Opinion please on this Sarin report

[john van]

I was close to wiring money for an engagement ring on Blue Nile a few days ago, when something told me I should do a little research. Lo and behold I found out about this Sarin report thingy. I requested it for the diamond I was considering and tried the HCA, but it said my numbers indicated a very thick girdle, and wouldn''t give me all the final ratings. Does this mean the diamond is a reject? (The full Sarin numbers are below)

A little background- I''m on a limited budget and my fiance thought an ideal cut would cause too much trade-off in size. It was also important to her that it be eye-clean. So I decided on a Very Good cut, 1.26ct, vs2, H color. But now I want to know what Sarin thinks. Could anyone tell me what they think of these numbers? Thanks!

Diameter: 6.81mm,
Total Depth: 4.26mm 62.6%,
Pavil. Depth: 2.93mm 43.0%,
Pavillion: 40.9 deg,
Crown: 34.4 deg,
Table: 60.4%,
Culet: 1.2%,
GirdleMin: 2.6%,
GirdleMax: 3.2%

 

[Caratz]

----------------
On 11/21/2003 1:18:15 AM john van wrote:


I was close to wiring money for an engagement ring on Blue Nile a few days ago, when something told me I should do a little research. Lo and behold I found out about this Sarin report thingy. I requested it for the diamond I was considering and tried the HCA, but it said my numbers indicated a very thick girdle, and wouldn't give me all the final ratings. Does this mean the diamond is a reject? (The full Sarin numbers are below)

A little background- I'm on a limited budget and my fiance thought an ideal cut would cause too much trade-off in size. It was also important to her that it be eye-clean. So I decided on a Very Good cut, 1.26ct, vs2, H color. But now I want to know what Sarin thinks. Could anyone tell me what they think of these numbers? Thanks!

Diameter: 6.81mm,
Total Depth: 4.26mm 62.6%,
Pavil. Depth: 2.93mm 43.0%,
Pavillion: 40.9 deg,
Crown: 34.4 deg,
Table: 60.4%,
Culet: 1.2%,
GirdleMin: 2.6%,
GirdleMax: 3.2% ----------------

Something ain't right. I went over to BN to try to find the stone, but the only "very good cut" 1.26 H VS2 that popped up had 60% depth, 55% table and was 7.07 x 7.09 x 4.25 -- so I'm not sure what you are looking at. 6.81 diameter seems a bit small for a 1.26 ct.

Generally, I think you want to keep the girdle min/max between 1-2%

 

[john van]

----------------
On 11/21/2003 1:48:09 AM Caratz wrote:

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

Something ain't right. I went over to BN to try to find the stone, but the only 'very good cut' 1.26 H VS2 that popped up had 60% depth, 55% table and was 7.07 x 7.09 x 4.25 -- so I'm not sure what you are looking at. 6.81 diameter seems a bit small for a 1.26 ct.

Generally, I think you want to keep the girdle min/max between 1-2%----------------

I think my diamond doesn't show up on Blue Nile anymore because its considered "sold" even though I haven't paid yet.

I think I'll start looking for other ones and get Sarin's for them.

 

[diamondsman]

you should first look for these criterias:d=59-62 t=53-57
those are the first guidelines. after you have sorted through ,than ask for a sarin report.

good luck

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 11/21/2003 1:18:15 AM john van wrote:

A little background- I'm on a limited budget and my fiance thought an ideal cut would cause too much trade-off in size. It was also important to her that it be eye-clean.So I decided on a Very Good cut, 1.26ct, vs2, H color!

Diameter: 6.81mm,

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

I disagree with your fiance's line of thinking regarding "ideal cut causes too much trade-off in size". I would suggest it's just the opposite....selecting a lesser cut stone may mean that you're paying for weight and not getting the size that should go with it.

Size and weight are two different things, and the cut affect those. Carat weight is just that....it's a weight. The dimensions...the mms...those are the size.

The stone you mentioned is 6.81 mm.....that's the dimensions for a well-cut 1.15 ct. stone, not for a 1.25 stone. A well-cut 1.25 carat stone runs around 6.98-7.00 mm. In looking at the less-well cut stone, why would you want to pay for a 1.25 ct. stone that only looks like a 1.15? You'd be paying for dead weight in the girdle (which is why it's thick) and in the pavilion (hence the depth) where it can't be seen.

A well-cut stone LOOKS bigger than it is.....because it's typically compared to other people's maul stones ....the 1.25 that looks like the 1.15!

You can probably go to an ideal cut (it doesn't have to be an H&A, super-duper-louper, just an ideal cut) with excellent proportions and it will look bigger than the 1.26 stone. Also, you said she wants eye-clean. You could help maximize the size/weight by considering an eye-clean SI-1....work with a vendor who owns the stone, and he can view it while he talks with you to assure you that it's eyeclean. There's a huge price jump from SI-1 clarity to VS-2, and you're paying for that jump even though the stones might both look clean to the unaided eye. Your choice, but something to consider.