Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

New batch of Princess Cuts from JA

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

AronDizzle

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
13
Greetings,

Yesterday I posted 3 different stones from JA that I was looking at. After talking to a close friend who used to work at a B&M, he advised me to drop the clarity a tad and look for something with a better color. I think that these stones do impress me more than the other 3 I was looking at, and i''m hoping to get some of your feedback on them. If you could just help me narrow the list down, I would greatly appreciate it!

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1199069

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1199068

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1208890

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1130934

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1199070

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1190280

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1196350

http://www.jamesallen.com/find-item/?sku=119069

THANKS!!!!

By the way, this is the setting i''m leaning towards...

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/pave-set-ring-White-Gold-4-Prong-2.6mm.html
 

JasonFaber

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
74
Without looking at them with an Aset scope, I would choose #6

-The depth is 72-75%
-The table is 70-65%
-It is probably more eye clean then the rest
-The Girdle is the most consistant...strait Medium all the way threw
-The Symmetry is Excellent
-The Polish is Very Good or better
-It is just as good or better then G color

Idealy I have noticed the best results when;

Depth: 72-75%
Table: 69-64%
Girdle: strait all the way threw
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Color: G or better
Clarity: Anything below VS1 must be inspected by the purchaser
Ration: 1.06 - 1.00
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
I like the first and the third best - not keen on any of the others. Many SI clarities are eyeclean, just ask JA to check for you.
 

AronDizzle

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
13
Thanks! Would you please let me know what your 3rd & 4th choice would be? I''m going to request a new set of idealscopes
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
Date: 3/20/2009 2:26:57 PM
Author: AronDizzle
Thanks! Would you please let me know what your 3rd & 4th choice would be? I'm going to request a new set of idealscopes
Sure, I will take a look for you.

Had another look, I would say 4 and 5 but I much prefer the first two I mentioned from the info we have.
 

JasonFaber

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
74
Date: 3/20/2009 2:26:57 PM
Author: AronDizzle
Thanks! Would you please let me know what your 3rd & 4th choice would be? I'm going to request a new set of idealscopes
Aset-scope would be much better for fancy cut (Princess) pictures then idealscope pictures.




Aset pictures show so much more, you can see the direct light(red), reflective light(green), and bleed threw(white light), and how much your head is blocking(blue). Unlike round diamonds, fancy shapes do have more reflective light then direct light which the ideal-scope cannot pick up. Obviously the more red the better though........





EXAMPLE

Specs;

Carat Weight: 0.91
Measurments: 5.31x5.22x3.84
Color: H
Clarity: VVS2
Depth: 73.6%
Table: 69%
Girdle: Thick
Price: $3300
 

AronDizzle

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
13
I know...you posted the same thing on my previous thread lol :) However, James Allen will not provide ASET''s, so just based everything else, which of the 7 do you like (top 3 maybe)?

Thanks again,

Aaron
 

JasonFaber

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
74
Diamond #1: table is a bit too wide but not too bad otherwise

Diamond #2: Table is a bit too wide
Girdle has too much of a variance @ 4 steps (Medium, Slightly thick, thick, Very thick)

Diamond #3: Depth is a bit too shallow
Clarity might be a problem

Diamond #4: Looks fine on paper

Diamond #5: Depth is a bit too shallow

Diamond #6: Looks good on paper

Diamond #7: Looks fine on paper


If I were to pick out 3 of them, they would be #4, #6, and #7, just make sure #4 and #7 are eye clean.
 

JasonFaber

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
74
Date: 3/20/2009 3:34:59 PM
Author: Lorelei
Jason, concerning depth in Princess cuts you might be interested to read this article by expert Paul Slegers concerning the matter of depth in these shapes.

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/21/1/The-matter-of-depth-in-a-princess-cut.aspx
I have already read that, as well as many others. The basics are; light enters the "crown angle" and gets reflected from the "Pavilion angle", so both angles are detramental to light return, and you cannot use the same calculations as a round diamond, nor can you determine the exact light return based on #s alone for fancy cuts. But, the general rule always applies; the more surface area of the crown angle the more potential light return. At a table of 69-65% (which has plenty of surface area in the crown angle and is an ideal %), you need a 71-76% Pavilion angle for good light return. My conclusions are merly based upon Aset pictures and what % angles they have though. But I think Aset pictures can tell you a lot about the briliance/fire of the diamond.
 

Paul-Antwerp

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,852
I am sorry, Jason, but I cannot understand how you deducted your theory from my articles.

And I do not think that your theory concurs with my articles, either.

Reality is that without ASET, one cannot give good advice on a fancy shape. Unless the basics are already far off, of course. Getting ASET-pics is not so easy, but also not impossible. And if one does not succeed in taking the pics, one can still get the virtual ASET through Diamcalc from the Sarin-measurement.

