Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

My Princess Cut Search

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
R

rickyrudd

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
5
great site, been lurking for a while. any comments on the following 3 princess cut diamonds would be appreciated. this is all of the information i have.

Carat: 0.71
Cut: Very Good
Color: F
Clarity: VVS2
Depth %: 73.4
Table %: 68
Girdle: Thick
Cutlet: None
Fluorescence: None


Carat: 0.71
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Depth %: 68.0
Table %: 67.0
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick
Cutlet: None
Fluorescence: None
Crown Height: 9.4%

Carat: 0.71
Cut: Very Good
Color: F
Clarity: VS1
Depth %: 71.7
Table %: 66
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick
Cutlet: None
Fluorescence: None

thanks
 
1. "good" symmetry, thick girdle, and 1.04 l/w would put me off. I don't have a problem with good symmetry if I can see a picture first.

2. looks good, although 1.04 l/w I don't like too much. I think 1.0-1.02 is very square, 1.03 is borderline, and 1.04-1.05 at 10x magnified pictures, I can see it is a little off-square. However, that also means the off-squareness is magnified 10x. Take it for what it's worth, I guess. It will look square under normal viewing conditioinis.

3. Looks good by the numbers.

So either 2 or 3. $500 difference.
 
My pick: http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?__fun_frm=i&pid=LD00400200&filter_id=0#grading_report

it's a perfect square. has better finish. $239 cheaper. a color grade higher. AGS 0 light performance. and a tiny bit bigger.

So, Blue Nile Signature? Or AGS light performance?
19.gif
 
thanks julie. why would blue nile list that diamond as good cut instead of very good if it rates so high with AGS? the only problem i have with your recomendation is that i am looking for 3 stone settings and the side stones that are available for that diamond are about twice the price of the sidestones for 3 diamonds i was looking at. puts me about 1300 over budget on the ring. of course the overall carat goes up by .46 as well.
 
I think BN uses table and depth to determine cut classes for fancies? I'm not sure. It's probably similar to the AGA table and depth designations for cut grades. But AGS numbers can sometimes vary wildly from the traditional princess cut numbers.

Also, at 5.09mm and 0.86 cts, it has the spread of a .75 ct stone, but you'll generally find that there is a price adjustment for spread. It is cheaper than the .71 BN Signature, which is 4.99 mm. The difference of .1 mm, to me, does not warrant a whole new set of sidestones. Just stick with the ring and sidestones that you've already picked out.

Do you have a link to the setting? or is it a custom job? princess sidestones? I'd probably go for about .2-.25 on each side.
 
so you''d prefer to a diamond with good AGS numbers even if it is outside the traditional princess numbers like the AGA table? i tried keeping the same sidestones and it doesnt let me. but there is a number to call which i assume means i can talk them into it. the side stones i was looking at are as follows do you see any problem with matching them up with your diamond?

Carat: 0.31
Cut: Very Good
Color: E
Clarity: VS1
Depth %: 74.9
Table %: 77.0
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Good
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick
Cutlet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 3.65 x 3.55 x 2.66

Carat: 0.31
Cut: Very Good
Color: E
Clarity: VS1
Depth %: 74.5
Table %: 76.0
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Girdle: Medium to Thick
Cutlet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 3.67 x 3.61 x 2.69
 
so you''d prefer to a diamond with good AGS numbers even if it is outside the traditional princess numbers like the AGA table?

Stones 2 and 3 are both AGA 1A. I don''t prefer AGS or traditional if I could see an Ideal Scope or an ASET. However, when doing what you''re doing (sometimes snidely referred to as "buying paper,") I personally prefer the reassurance of the AGS cut grading system.

There is a "design your own ring" thingy here: http://www.adiamondisforever.com/dyoer/index.html and you can pick the size of your center and your sidestones. (Do the design your engagement ring, not the 3-stone option)

For cutting costs in the sidestone department, you certainly don''t need E VS1 stones with lab reports? Ok, I think I see your dilemma. Are you doing the "build your own three-stone ring" on BN?
 
yes i was doing the build your own ring and it limits the selection of sidestones based on the center stone.
 
so you gave up racing for diamonds?
20.gif
9.gif


fwiw, i like julie''s pick too. i would feel much more comfortable buying ags0 site unseen.

best of luck!

35.gif

 
yes, i hung up my racing boots to pursue my love of diamonds
9.gif
. thanks for the input belle. after reading a few more posts about the princess cut i also feel more comfortable with julie''s pick rather than the three i posted.
 
Date: 8/26/2006 9:55:46 PM
Author: rickyrudd
yes, i hung up my racing boots to pursue my love of diamonds
9.gif
. thanks for the input belle. after reading a few more posts about the princess cut i also feel more comfortable with julie''s pick rather than the three i posted.
Click to expand...
iron man to diamond man.... hehehehe...i like that.
2.gif


i''m glad you feel more comfortable with the ags stone now. since they (ags) started grading princess cuts as ''ideal'', finding really nice diamonds has become much easier.

you will be really happy with that diamond.
28.gif
let us know how the setting works out.

who''s gonna win the chase this year?
 
or maybe this one http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00373632 with http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00371381 (which I've posted above.) Not really enough info, it's sort of a shot in the dark... also I would try to match the number of chevrons on the sidestones. The center is a 3 chevron, so I guess you could go either 2, 3, or 4 chevrons on the sidestones, so any combination is ok, except for one sidestone 2, the center 3, and the other sidestone 4.

Maybe you'll be lucky and all 3 are in the same building and they can do a visual inpection to see which one matches best with the 74.4 depth, 72 table stone... I don't really know how BN works, but maybe you can ask them to send all 3 little stones and the center to the setter and he can pick the sidestones??
 
JulieN,

Appreciated your other current post, pointing to a thread critical of using numbers to evaluate Princesses. But based on it...


Date: 8/26/2006 3:08:26 PM
Author: JulieN

3. Looks good by the numbers.
Click to expand...
...I wonder why even #3 looked good to you.
 
Date: 8/27/2006 11:32:02 AM
Author: JulieN
Because I looked up the report.

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?pid=LD00377119
Click to expand...
Sorry, not wanting to belabor the query, but giving words to the
emthup.gif
was what I was looking for, though every little bit helps. I do see, for example, at the link, the diamond was sent to AGS, but it was given the DQR, and not evaluated for light performance. So, how does the report explain?
 
The DQR is March 2005. The new DQD didn't come out until May.

It's an AGA 1A. I think that it is reasonable to say it looks good by the numbers. Crown height is good, pavilion angle is good. Girdle is good. VG on symmetry, I like. Very square. All around seem to be a good stone.
 
Date: 8/27/2006 3:17:11 PM
Author: JulieN
The DQR is March 2005. The new DQD didn''t come out until May.

It''s an AGA 1A. I think that it is reasonable to say it looks good by the numbers.
Click to expand...
Well...we''re starting to go in circles here. Whether or not this was a practice one (for the upcoming AGS0, which this is not necessarily)...is of course on point. Maybe it could be known if it is shipped to RockDoc, but there may go the associated savings, depending.

My point is the same as what has become Dave''s (creator of AGA 1A), Paul the cutter, and...ummm...yours...that the numbers do not yield sufficient information about performance.

Oui?
 
I typed up stuff, and then I read it, and yes, we are going in circles.

#3 looks good by the numbers (available.) True statement?
Numbers (currently provided by major lab reports) do not yield sufficient information about performance. And if they were provided, they'd be mumbo jumbo to most people, anyway. True statements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top