Newbie advice - this stone any good ?

[pearcey555]

Hi Guys,

Been lurking for a few days and must say this site has been a great help... saying that the more you read the more there is to know if you know what I mean

. I have dug around and found the following diamond for the engagement ring i want to buy my GF which fits the budget nicely. My newbie knowledge leads me to think this is pretty good but if someone could give some more expert advise it''d be much appreciated:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1087027.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Any suggestions and advice would be great

Thanks guys
Pearcey

 

[Lynn B]

I LIKE it! Awesome (and HARD-TO-FIND) size, too!
I say, "Good work!"

 

[Ellen]

It looks good. It''s facing up more like a 1.33, but those aren''t all that common either.

 

[pearcey555]

Lynn/Ellen - thanks for taking the time to reposnd

Ellen - sorry not sure what you mean about facing up like a 1.33, that mean that the dimensions are a bit off (sorry if this is a dumb question)

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/22/2007 9:19:15 PM
Author: pearcey555
Lynn/Ellen - thanks for taking the time to reposnd

Ellen - sorry not sure what you mean about facing up like a 1.33, that mean that the dimensions are a bit off (sorry if this is a dumb question)

No dumb questions.

The stone is a bit deep, not horrible, but between that and the higher crown it's appearing as, or looking as big as a 1.33. We call it facing up, how big the top part of the stone looks.

However, like I said, you don't see a slew of 1.33's in well cut stones either. Usually it's to the low to mid .20's and then they jump in size to 1.50. So it's still a great size stone, moreless giving you the "look" of a 1.5, without the price jump. And that's a good thing. I have a 1.4, and wanted that size for that reason.

 

[SpeedracerII]

HCA gives it a 2.2. The web site says the stone is no longer available, did you buy it?

 

[pearcey555]

I have it reserved whilst trying arrange finances etc but wanted to ask for a 2nd opinion whilst I had the chance.

I know an HCA of 2.2 is not the greatest but at the same time is still pretty good - is there any real reason to aviod the stone, or do you think there are better stones out there for the money?

Cheers

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/23/2007 9:06:16 AM
Author: pearcey555
I have it reserved whilst trying arrange finances etc but wanted to ask for a 2nd opinion whilst I had the chance.

I know an HCA of 2.2 is not the greatest but at the same time is still pretty good - is there any real reason to aviod the stone, or do you think there are better stones out there for the money?

Cheers

2.2 isn''t really bad, there are beautiful stones that fall outside of 2.

And if you take the crown angle down to 35, it gets a 1.6 with 3 ex''s. The HCA prefers shallower numbers. I''d say it''s worth getting.

 

[dps777]

Hi Ellen- If I provide you with my stone''s dimensions, would you be able to let me know how my stone faces up? Thanks in advance.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/23/2007 10:03:19 AM
Author: dps777
Hi Ellen- If I provide you with my stone''s dimensions, would you be able to let me know how my stone faces up? Thanks in advance.

Hi dp,

I''ll do you one better than that. Here''s a chart that will tell you the diameters according to ct. weight. There can be small variances, but this will tell you basically what a stones diameter should be.

 

[dps777]

Thanks. You had mentioned that the stone discussed in this thread will face up and appear to look like a 1.33, but it will look as big as a 1.5. I am a bit confused. Here are my dimensions so if you could tell me how "large" my stone will appear to the average onlooker, that would be fantastic!!

Round Brilliant

Measurements: 7.16 - 7.19 x 4.46 mm

Carat Weight: 1.40

Color Grade: G

Clarity Grade: SI1

Cut Grade: Excellent

Proportions:

Depth: 62.2 %

Table: 55 %

Crown Angle: 36°

Crown Height: 16.5 %

Pavilion Angle: 40.6°

Pavilion Depth: 43 %

Star length: 50 %

Lower Half: 80 %

Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted

Culet: None

Finish:

Polish: Very Good

Symmetry: Excellent

Fluorescence: None

 

[Ellen]

dp, your stone has a diameter of 7.17. If you look on that chart under rounds for that number, (you won't find that exact one, they list in increments, not every single one), you'll find your stone is facing up somewhere a bit under a 1.33 ct.. So it is facing up a bit small also (my 1.4 is 7.25), because it is slightly deep, with a high crown angle.

 

[dps777]

Thanks, Ellen. You had mentioned that the stone highlighted in this thread will ultimately appear to look similar to a 1.5 since it''s well cut. ("So it''s still a great size stone, moreless giving you the "look" of a 1.5, without the price jump.") Is that the case or did I misunderstand?

 

[Ellen]

dp, yes, you understood me correctly. And you're welcome!

 

[dps777]

So...(and my apologies if my questions are sounded a bit redundant) my stone, though it faces up more like a 1.33, will ultimately give off the appearance of a 1.5??? (I don''t have the stone yet and thus all the questions.)

 

[Ellen]

Yes.

 

[dps777]

Why is that the case if it faces up more like a 1.33? Sorry I am confused.

(btw-last question---promise

)

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/23/2007 11:23:05 AM
Author: dps777
Why is that the case if it faces up more like a 1.33? Sorry I am confused.

(btw-last question---promise

)

lol It''s because, once you hit the 1 ct. mark, it takes a lot more ct. weight to see a difference in diameters (under 1 ct. it''s easier to see). So if you put your diameter stone next to a 1.5 with a 7.4 diameter, you might see the difference, but it would not be huge. They are close visually. Now take your stone away from the other, and it''s just going to look like a 1.5.

 

[dps777]

Thanks, Ellen. You are very helpful!

 

[Ellen]

You''re very welcome.