Please Eval: Pear Shape / Medium Flourescence

[HelluvaEngineer]

Hi guys. Thanks for all of the great advice and tips I've seen on these forums. I think I may have found my diamond, finally, and wanted to get some opinions from those more knowledgeable than myself.

A local .com was nice enough to FedEx in several diamonds from their database, and this one was my favorite. It has a great shape, pretty cut, and very minimal bowtie (for a pear). In short, it's nicer than those I've seen at local retailers. Here are the stats on this diamond (GIA Certified):

PEAR BRILLIANT
9.16x5.91x4.01mm
1.18 carat
Depth: 67.9%
Table: 48%
Girdle: Thin to Thick, faceted
Culet: none
Finish/Sym: Gd/Gd
Clarity: VS2
Color: H
Flourescence: Med. Blue
Comments: Internal Graining not shown
Price: $4,400 cash

I have a couple of concerns with this diamond. First off, I have always excluded diamonds with flourescence, based on varying reports that I have read about this characteristic. Is it something I should be concerned about, and should it affect the price of this diamond? I looked at it under several types of light, and it doesn't appear oily or any of the other negatives that I've read about. It's very transparent.

Secondly, the only noticeable flaw was a feather near the rounded upper edge of the stone. Frankly, I didn't see it until I viewed it under 30x magnification with backlighting. Any chance this will affect its durability?

Thank you so much on feedback about this diamond. I plan on moving forward soon on this if it seems like a good deal. Please let me know what you think about this price. The dealer seemed to think it's about Rappaport - 26%.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Helluva, I suspect this is a bright & lively stone, probably with good "fire" as well. It would be nice to know the crown height & pavilion depth, as well as how it looks under an IdealScope, but your gut instinct is a very good indicator as well.

Don't worry about the medium blue fluorescence. Fluorescence is usually not a problem until it is "very strong", and often not even then.

I wouldn't worry about the feather either. If it's only big enough to warrant a VS2, then it's a tiny little thing. Shouldn't be any problem at all for durability.

The price sounds great too. A quick check on PriceScope shows similar diamonds ranging from $4400 to $5300, so you're right where you ought to be.

It's always a good idea to have an independent appraiser give you a third opinion. Probably cost you between $75 to $125, and will cover your future insurance needs as well.

 

[HelluvaEngineer]

Thanks for the input!

I've come to a similar conclusion about fluorescence. According to Rappaport data I found, we're talking 0 to -2% in a diamond with these stats. Although an H is borderline - I actually goes up in value with fluorescence (supposedly).

However, doing a bit more research, the other thing that bothers me is that the table size is a bit small. Perhaps the cutter was trying to maximize diamond size at the expense of ideal crown height\angles.

As mentioned before, the diamond LOOKS very nice. Does the 48% table significantly affect its value?

Thanks,
HE

 

[Richard Sherwood]

-----------
However, doing a bit more research, the other thing that bothers me is
that the table size is a bit small. Perhaps the cutter was trying to
maximize diamond size at the expense of ideal crown height\angles.

As mentioned before, the diamond LOOKS very nice. Does the 48% table
significantly affect its value?
-----------

Yeah, that's why I was curious what the crown height and pavilion depth is. I think you're correct in your assumption. The cutter was probably working with a certain shape crystal which yielded the biggest stone using those proportions.

I suspect that while he was at it he was able to "tweak out" a lively stone.
If he was able to accomplish that, then the small table will have minimal effect on the overall value picture.

Still, I would recommend having it checked out.

 

[HelluvaEngineer]

Well, let me introduce another option and see what you think. I also looked at a 1.10 carat stone at the same location. It was equally attractive, yet somewhat smaller and fatter than the other. I did not like it's overall shape as much, although it's still very nice.

(GIA)
PEAR BRILLIANT
8.75x5.86x3.76mm
1.11 carats
depth: 64.2
table: 57
girdle: very thin to thick, faceted
culet: none
polish/sym: gd/gd
clarity: VS2 (has one crystal, I believe)
color: H
fluorescence: NONE
Comments: pinpoints are not shown
Price: $4476


The only concern I had about this diamond was that the cert was dated 1994, so I'm unsure of its history. I assume it was a trade-in.

At this price, does it seem like a better value, considering that it doesn't have the flourescence or table % issues? Notice that it's a bit more per carat.

 

[Giangi]

In my opinion, table on number one is quite small. From your description the shape sounds very nice. From the numbers the second one could be nice as well. Just ask for a Sarin report to make sure that cut is ok. BUT I just noticed the date of the report... Well, if you choose the second one, ask the seller to send the diamond to the GIA to get an update for the peace of your mind...

Hope that helps a bit

Giangi

 

[HelluvaEngineer]

Ok, you're going to think I'm neurotic, and you're right. I'm pretty sure my sales guy is about to punch me, but I asked him to ship in the following stone:

GIA

Pear
Carat 1.20
Color H
Clarity VS2
Measurements 5.95*8.99*3.78 mm
Depth Percentage 63.5 %
Table Percentage 56 %
Girdle STK-TKF
Culet N
Polish G
Symmetry G
Fluorescence N
Special Notes LASER INSCRIPTION
Price $ 4570

This one fits into all of my parameters, and I think the depth and table measurements are more reasonable. Seeing is believing, however, and I will let you know how it turns out. Any thoughts on these numbers?

The flourescence and narrow table of the original diamond was really bothering me, and the mystery 1994 diamond seemed overpriced given its undetermined past.

This is a hard and important decision for me. Thanks for all the helpful comments.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

We don't think you're neurotic, Helluva.

We just think you're an engineer...

The stone you're having sent in has a promising look on paper. Let's wait till you eyeball it to comment.

Giangi, I like your posts. You know your stuff. Out in Italy, are you?