Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Opinions Please on this Princess Cut Stone - Thank You!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
M

moonbear19

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
12
Looking at this specific 1.0 Ct Princess Cut Stone to set with 2 .32 princess cut side stones. I have included the details I have on the stone and a link to the GIA report.

Would love any and all opinions.

SPECS:
Carat Weight 1.00 ct
Cut (Shape) Princess
Color E
Clarity VS1
Make Ideal
Report GIA
Report Number 17187105
Cut Grade Excellent
Polish Very Good
Symmetry Very Good
Depth 75.6 %
Table 71 %
Measurements 5.70 x 5.37 x 4.06 mm
Length To Width 1.06 : 1
Girdle Medium - Thick
Culet None
Fluorescence None

Link to GIA REPORT: http://www.diamonds.net//UF/31449/Certs/17187105.jpg


Thank You!


P.S. Does anyone think that because each side stone is .32 will take away from the center (since it is only 1.0 ct) once again its would be set in a 3 stone setting.
 
Date: 1/20/2009 1:18:04 PM
Author:moonbear19
Looking at this specific 1.0 Ct Princess Cut Stone to set with 2 .32 princess cut side stones. I have included the details I have on the stone and a link to the GIA report.

Would love any and all opinions.

SPECS:
Carat Weight 1.00 ct
Cut (Shape) Princess
Color E
Clarity VS1
Make Ideal
Report GIA
Report Number 17187105
Cut Grade Excellent
Polish Very Good
Symmetry Very Good
Depth 75.6 %
Table 71 %
Measurements 5.70 x 5.37 x 4.06 mm
Length To Width 1.06 : 1
Girdle Medium - Thick
Culet None
Fluorescence None

Link to GIA REPORT: http://www.diamonds.net//UF/31449/Certs/17187105.jpg


Thank You!


P.S. Does anyone think that because each side stone is .32 will take away from the center (since it is only 1.0 ct) once again its would be set in a 3 stone setting.
Click to expand...
Do you have any photos of the diamond please, or other images? It doesn't look as if it will be quite square - slightly rectangular, but images would be useful.
 
No pics sorry.... what part should I be looking at, to see that it will be not square. thanks!
 
Date: 1/20/2009 1:35:16 PM
Author: moonbear19
No pics sorry.... what part should I be looking at, to see that it will be not square. thanks!
Click to expand...
You can see the diameter has some variance, also the length/ width ratio, 1 - 1.5 is considered square, 1.6 slightly rectangular and so on.
 
Besides the possibility of it being slightly rectangular, are there any other issues that you see that stand out. Thank you so much! Also do you forsee any issues with mounting two sides stones of .32 each against to the 1ct center stone (will it take away from the center?)
 
Glad to help!

Well the table is smaller than the depth which can be a good thing, I would check the girdle being medium to thick, ask how much of the girdle gets the thick rating as this can waste weight, but it could be ok if you have a trusted vendor checking it if overall the girdle is medium and the thick part isn't substantial. The shape we have covered, apart from that it is so difficult without images and a few more measurements to judge this diamond. It isn't cut to top standards but it might have potential if you don't mind it not being a perfect square. The side stones sound fine, and shouldn't detract from the centre diamond. Just FYI the cut grade being Excellent doesn't guarantee you a well cut diamond if it has been used by a vendor, AGS are the only lab to grade Princess for cut at this time.
 
I think 1:1 to 1:1.15 is resonably about square. Not 1:1.5 as posted above.

The stone is deepish and therefore rather small for its weight, but it could be very attractive in appearance. Finding a less deep stone of the same weight will result in a wider look.
 
I agree with Dave- the depth is on the heavy side at 75.6%.
I never buy diamonds based on measurements- but the depth is one of the more useful barometers of size for a diamond''s weight.

It''s true most people prefer a square princess- but there are those who also like rectangular- it''s personal preference.

In terms of picking side diamonds, a visual inspection- at least photographically- is essential.
Many times when we position side stones next to center stones we are surprised at the results.
It''s simply impossible to say how .32ct stones will look- as it also depends on the depth and cut of the side diamonds.
Another crucial aspect is how the ring is made......
 
