Opinions please - close to a purchase (specs inside)

[Sinthetic]

Hello -

Greatly appreciate any feedback on a near purchase. Thanks to all for any thoughts, etc on my purchase price.

GIA Cert
Emerald Cut
7.72 x 5.7 x 3.83
1.51 carat
67.2% Depth
72% Table
MED to STK Girdle
No Culet
Very Good Polish
Good Symmetry
VS1
G
Medium Blue Flour.

$8,000

My dealer noted that the presence of the flourescence is the one con on the stone. Otherwise, he noted it''s a very good deal.

I plan to have the setting custom made (platinum bezel)a la Stuart Moore fashion.

Thanks!

 

[diamondsman]

The stone seems to have nice dimentions and all the numbers look right .
The price is a little high for a med blue stone,stones with med blue to sb. are trading for less monsy in most cases ,even though med blue doesn't have any negative effect on stones.

my 2 cents.

 

[Stephan]

67.2% depth is a little to much.


Try to stay under 65%.


72% table is to much too.


Try to stay between 61% and 63.5%.


I don't like the "only" GOOD symmetry.




Regards,

 

[valeria101]

If medium blue fluorescence looks "mossy" the stone would qualify for a rarity: according to GIA, about 0.5% of stones with some fluorescence show any such visual effect.

I second the comments on dimensions, but this stone is no disaster - most would be worse (even deeper and/or with larger tables). "Good" symmetry is a rather large class since the label tolerates visible departures from what intuitive "symmetry". It is great to see "Very Good" symmetry in any non-round cut: that would be very good news. When it does not happen, no big disaster.

This is an average stone and could have pleasing appearance, without any reason for enthusiasm from the numbers alone. Your are not after statistics though, but after a diamond. This one "sounds" ok. If it claims "greatness" numbers do not say much.

The one think I that makes ECs undesirable - in my view - is the shadowed (dark) center caused by steep pavilion facets and/or disproportionate length of the culet (or "keel"). None of this shows in numbers, and most do not recognize such subtle detractions though...

 

[valeria101]

According to the AGA cut standards, this stone makes it in the category of "US domestic average cut": with crown hight unknown and too large a table to make it in the 2B class, it should be a 3A - givne than large tables predict shallow rather than higher crowns. (Here's the chart for reference). The "US average" label, somewhat defeats the claim of the seller that this is a "good deal" - it does not seem to be any better a deal than your "average". Only compared to the poorly cut very deep stones it is better indeed.

The proportions make this EC "shorter" looking than the intuitive 1.5 L-W proportions, but this is a matter of taste, I guess.

The price does seem to take this into account and the fluorescence (which likely needs UW lighting to be seen but could add the occasional extra whiteness in some unusual lighting conditions, as a bonus). However, better cut diamonds of simmilar price do exist: this is a good price, but not a once-in-a-cetury bargain.

 

[Sinthetic]

thank you all for your time and recommendations.

i have no definitive time constraints for the purchase and it seems that this diamond would qualify as 'average', based on your words of wisdom.

it seems the search continues.