor repolishing at some point in the future, there is an increased chance that it will end up below the magic weight and be worth significantly less afterwards. This is not a deal breaker just something to consider.

 

[boopfm523]

thanks for the responses. unfort I haven't seen the stone. it is with an online dealer (with a 30 day return policy). if unhappy with it i can always return it. i do need to find out what exactly sarin is before I comment on that. obviously i still have a lot of learning to do. I did find a similiar stone, for about $150 less. Some details below. As far as mounting, would a thick girdle cause possible problems too? also, I guess it is a "mental" thing, but I don't want to go below the 1.00 in weight.

Carat weight: 1.01
Cut: Ideal
Color: H
Clarity: VS2

Depth %: 61.8%
Table %: 56%
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Slightly thick, faceted
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.43x6.45x3.98 mm


Thank you all for all your help.

 

[hoorray]

A thick girdle will simply hide some of the weight making the diamond look smaller for it's carat weight. If you notice the measurements of the two stones, #1 is around .1mm bigger in diameter, which is what you see. Ctw is a weight, not dimension. If you can find one, you will get a price break at just under 1ct and may not have to give up much if any visible dimensions. Many 1ct stones that are not well cut do not measure the 6.5mm that they should. Many of the non-fine jewelery stores call stones from .95 to 1.05 "1ct".




I'd give up the mental thing of 1ct and go for dimension, value, and beauty!

 

[aljdewey]

While I disagree with Stephan on the out-of-round comment (it's only a .08 variance, not typically considered to be out-of-round), I do agree with the cautionary statements and concerns on the extremely thin girdle. Yikes, I missed that on the Sarin label.




Given that there seems such a discrepancy between the GIA certificate and the Sarin, I'd see if you can re-run the Sarin on this.




Regarding your comment "also, I guess it is a 'mental' thing, but I don't want to go below the 1.00 in weight.".......it IS a mental thing, and one you should consider heavily. For example, the 1.01 stone you listed.....do you see the diameter on this? A well-cut 1-ct should measure about 6.5mm.....the second stone, the 1.01 you listed, is 6.43-6.45.




How does you mental "I must have a 1 carat" become satisfied if the stone isn't a BIG as a one carat should be? Carat is a WEIGHT, not a size. Focus on the diameter.

 

[boopfm523]

thanks for all the answers. but if this continues i may never buy a diamond, or i may pay 20 G's for one.

 

[hoorray]

Just a quick browse found http://http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=6908666 and a few others in your category in their signature series. Goodoldgold seemed to have several in your size/price range also. (I don't have time to link them all) I think you can find a spectacular stone with your current budget. Check a few places out. I think you'll find a few good choices without having to spend 20G!

 

[elmo]

Not sure this is clear but 'slightly thick' is absolutely not the same thing as 'thick'. Slightly thick is still within the allowed range for AGS ideal, and is no big deal, especially if only parts are slightly thick or if it's 2% instead of just under 3%.

At H-VS 1 carat you'll have about a million and one stones to choose from, it is a very widely available size/color/clarity combination. Don't worry about availability

. And don't let folks tell you that you want 0.90 SI if well-cut 1.0x VS makes you and your gf happy

.

 

[hoorray]

Elmo is right -- I missed the slightly thick on the report -- just read thick in your question. He is also right to get what you really want, not what we say. Our point is simply that if the 1ct size is important to you, make sure the stone looks 1ct w(i.e. 6.5mm.) There are many 1ctw stones that hide their weight in their girdles or depth and look smaller and some .95's that have 1ct+ spreads. Don't ignore the diameter.




The other important point about 1ct vs .95 is tht price/carat goes up at the magic 1ct size, so there can be better values in the .95ctw. As long as you are aware of these tradeoffs and things to look for, you can make you own, fully informed decision on what is right for you.




good luck!

 

[boopfm523]

so are these far assumptions?

a diamond with a diameter over 6.5 can appear larger, but could cause the girdle to be thin, which can cause chipping problems.
a diamond with a diameter in the 6.45 range can appear smaller, but could have less mounting problems (or chipping)?

Lastly, here are a couple more for comparison. I like the first the most.

Diamond 1
Carat weight: 1.05
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth %: 61.1%
Table %: 57%
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.54x6.58x4.01 mm

Diamond 2
Carat weight: 1.06
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth %: 62.0%
Table %: 56%
Symmetry: Very good
Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick, faceted
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.51x6.55x4.05 mm

Diamond 3
Carat weight: 1.04
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth %: 62.1%
Table %: 57%
Symmetry: Very good
Polish: Very good
Girdle: Thin to medium, faceted
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.52x6.59x4.07 mm

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 5/7/2004 7:08:42 AM boopfm523 wrote:

so are these far assumptions?

a diamond with a diameter over 6.5 can appear larger, but could cause the girdle to be thin, which can cause chipping problems.
a diamond with a diameter in the 6.45 range can appear smaller, but could have less mounting problems (or chipping)?

Lastly, here are a couple more for comparison. I like the first the most.

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

I like the first one best also. The mm size of a stone is influenced by girdle size & depth of the stone. With a thicker girdle you will get more protection around the stone. Very thin is less protection; however, thick girdle is overkill. That's why people seem to like a "happy" "medium". Stones with greater depths can be beautiful; but, often comes with the result of the "face up" size being smaller.

So, for a 1c, shooting for a mm diameter of about or close to 6.5 is a goal.

I can understand the mental aspects of the benchmark 1 carat mark. But, please note that you will be charged a bit of a premium. Also, since this is the benchmark size, the cutters will do many "tricks" to get that benchmark out of the rough.

Good luck.

 

[boopfm523]

'Also, since this is the benchmark size, the cutters will do many "tricks" to get that benchmark out of the rough.'

Hopefully with a carat size of 1.05, that is not the case.