Storm thanks for posting that link!
Paul''s point is well taken- as I''m usually the first one to say that measurements tell very little..
I agree that pavillion buldge is a a factor sometimes- however a diamond 75%+ depth is not going to look large for it''s weight.
A stone of say, 65% depth would have to have really extreme bulging to have a smaller spread than one of similar LxW and 75.6% depth. My experience is that such extreme bulging is rare in the real world.


You are correct about GIA''s definition of square- it''s 1:1.05 and under.
 
I wouldn't call 75.6% deep for a princess. Many of the AGS ideal princesses are cut to a depth of around 74-78ish (the Infinity princesses are uniformly cut around 78% depth, and they're some of the most beautiful princesses around). Just goes to show you that the numbers don't mean as much for a princess as they do for a round; you really need detailed photos and preferably an ASET (though an IS would do) if you can't see the stone with your own eyes.

ETA: Also, pay no attention to the "ideal" grade that's listed in your post...GIA does not grade the cut quality of princesses, so that's a label added on by the vendor and may have little to do with how well the stone is cut. AGS is the only lab that grades princess cut quality.
 
Each cutter has different ways of cutting- I''m sure Infinity Princesses are very nice- but that does not change the fact that in the general market, 75.6% would be considered "Heavy"
If moonbear19 is looking at an Infinity Princess cut, I''m sure it will be lovely at 75.6% depth ( or even 78)- but I believe we''re speaking of a generic diamond..
 
Date: 1/20/2009 5:54:33 PM
Author: jstarfireb
I wouldn''t call 75.6% deep for a princess. Many of the AGS ideal princesses are cut to a depth of around 74-78ish (the Infinity princesses are uniformly cut around 78% depth, and they''re some of the most beautiful princesses around). Just goes to show you that the numbers don''t mean as much for a princess as they do for a round; you really need detailed photos and preferably an ASET (though an IS would do) if you can''t see the stone with your own eyes.

ETA: Also, pay no attention to the ''ideal'' grade that''s listed in your post...GIA does not grade the cut quality of princesses, so that''s a label added on by the vendor and may have little to do with how well the stone is cut. AGS is the only lab that grades princess cut quality.
Click to expand...

PS- really good point about the misuse of the word "ideal"
Such misuse is rampant- and speaks poorly of those abusing the term.
 
Guys- another important distinction is that of what a person loves about a diamond.
We all know there''s plenty of badly cut diamonds out there- let''s put those aside for the purposes of conversation.

Some people prefer an "ideal Cut" look.
That would include things like Hearts and Arrows, a higher crown and smaller table size.
A Princess cut with a 60% table has a specific look- and it''s extraordinary beautiful when done correctly- such as Infinity''s gorgeous stones.

There are also people who would choose a stone cut to totally different proportions.
There are many beautiful princess cut diamonds with a depth in the mid 60''s, table in the high 70''s.
One aspect to the difference that is important to some is the visual size of a diamond. A well cut stone in the second category will look larger than one of Ideal proportions.
Of course if you''re loving the look of an Ideal cut, that''s the way to go.

Both can be very beautiful.
 
Date: 1/20/2009 4:28:26 PM
Author: oldminer
I think 1:1 to 1:1.15 is resonably about square. Not 1:1.5 as posted above.

The stone is deepish and therefore rather small for its weight, but it could be very attractive in appearance. Finding a less deep stone of the same weight will result in a wider look.
Click to expand...
1 - 1.5 is considered square, 1.6 slightly rectangular and so on.

David, with respect this is info I have from one of Rich Sherwood's posts, are you saying this is incorrect? I want to know so I can offer the best advice that new members can follow!

See this thread. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/at-which-ratio-is-a-diamond-still-considered-square.18592/
 
YIKES!! I am slow this morning ( and yesterday for that matter
3.gif
6.gif
)!
 
Square is 1:1 to 1:05 for perfectionists. Up to 1:1.15 is not unreasonable. The 1:1.5 is VERY likely a typo on Richard''s part. I''d bet $0.25 on it.

Many rather deep princess cuts do look very lovely. Some are graded as "Ideal". I contend that overly deep, but beautiful princess cuts are a viable choice, but would argue they cannot be called "Ideal" although many do grade or call them as such these days. It is highly self serving to have come up with "Ideal" standards which neglect the decreased visible surface area of a diamond which is way over deep. By doing so, the cutters retain far more weight. They get to cut heavy, small looking princess cuts, call them "Ideal" and consumers swallow it.

