Opinions on this diamond

[Chicago08]

Hello, I was curious on everyone''s opinion on a diamond I ws shown over the weeked. The diamond is:

carat size: 1.505 carats
coloe: G
clarity: VS1
Cut: AGS ideal
Depth: 62.6%
Table: 53.9%
Crown Angle: 34.5 degrees
Pavilion Angle: 40.8 degrees
Culet: Pointed

Price: $13,880

I was very impressed with how this diamond sparkled. If anyone can tell me if this is a good price or if the specs do not match up well I would greatly appreciate it

Thanks!!!

 

[gg21]

That seems like the almost too good to be true deal. Are you sure that it is an AGS diamond? Is it inscribed??? Where did you see it??

 

[Ellen]

All the numbers so far look ok, although the depth is a hair deeper than most of us prefer. My only concern with that would be if it''s facing up a lot smaller than it should.

Do you have the dimensions, girdle measurement and also the grade on Symmetry and Polish? Also, does this stone have the light performance grade?

The price does seem awfully low....

 

[Chicago08]

Do you have the dimensions, girdle measurement and also the grade on Symmetry and Polish? Also, does this stone have the light performance grade?

Light performance is 0, proportion factor is 0, finish is 0, polish and symmetry both ideal. The girdle measurement is 1.8% to 3.9%. There is a measurement that goes from the top of the diamond to where the girdle begins 15.9%. There is another measurement that goes from where the girdle ends to the culet 43.0%. The diamond is also inscribed by AGS with its AGS serial number.

This is a Chicago jeweler that brought in the diamond from a place where they do frequent business and I am getting their best price from what they tell me (the lady I am dealing with is very nice and helpful).

I was also looking at EightStars which were very impressive as well.

 

[Chicago08]

I forgot the dimensions....7.30-7.33 x 4.58mm.

 

[Ellen]

Well, it''s an AGS0, and that''s what you want. I can''t see anything wrong, but it''s still really inexpensive.

Maybe the experts will chime in.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

A 1.5 should be 7.4mm, so the depth is costing you a little on the diameter. If you look at the price of 1.4 ct. stones, you''ll probably find that this is about right since this stone appears about that size.

 

[Chicago08]

Date: 9/18/2007 9:06:13 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
A 1.5 should be 7.4mm, so the depth is costing you a little on the diameter. If you look at the price of 1.4 ct. stones, you''ll probably find that this is about right since this stone appears about that size.

That makes sense. I was originally looking for 1.3 carat stones and this one just happened to look better to me. I want to make my decision in the next few days on a stone and this one is in the forefront.

 

[Ellen]

ds, it's facing up bigger than a 1.4 (mine is 7.25), and Gary has been voicing his opinion that our ct to mm numbers might be a tad optimistic. But I would agree, it's facing up a hair smaller than it could....

But diameter shouldn't matter, they're priced for ct. weight. (which may be why this is deeper)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/18/2007 9:13:53 PM
Author: Ellen
ds, it''s facing up bigger than a 1.4 (mine is 7.25), and Gary has been voicing his opinion that our ct to mm numbers might be a tad optimistic. But I would agree, it''s facing up a hair smaller than it could....

But diameter shouldn''t matter, they''re priced for ct. weight. (which may be why this is deeper)

But if you were paying a price premium for a 1.5 ct. stone, you''d surely want the diameter to be at least average for an ideal cut 1.5. In this case, however, the price seems to be okay, so I might consider this particular stone. I actually meant 1.4 range...sorry. I know a 1.4 is around 7.2mm, so you have to get to the 1.45-1.49 range to get to 7.3 mm. I looked at that size range for months, so I looked at diameters over and over! It''s more usual to get the 7.4mm in a 1.5 ct. stone when the depth is 60-62, which is why we often recommend that depth range.

But I think this is a pretty good price for this stone considering it is also AGS0.

 

[Chicago08]

Thanks! I appreciate the input.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/18/2007 9:48:48 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

But if you were paying a price premium for a 1.5 ct. stone, you''d surely want the diameter to be at least average for an ideal cut 1.5. In this case, however, the price seems to be okay, so I might consider this particular stone. I actually meant 1.4 range...sorry. I know a 1.4 is around 7.2mm, so you have to get to the 1.45-1.49 range to get to 7.3 mm. I looked at that size range for months, so I looked at diameters over and over! It''s more usual to get the 7.4mm in a 1.5 ct. stone when the depth is 60-62, which is why we often recommend that depth range.

But I think this is a pretty good price for this stone considering it is also AGS0.

Ok, I was understanding you to say (in prior post) you felt it had been priced for size, not ct. weight, which they wouldn''t do. (I''d think)

And I agree it''s a great price, for a 1.5. Almost too great is all I was thinking, for that size. Especially not online.

But, all the info seems to indicate it''s a nice stone.