Live long,
 

JasonFaber

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
74
Date: 3/21/2009 9:02:38 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I am sorry, Jason, but I cannot understand how you deducted your theory from my articles.

And I do not think that your theory concurs with my articles, either.

Reality is that without ASET, one cannot give good advice on a fancy shape. Unless the basics are already far off, of course. Getting ASET-pics is not so easy, but also not impossible. And if one does not succeed in taking the pics, one can still get the virtual ASET through Diamcalc from the Sarin-measurement.

Live long,
Your article states that one of the main problems with princess cuts is that cutters "do as they will" with Pavilion 1, which in turn, effects the diamond greatly. I have noticed this as well from looking at many Princess diamonds (most big retail stores know me by heart now). What I have concluded by looking them was that about 80% of the Princess cut diamonds, that looked great under the Aset scope, fell under the range that I specified. I am sure some of that was just luck, but it did give me a good idea what to look for when I bought mine, and I was really happy with my purchase. Your articles have also helped me out quite a bit as to what to look out for as well. Not sure if you have seen how bad some cuts can really be (Pavilion 1 can look like wings they stick out so far), but your are definitely correct in your article.

Btw, I also loved your articles on AGS grading/cuts for princess diamonds. Unfortunately, AGS certified diamonds are too expensive for my budget.
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
Date: 3/22/2009 1:54:31 AM
Author: JasonFaber

Date: 3/21/2009 9:02:38 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I am sorry, Jason, but I cannot understand how you deducted your theory from my articles.

And I do not think that your theory concurs with my articles, either.

Reality is that without ASET, one cannot give good advice on a fancy shape. Unless the basics are already far off, of course. Getting ASET-pics is not so easy, but also not impossible. And if one does not succeed in taking the pics, one can still get the virtual ASET through Diamcalc from the Sarin-measurement.

Live long,
Your article states that one of the main problems with princess cuts is that cutters ''do as they will'' with Pavilion 1, which in turn, effects the diamond greatly. I have noticed this as well from looking at many Princess diamonds (most big retail stores know me by heart now). What I have concluded by looking them was that about 80% of the Princess cut diamonds, that looked great under the Aset scope, fell under the range that I specified. I am sure some of that was just luck, but it did give me a good idea what to look for when I bought mine, and I was really happy with my purchase. Your articles have also helped me out quite a bit as to what to look out for as well. Not sure if you have seen how bad some cuts can really be (Pavilion 1 can look like wings they stick out so far), but your are definitely correct in your article.

Btw, I also loved your articles on AGS grading/cuts for princess diamonds. Unfortunately, AGS certified diamonds are too expensive for my budget.
Paul is an renowned expert with unique experience both with diamonds in general and cutting, as he is based in Antwerp and has been a well known and highly respected part of the diamond industry there for many years, you can bet he has probably seen all types of diamonds and cut qualities.....
 

JulieN

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
13,324
Date: 3/20/2009 3:58:47 PM
Author: JasonFaber
Date: 3/20/2009 3:34:59 PM

Author: Lorelei

Jason, concerning depth in Princess cuts you might be interested to read this article by expert Paul Slegers concerning the matter of depth in these shapes.


http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/21/1/The-matter-of-depth-in-a-princess-cut.aspx

I have already read that, as well as many others. The basics are; light enters the ''crown angle'' and gets reflected from the ''Pavilion angle'', so both angles are detramental to light return, and you cannot use the same calculations as a round diamond, nor can you determine the exact light return based on #s alone for fancy cuts. But, the general rule always applies; the more surface area of the crown angle the more potential light return. At a table of 69-65% (which has plenty of surface area in the crown angle and is an ideal %), you need a 71-76% Pavilion angle for good light return. My conclusions are merly based upon Aset pictures and what % angles they have though. But I think Aset pictures can tell you a lot about the briliance/fire of the diamond.
umm, what?
 

JulieN

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
13,324
I like the 1.08 E the best, this one: http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=1199070
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Princess cuts can not be defined by a few numbers.
The problem with trying to do so starts with that the princess cut is not one cut but a family of cuts each with its own rules.
The common sub-categories are 2 3 and 4 chevron cuts each of which has its own set of facet interactions and rules.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/princess-cuts-2-3-4-chevron-huh.106747/

Since the p1 angles was mentioned I will discus it.
A p1 angle that is a total disaster in a 2 chevron cut may be the perfect angle for a 4 chevron cut and the reverse may be true.