I never criticize beauty, but there is a right and a wrong to this situation. Beauty and craftsmanship do not always agree, but I contend that ONLY where beauty and craftsmanship come to a singular agreement do we have an "Ideal" situation. Much shallower princess cuts should be the "Ideal" and those with over depth that are high performing and beautiful ought to be described as what they are and not necessarily called "Ideal". I know I am in the minority position in this, but I don''t believe I am wrong. Usually, I say little about this, but the facts are clear to me that super beautiful princess cut diamonds can be cut with under 70% depth. But who would cut such diamonds with no one but me to call them "Ideal"? Antwerp Paul has worked very hard to take the AGS standards and create a niche business with it. I am sure it is a struggle to meet these standards, but I don''t doubt even better stones could be cut if AGS or another important body would re-examine the over depth problem. I view the AGS0 princess cut as a beauiful choice, a "brand", but not necessarily the best set of choices. It is currently the best recognized choice, but I don''t think this equates to the best choice. Sorry to be sounding so negative. I am a large supporter of those who sell pretty diamonds regardless of depth and generally don''t offer this level of critical assessment.
 
Thanks David!
35.gif
 
You're welcome Lorelei!

In terms of square, GIA uses 1.05 as the maximum variance to be called a square.
It's also important to note that a "matchbook" shape- such as 1.1:1 can be very pleasing to the eye- and may even work better than an exact square for some ring styles- particularly those using side diamonds like trilliants.
Of course if a person wants a perfect square, than that' what they should buy.

David- it appears that we agree on a lot of what you said- it's totally possible to cut an extraordinarily beautiful princess cut of 65% depth ( for example)
I'll tell you where I disagree with you-


know I am in the minority position in this, ......
Click to expand...
If we're talking only about PS, that may be true- but in the broader diamond market, you would be in the majority. Many- if not most - of the best cutters in the world would not cut the way Infinity does.
Of course neither is "wrong" - it's personal preference.

I have long felt that the term "Ideal" was misleading- as it seems to imply that an "Ideal" cut diamond is somehow better than a really well cut "normal" diamond.
 
Date: 1/20/2009 7:32:21 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Some people prefer an 'ideal Cut' look.
That would include things like Hearts and Arrows, a higher crown and smaller table size.
A Princess cut with a 60% table has a specific look- and it's extraordinary beautiful when done correctly- such as Infinity's gorgeous stones.
Click to expand...
David, thanks for recognizing that our recipe is completely different than the weight-driven planning that results in poor performance and hidden weight. Our approach is the opposite, actually.


There are also people who would choose a stone cut to totally different proportions.
There are many beautiful princess cut diamonds with a depth in the mid 60's, table in the high 70's.
One aspect to the difference that is important to some is the visual size of a diamond. A well cut stone in the second category will look larger than one of Ideal proportions.
Of course if you're loving the look of an Ideal cut, that's the way to go.

Both can be very beautiful.
Click to expand...
Viva la difference! I’d add that light return is key and a diamond with edge to edge light performance can appear larger than other diamonds of the same (or larger) size which don’t enjoy that benefit. Garry has used a CZ set to effectively demonstrate this for a long time. It’s no different in princess cuts than in rounds.

In the small (our) picture we appreciate the compliments David. Thank you.
1.gif


In the big picture this is not a black and white issue. I've read this thread and, while I understand the old mindset Dave Atlas embraces, this is not so simple. There are different approaches and different looks which can be achieved for different weights and depths. We are fighting a huge lack of awareness on this matter, even in the trade. How crazy is it, for example, that a princess’ pavilion can have 24, 32, 40 (or MORE) facets on it and yet those differences are not typically discussed? Many jewelers I speak with don’t even realize there are different chevron configurations!? The level of education is woeful. The issue of design, execution and assessment is NOT black and white. The responsible course is not to make judgments without drawing on all of the pertinent information, and seeing all of the pertinent examples.

I will address some misconceptions and unveil a bit about our approach in the next post or two - for anyone interested.
 
Since this thread will probably devolve...

no pictures, no purchase. (unless the stone is local.)
 
