Opinion on price

[charvett]

I''m purchasing a diamond from an individual who is parting with it from a divorce. I''m paying $7000 which I think is a fair price. Here''s the GIA certificate specs:

Shape: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 7.42 - 7.57 X 4.69
Weight: 1.61 Carats
Depth: 62.6%
Table: 64%
Girdle: Thin to slightly thick, faceted
Culet: None
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Calrity: VVS2
Color: H
Fluorescence: None
Comments: None

What do you guys think?

Thanks,
Tom

 

[EdSkinner]

price seems fair, just make sure it is the same stone.

 

[fire&ice]

From the numbers you have supplied, the make/cut of this stone is not real good. It's a tad out of round. The girdle swings from thin to thick. The mm measurements are small for this size. And, the table is very large.

The price seems good; but, I may look at your options. VVS clarity is somewhat overkill as clarity (within reason) has the least impact on the beauty of a stone. Whereas the cut has an amazing impact on beauty.

 

[charvett]

Thanks for the feedback. Anyone else have any thoughts on the stone? I've all but sent the money, and would feel better with some expert advice. Thanks!

 

[charvett]

Anyone else have any advice? Thanks for your help, as this is my first diamond purchase.

 

[Magnum]

I heitate, because it sounds like you're pretty set on the stone, and I wouldn't want to make you regret something you already purchased. And ultimately what matters most is that you're happy with the stone, and not what anyone else thinks.

However, since you asked for advice and it sounds like the deal isn't final yet, I'll throw in my 2 cents and give you my honest opinion. I would not purchase this stone. I agree that $7000 is a fair price, but you're paying for clarity that you can't see, at the expense of cut, which will be very apparent. In a diamond, obviously size is important, but so is the light return (brilliance, fire and scintillation) which is determined by the cut, as well as the color (how white it is) and the clarity (how visible are the imperfections) which surprisingly are also influenced by cut. I did some quick research at a few different sights and found this stone in your price range (around $7800 w/ PS discount). It's a 1.53 I SI1 ideal cut stone from Whiteflash in their Expert Selection. It has the exact same average diameter as your stone. It's I color, which while technically 1 grade worse, will face up as white if not whiter than your stone, which is due to the fact that the excellent light return makes the stone appear much whiter than one with poor light return, and in this case the stone has medium blue flourescence which also makes the stone appear whiter in certain lighting. It's SI1 clarity, which will most likely be just as eye-clean as your stone, and again the excellent light return makes it even harder to see any small imperfecctions that may exist. So, assuming this stone is eye-clean, it will appear wirtually the same to the naked eye as the other stone. And finally, the cut of this stone is much better than the one you listed, which is where you'll see the big difference in all the flashes of light that emanate from the stone. As my fiancee likes to say "Big and sparkly."

Now, it is possible that the stone you listed has better light return than the numbers would suggest. Since you're the one looking at it, only your eyes can determine that. But from the numbers you posted, a depth percentage of 62.6 with a 64% table suggests a steep cut stone which will leak a lot of light out of the bottom of the stone and appear somewhat dark and not as "sparkly." My advice is to find the largest stone in your price range that has an excellent cut (excellent light return) and the lowest color that faces-up white and the lowest clarity that is still eye-clean, so that you don't spend extra money on color and clarity that you can't even see. Good luck in whatever you decide, and I hope my comments have been a help.

 

[Icicles]

I saw this ring on Ebay... wasn't the seller's asking price $6000?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/31/2004 6:11:21 AM Icicles wrote:

I saw this ring on Ebay... wasn't the seller's asking price $6000? ----------------

Ouch! Could it be the same one? One never stops learning...

 

[diamondsman]

the table is a too big,the trend nowdays are for much smaller tables (under 60%),therfore you might have problem if you ever want to trade up, or resell it.
The price is right, but..."You get what you pay for"

 

[charvett]

I've been trying to find out more about the effects of the size of the table before I commit to the purchase. Some sources seem to indicate that the smaller table sizes have become popular in just the last few years. Is this correct?

Also in contrary to most articles I've read, the link below suggests that a larger table delivers more light.

"In fact, the research in this case showed that round diamonds with larger tables (64-66%) and with shallower crown and pavilion angles (not the 35.8 degrees on the crown and the 43 degrees on the pavilion often mentioned), delivered MORE light return than traditional "ideal" cut proportions."

http://www.afishman.com/ideal_cut.htm

The more I investigate how the numbers affect a diamond, the more I'm convinced you have to look at each one individually. As much as I would like to make this purchase a "commodity buy" I don't think it's going to be that simple.

I think I'm going to make arrangements to see this stone in person. If it's "pretty" I'll buy it. I'll keep everyone posted, if anyone is interested in the outcome.

Thanks for all the help, this forum has been very informative. Once I find the right stone I'll be back to educate myself on the next steps.

 

[Magnum]

I went to that site you linked, and while they do pull a few quotes from GIA's cut study, they are not telling the whole story. Yes, it's true that GIA suggested that there isn't one set of proportions that yielded an ideal cut. However, if you read the study, GIA does go into detail with charts and graphs that evaluate different sets of proportions with their WLR (weighted light return) value and later their DCLR (dispersed colored light return) value that suggests there are sets of proportions that return more light than others. It appears to me that the site you linked likes to quote examples of GIA saying there is not one set of ideal proportions, so that they can say, "Trust us, we'll tell you what's ideal." If you want to learn more about the cut of a diamond for yourself, I would visit these sites (listed in order of increasing complexity in my opinion):

1. Pricescope tutorial

2. www.diamond-cut.com.au ( written by same author as 1., with a little more in-depth explanation of his theories)

3. www.goodoldgold.com (an awesome site that has a wealth of information for budding cut geeks, but is still not a hard read.)

4. GIA cut study on brilliance: www.gia.edu/pdfs/Fall_1998_Cut.pdf
GIA cut study on fire: www.gia.edu/pdfs/Fall_2001_Cut.pdf
(getting a little eye-watering here, but still has some good information that non-experts can understand.)

5. Cut study by MSU www.gemology.ru/cut/index.htm
(Way over my head, good luck

)

 

[Icicles]

sarcasm, eh?

Actually, it is the exact same one, numbers and all. However, the listing price was $6000 when i saw it, not $7000.

 

[Magnum]

A few more comments:


You're right, your own eyes are the best judge of what is beautiful to you.


However, that doesn't mean that there aren't ways to narrow down your search for a beautifully cut diamond before you actually see it.


Most experts will tell you that you need more than just table and depth info to determine the cut of a diamond. In the pricescope tutorial there's an awesome example of how different two diamonds both with depth:60% and table:60% can look when you vary the crown and pavillion angles and keep the depth and table constant at 60%.


In your post, you mentioned this quote that suggests there are times when a larger table delivers more light return (in this case they're talking specifically about brilliance and not necessarily fire):

"In fact, the research in this case showed that round diamonds with larger tables (64-66%) and with shallower crown and pavilion angles (not the 35.8 degrees on the crown and the 43 degrees on the pavilion often mentioned), delivered MORE light return than traditional "ideal" cut proportions."

While this may be true, I don't think it applies to the stone you listed. With a 64% table, a 62.6% depth, and a thin to slightly thick girdle, it's pretty much impossible to have both a shallow crown angle and a shallow pavillion angle. Either both angles are deep in order to account for the 62.6 depth (which is definitely considered deep for a stone with a 64% table), or one angle is shallow, with the other being even deeper.