Oval Diamond Depth Question

[crazyzete]

I''m in the market for an oval diamond and I''m having trouble finding solid answers to my questions. Anyone with good knowledge on this subject (including any AGA rep) is greatly appreciated.

My girlfriend wants an oval diamond of roughly around 1.25 ct, and is very concerned with brilliance and quality. We''ve been using the AGA guidelines for depth and table for oval shapes as a guide. All of the diamonds that we''ve found in the ideal ranges had noticeable bowties. There was a nice looking stone with a depth of 67.1% and no bowtie, but it was a 1.20 that looked like a 1.14 or less.

We are currently debating two stones. Since we cannot see these next to each other, we''re having trouble deciding. Here are the stone specs:


1. 1.26 E VS2
8.54 x 6.27 x 3.43
Depth: 54.7%
Table: 57%
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Polish: VG, Symmetry: Good
Flourescence: Faint

2. 1.25 E SI1
8.85 x 6.30 x 3.61
Depth: 57.3%
Table: 57%
Girdle: Very Thin to Medium, Faceted
Polish: G, Symmetry: Good
Flourescence: Faint

My girlfriend seemed to think she liked #2 better than #1, but she''s somewhat wrapped around the AGA depth of #1 as too shallow because it is 54.7%. Held next to 2 diamonds with prominent bowties that fit into the ideal ranges for depth and table according to the AGA guidelines, diamond #1 didn''t appear dull at all and sparkled.

I guess the big question is whether or not diamond #1 would be considered too shallow of a stone and a worse cut than #2. Should we expect #2 to sparkle a lot more than #1?

Diamond #2 will cost me about $700 more than diamond #1, so I''m trying to determine if it''s worthwhile. Should we be concerned about the 54.7% depth? Is this a shallow diamond?

Also - Does anyone know if bowties are more common in the middle depth ranges (59-63%)? All diamonds we viewed within that range had bowties, but at 54.7%, 57.3%, and 67.1%, we saw no bowties.

Thanks!

 

[Kaleigh]

www.goodoldgold.com Has a video of some ovals they brought in for me. I picked one after seeing the video, couldn't make the trip to see them side by side. Jonathon has a great tutorial as well, read that and watch the video. I think it's titled Ovals For Kaleigh. My oval doesn't have a bowtie!! I am such a stickler about them!! Good luck in your search, I am not a number cruncher when it comes to fancies. I go by my eyes, so far so good.

 

[oldminer]

The depth range I provide gives a "best chance" at getting a good looking diamond with a proper relationship between necessary depth and desireable spread, size appearance. You can find many pretty ovals with greater depth, but they will have a smaller appearance to the eye. They can be very lovely, but you do not get the "look". This is the point of most over depth issues. Shallow ovals will just not be as brilliant as correct depth range or many overly deep ones.

I hope this makes you understand there is flexibility in going too deep, but there is reason not do choose to do so.

 

[Ann]

Date: 5/7/2007 12:19:08 AM
Author: Kaleigh
www.goodoldgold.com Has a video of some ovals they brought in for me. I picked one after seeing the video, couldn''t make the trip to see them side by side. Jonathon has a great tutorial as well, read that and watch the video. I think it''s titled Ovals For Kaleigh. My oval doesn''t have a bowtie!! I am such a stickler about them!! Good luck in your search, I am not a number cruncher when it comes to fancies. I go by my eyes, so far so good.

Kaleigh - I couldn''t find the video.

Crazyzete - please keep us posted on your search, ovals are beautiful and elegant,
one of my favorites IF they can minimize that bowtie.

 

[crazyzete]

Ann - The video is there. Go under videos and look for the one about 2ct ovals. It was a pretty good video (not necessarily directly helping me out, but still interesting).

Dave - Thank you for your feedback. I can''t say that you directly answered my main question, but I guess you somewhat did by reading between the lines. I think my main question is whether or not 54.7% depth is too shallow for an oval as far as being a brilliant stone, and is 57.3% enough of a better number that I should turn towards that stone if it sparkles well (I can''t put both stones side-by-side, so I''m going on memory and numbers).

If anyone else has any 2-cents, I appreciate any advise. Ultimately, I''m sure it''s going to come down to looking at these stones again and trying to pick the best of the two and hope that one is really a brilliant stone no matter what light we look at it under.

 

[Ann]

Date: 5/7/2007 11:06:54 AM
Author: crazyzete
Ann - The video is there. Go under videos and look for the one about 2ct ovals. It was a pretty good video (not necessarily directly helping me out, but still interesting).


Dave - Thank you for your feedback. I can''t say that you directly answered my main question, but I guess you somewhat did by reading between the lines. I think my main question is whether or not 54.7% depth is too shallow for an oval as far as being a brilliant stone, and is 57.3% enough of a better number that I should turn towards that stone if it sparkles well (I can''t put both stones side-by-side, so I''m going on memory and numbers).


If anyone else has any 2-cents, I appreciate any advise. Ultimately, I''m sure it''s going to come down to looking at these stones again and trying to pick the best of the two and hope that one is really a brilliant stone no matter what light we look at it under.

Thanks, I did just find it, but can''t get it to load and open. I''m so
ignorant on this stuff! I''ll watch it tomorrow as soon as my son gets in from
college.