Date: 1/21/2009 6:44:01 AM
Author: oldminer

Many rather deep princess cuts do look very lovely. Some are graded as 'Ideal'. I contend that overly deep, but beautiful princess cuts are a viable choice, but would argue they cannot be called 'Ideal' although many do grade or call them as such these days. It is highly self serving to have come up with 'Ideal' standards which neglect the decreased visible surface area of a diamond which is way over deep. By doing so, the cutters retain far more weight. They get to cut heavy, small looking princess cuts, call them 'Ideal' and consumers swallow it.
Click to expand...
Dave, I'm sure you didn’t mean this offensively but as a company with the goal to acquire the best possible performance in a princess, and considering that we lose more weight in the effort, it’s hard not to take it that way.

Depth aside, princess cuts have historically been cut to retain weight. This includes thick-girdled deeps in the 70s (and we agree that these are awful choices). It also includes a majority of spready, steep-crowned princess cuts in the 60-something depth range which you don’t seem to take issue with.

In essence you're blindly recommending ‘spread’ with no information about visual beauty.

Will you now be urging shoppers to buy rounds with 55% depth because they spread larger than 61%? I trust you won't. Why? Because you recognize the configuration with the greater depth will be the better performer. I would also remind you that depth in a princess is not closely-linked to spread as it is in a round...there is far more flex room...so perhaps there is not such a loss of spread...and perhaps the cutting motives make that diamond the best choice.

It is highly self serving to have come up with 'Ideal' standards which neglect the decreased visible surface area of a diamond which is way over deep. By doing so, the cutters retain far more weight.
Click to expand...
In our case you have it backwards....Our case is Plan 2, but first let's look at the most popular plan.

Factory Apprentice: "Sir, why do so many princess cuts have spready tables and steep crown angles?"
Factory Veteran: "Save weight young man...Always save weight."

Ergo, Plan 1: Sawing at the center of the crystal and making crown angles steep is the best way to follow the outline of the rough. The result is large tables and crown angles near 44 degrees. There are millions of princess cuts produced like this. While it saves precious material and $$$ for manufacturers, performance is simply not a priority here, weight is. 90% of the world still thinks this way, cutting as close as possible to the rough crystal’s outline with no performance consideration. And why should they? They aren't sending them to labs with cut grades. Commercial princess cuts are knocked out in this fashion and sent to labs with no assessment or accountability for performance. Take a look at commercial princess cuts in the ASET and notice how red areas (if present) are limited to the table and do not approach the edges.

princess-planning-ctr-offctr.jpg
 
(continued)

Plan 2 is the approach we have taken: Apply Tolkowsky angles to the princess cut.

The priority is pairing crown and pavilion angles for optimum performance just as you would in a round. The bottom pavilion angles are cut to emulate the lower half angles in a Tolk round (lower halves make up most of the surface area). Pair that with a complimentary crown angle of 34-35 degrees and make the table smaller a smaller to allow proper crown height for better dispersion. This is a completely different approach than one that is weight-driven. In fact, it’s the opposite.

Now we have a princess with Tolkowsky angles. At this point the out-of-box thinking continues. By cutting fewer, precisely defined chevrons (only 2) contrast is increased & larger facet surface areas are created, making scintillation events more visible. The end result enhances overall brightness (crown & pavilion angles) dispersion (CA & table pairing) contrast (fewer chevrons) and scintillation (defined contrast patterns). Take a look at such a princess in the ASET and you will see abundant red, often extending to the corners, giving larger size appearance.

The depth in this approach is created by angle selection, NOT irresponsible pavilion bulge or girdle thickness. It does not reduce spread significantly and is done in the interest of improving performance. Calling it ‘overly deep’ is tantamount to calling a 61% round brilliant ‘overly deep.’ It is a configuration designed for performance.

The round brilliant has been developed and scrutinized for over a century. Every major lab has a cut grade for rounds and they have been discussed, debated and analyzed to the nth degree. We all know the reasonable ranges. No one would recommend a round of 55% over one with proper crown & pavilion angles simply because it has ‘more spread.’

Meanwhile the princess cut remains decades behind the round in development. There is virtually NO cut-accountability for princess cuts in the mainstream. The shape can be “whatever it wants to be” and it most often is; planned in an assembly-line, weight-driven way. This will remain the case until more demand for princess cut performance standards rises from consumers & retailers.