Images are the only reliable way to grade princess cuts and ASET is the better of the common scopes to do so.
An IS can get you close, you can judge leakage and patterns but the light return potential is not shown with enough accuracy to make a real decision other than pass/fail.
In other words it can be used to weed out the worst but not to judge the best.

Anyone that tells you they can sort princess cuts based on basic numbers hasn''t been paying attention.
This does bring up a problem with viewing live diamonds and that is the limited basis of comparison.
If the best diamonds you view are cut a certain way you might wrongly conclude that is the best way to cut them when in truth there is another way that is as good or better, you just haven''t seen it.
That is why I feel that diamond research is best carried out using virtual diamonds then confirmed with real diamonds.
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
Date: 3/22/2009 6:08:14 AM
Author: strmrdr
Princess cuts can not be defined by a few numbers.
The problem with trying to do so starts with that the princess cut is not one cut but a family of cuts each with its own rules.
The common sub-categories are 2 3 and 4 chevron cuts each of which has its own set of facet interactions and rules.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/princess-cuts-2-3-4-chevron-huh.106747/

Since the p1 angles was mentioned I will discus it.
A p1 angle that is a total disaster in a 2 chevron cut may be the perfect angle for a 4 chevron cut and the reverse may be true.

Images are the only reliable way to grade princess cuts and ASET is the better of the common scopes to do so.
An IS can get you close, you can judge leakage and patterns but the light return potential is not shown with enough accuracy to make a real decision other than pass/fail.
In other words it can be used to weed out the worst but not to judge the best.

Anyone that tells you they can sort princess cuts based on basic numbers hasn''t been paying attention.
This does bring up a problem with viewing live diamonds and that is the limited basis of comparison.
If the best diamonds you view are cut a certain way you might wrongly conclude that is the best way to cut them when in truth there is another way that is as good or better, you just haven''t seen it.
That is why I feel that diamond research is best carried out using virtual diamonds then confirmed with real diamonds.
Well said.
 

JasonFaber

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
74
Date: 3/22/2009 6:08:14 AM
Author: strmrdr
Princess cuts can not be defined by a few numbers.
The problem with trying to do so starts with that the princess cut is not one cut but a family of cuts each with its own rules.
The common sub-categories are 2 3 and 4 chevron cuts each of which has its own set of facet interactions and rules.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/princess-cuts-2-3-4-chevron-huh.106747/

Since the p1 angles was mentioned I will discus it.
A p1 angle that is a total disaster in a 2 chevron cut may be the perfect angle for a 4 chevron cut and the reverse may be true.

Images are the only reliable way to grade princess cuts and ASET is the better of the common scopes to do so.
An IS can get you close, you can judge leakage and patterns but the light return potential is not shown with enough accuracy to make a real decision other than pass/fail.
In other words it can be used to weed out the worst but not to judge the best.

Anyone that tells you they can sort princess cuts based on basic numbers hasn''t been paying attention.
This does bring up a problem with viewing live diamonds and that is the limited basis of comparison.
If the best diamonds you view are cut a certain way you might wrongly conclude that is the best way to cut them when in truth there is another way that is as good or better, you just haven''t seen it.
That is why I feel that diamond research is best carried out using virtual diamonds then confirmed with real diamonds.



Another words what you are saying is that there is no possible way to judge the diamonds unless you take a look at it first hand with an Aset scope (or a virtual image), right?

Well, the only possible way for him to do this with these diamonds is if he somehow convinces James Allen to take Aset images for him or buys an Aset scope himself (which I did) and keeps buying and returning the diamonds until he finds the perfect one, or one that he is at least satisfied with.....It is possible;

Extended Returns
We care about your satisfaction and stand behind every item we sell. If you are not 100% satisfied with your purchase, you may return it to our offices within 30 days of the shipment date for a full refund or exchange.


It all depends on how far one is willing to go.......Just make sure you don''t go craaaazy in the process

 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
JA do not offer ASET regrettably but they do supply IS and photos which we are used to working with if ASET isn''t available, although we much prefer ASET for fancy shapes. As Storm says there really isn''t a way to judge these shapes by numbers as there are just too many variables to do so and we are missing too much info to even make an educated guess without images.
 

Paul-Antwerp

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,852
What one can do with numbers is the following:

- Reject the ones with a very thick girdle, because of weight hiding where you do not want it.
- Limit yourself to square stones, since it is much more difficult to direct light correctly if the stone is not square (depends upon your comfort-level, of course, and it is more a matter of risk-reduction, and not of correct selection).
- Reject all with VG polish or symmetry, since none of them could be seriously called ideal. Again debatable, but it is a manner of selection.
- Reject the ones with a too big table (say 80% or more). Depending upon your comfort-level, you might want to reduce this table-size-level.

This already reduces your list above.

Then, go to level 2.

Live long,
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top