I hope this explanation has been interesting to some of you. I flat out love this stuff. One of the best things about this business is that you never stop learning.
 
As always thank you Sir for those very informative and interesting posts!
36.gif
36.gif
36.gif
36.gif
 
Date: 1/22/2009 1:46:30 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 1/20/2009 7:32:21 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Some people prefer an ''ideal Cut'' look.
That would include things like Hearts and Arrows, a higher crown and smaller table size.
A Princess cut with a 60% table has a specific look- and it''s extraordinary beautiful when done correctly- such as Infinity''s gorgeous stones.
Click to expand...
David, thanks for recognizing that our recipe is completely different than the weight-driven planning that results in poor performance and hidden weight. Our approach is the opposite, actually.



There are also people who would choose a stone cut to totally different proportions.
There are many beautiful princess cut diamonds with a depth in the mid 60''s, table in the high 70''s.
One aspect to the difference that is important to some is the visual size of a diamond. A well cut stone in the second category will look larger than one of Ideal proportions.
Of course if you''re loving the look of an Ideal cut, that''s the way to go.

Both can be very beautiful.
Click to expand...
Viva la difference! I’d add that light return is key and a diamond with edge to edge light performance can appear larger than other diamonds of the same (or larger) size which don’t enjoy that benefit. Garry has used a CZ set to effectively demonstrate this for a long time. It’s no different in princess cuts than in rounds.

In the small (our) picture we appreciate the compliments David. Thank you.
1.gif


In the big picture this is not a black and white issue. I''ve read this thread and, while I understand the old mindset Dave Atlas embraces, this is not so simple. There are different approaches and different looks which can be achieved for different weights and depths. We are fighting a huge lack of awareness on this matter, even in the trade. How crazy is it, for example, that a princess’ pavilion can have 24, 32, 40 (or MORE) facets on it and yet those differences are not typically discussed? Many jewelers I speak with don’t even realize there are different chevron configurations!? The level of education is woeful. The issue of design, execution and assessment is NOT black and white. The responsible course is not to make judgments without drawing on all of the pertinent information, and seeing all of the pertinent examples.

I will address some misconceptions and unveil a bit about our approach in the next post or two - for anyone interested.
Click to expand...
Thanks John- but I never said that cutting a princess cut diamond to 65% depth will result in poor performance and hidden weight.
IN fact, I really prefer the look of a more open table- and also appreciate the additional value added by the visual size of a well cut diamond. A well cut princess cut of 6mm is going to look a lot larger than an Ideal cut 5.5mm diamond- that''s true for round diamonds, as well as princess cuts. I''m sure we can find a poorly cut stone ( or CZ) of 6mm that might not, but if we''re talking well cut stones, the 6 mm is going to dwarf a 5.5mm, Ideal or no.
Nor do I believe that Dave''s mindset is "old"
I believe it''s simply a question of preference.
As I said, I have respect for those who love an "Ideal Cut" look- but that does not make people who''d like a well cut, and larger looking stone for the weight "old thinking"

I have a lot of respect too for those who study the minutia of how many facets a diamond has- but again, that does not make those who look at diamonds more holistically uneducated. I don''t look at the facet pattern to decide if I love a diamond, I look at the diamond.
Again- it''s really a different way of looking at diamonds- but I strongly believe that neither is "wrong"
 
Date: 1/22/2009 2:16:02 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 1/21/2009 6:44:01 AM
Author: oldminer

Many rather deep princess cuts do look very lovely. Some are graded as ''Ideal''. I contend that overly deep, but beautiful princess cuts are a viable choice, but would argue they cannot be called ''Ideal'' although many do grade or call them as such these days. It is highly self serving to have come up with ''Ideal'' standards which neglect the decreased visible surface area of a diamond which is way over deep. By doing so, the cutters retain far more weight. They get to cut heavy, small looking princess cuts, call them ''Ideal'' and consumers swallow it.
Click to expand...
Dave, I''m sure you didn’t mean this offensively but as a company with the goal to acquire the best possible performance in a princess, and considering that we lose more weight in the effort, it’s hard not to take it that way.

Depth aside, princess cuts have historically been cut to retain weight. This includes thick-girdled deeps in the 70s (and we agree that these are awful choices). It also includes a majority of spready, steep-crowned princess cuts in the 60-something depth range which you don’t seem to take issue with.

In essence you''re blindly recommending ‘spread’ with no information about visual beauty.

Will you now be urging shoppers to buy rounds with 55% depth because they spread larger than 61%? I trust you won''t. Why? Because you recognize the configuration with the greater depth will be the better performer. I would also remind you that depth in a princess is not closely-linked to spread as it is in a round...there is far more flex room...so perhaps there is not such a loss of spread...and perhaps the cutting motives make that diamond the best choice.


It is highly self serving to have come up with ''Ideal'' standards which neglect the decreased visible surface area of a diamond which is way over deep. By doing so, the cutters retain far more weight.
Click to expand...
In our case you have it backwards....Our case is Plan 2, but first let''s look at the most popular plan.

Factory Apprentice: ''Sir, why do so many princess cuts have spready tables and steep crown angles?''
Factory Veteran: ''Save weight young man...Always save weight.''

Ergo, Plan 1: Sawing at the center of the crystal and making crown angles steep is the best way to follow the outline of the rough. The result is large tables and crown angles near 44 degrees. There are millions of princess cuts produced like this. While it saves precious material and $$$ for manufacturers, performance is simply not a priority here, weight is. 90% of the world still thinks this way, cutting as close as possible to the rough crystal’s outline with no performance consideration. And why should they? They aren''t sending them to labs with cut grades. Commercial princess cuts are knocked out in this fashion and sent to labs with no assessment or accountability for performance. Take a look at commercial princess cuts in the ASET and notice how red areas (if present) are limited to the table and do not approach the edges.
Click to expand...
John,
Short of needing to saw at center line to cut an imperfection out of the diamond, I know of no cutters who would cut an octahedron at the center line.
Even if a cutter is giving total priority to weight retention, and zero priority to making a well cut diamond, cutting at the center line makes no sense at all. You''d end up with less polished diamond weight at the end.

Generally the saw line is at a position that would result in 65% -35%.
Say it was a 10 carat rough- the bottom would be 6.50 carats rough, and the top at about 3.50carats.
 
To add some detail about the sawing issue:

Remember that a diamond of 4 carats is worth a lot more than a 2 or 3 carat diamond on a per carat basis.
IN the example I used about a 10 carat rough.
If the top piece was 6.50cts, than might result in a well cut 4.50carat stone.
The bottom would be about a 2 carat diamond.
If it was sawed in half we''d have two 2.75ct+- finished diamonds- resulting in a lot less monetary yield for the cutter.


Cutting above the center line also leaves the top piece in a diamond shape already- the widest point would be the girdle.
This also reduces waste.
The bottom piece needs more polishing ( and loss of weight) to be polished into the traditional diamond shape.
 
Date: 1/20/2009 7:32:21 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
There are many beautiful princess cut diamonds with a depth in the mid 60''s, table in the high 70''s.
Click to expand...

Rockdiamond, keeping in mind that I''m a consumer and not an expert...I''ve always been told that a smaller table is generally associated with more fire, at least for rounds. Would a larger-tabled princess be up to par in the fire/dispersion department? Is the table issue with princesses akin to brilliant vs. fiery ideal cuts in round stones?
 
Date: 1/22/2009 2:51:51 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

John,
Short of needing to saw at center line to cut an imperfection out of the diamond, I know of no cutters who would cut an octahedron at the center line.
Even if a cutter is giving total priority to weight retention, and zero priority to making a well cut diamond, cutting at the center line makes no sense at all. You'd end up with less polished diamond weight at the end.

Generally the saw line is at a position that would result in 65% -35%.
Say it was a 10 carat rough- the bottom would be 6.50 carats rough, and the top at about 3.50carats.
Click to expand...
Maybe David, but it’s irrelevant. There's still more weight loss with Plan 2. The spread-table, steep crown model (whether ctr or off ctr) is based on assembly-line production. For example if you have a 3 carat crystal and can get two 1ct stones by sawing at the center you absolutely will. The cutters you know may be more responsible in planning individual stones... If they're not churning out millions of carats per year for a sightholder perhaps they can afford to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top