Please help me understand what I''m looking at (3.37 ct round)

[Dee*Jay]

So I have gone on a mission to learn about rounds before I make another 3+ ct mistake and I have a few (probably stupid) questions.

Over the past few days I've seen over 20 stones in the 3-5 ct range and I want to make sure I understand what makes one better than another. Here is a stone that I saw yesterday that was pleasing to my eye:

3.37 ct
GIA certed
H color
SI1 (completely eye clean)
9.65 X 9.70 X 5.91
VG cut grade
61.1% depth
56% table
35 crown angle (((is this a rounded number? if so, what is the impact on analysis?)))
15.5% crown height
40.4 pavillion angle
42.5% pavillion depth
55% star length
85% lower half
girdle thin to medium, faceted
culet none
EX polish
EX symmetry
Fluor. none

When I put the info in the Atlas DIY cut grading chart I only get a 1B (I think the crown angle is an issue) and the stone only scores a .6 on the HCA.

Is this a *bad* stone? I found it to be an attractive rock but maybe I just don't know what I'm looking at...

Any guidance here will be MUCH appreciated!

P.S. - NO, this stone is not necessarily *the one,* I just chose it as an example so I could have a real rock that I've actually seen to use as a springboard to figure all this out. But I would value your opinions on whether you consider it good/bad/or somewhere in between. I'm going to see other stones this afternoon and I'm sure there will be more questions forthcoming!

 

[KristyDarling]

It looks like a promising stone! (yay for H SI1s!!! Got one m''self!)

Yes the crown angle looks a tad large, and the pav angle a smidge small, but no matter! You said it was attractive.

The other specs look fine. Your angles are ever-so-slightly outside of the ideal range...which, to me, is a bonus. You won''t have to pay the ideal premium. It is SOOOO hard to find a stone in that carat weight that is within ideal range, and if you do, you''d pay many thousands more for a difference that is hardly noticeable (or not noticeable at all) to the human eye. Stones that large are SUPER-sparkling in and of themselves....their sheer size (and ability to reflect light) sorta make up for the lack of ideal-ness, know what I mean? I have a stone that falls just short of current ideal parameters, but at the time it was graded by AGS it WAS considered ideal, so that was more than good enough for me. And it actually returned light BETTER than a similarly sized stone that did fall within ideal ranges. Basically what I''m saying is, with stones in the 3-5 carat range, I think there is some leeway to have a little flexibility with specs. Of course, don''t go too far off the chart, but a little bit outside will afford you a lot of value.

And bottom line -- trust your eyes!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Thanks for responding KristyDarling! I've called in a 3.57 H SI2 AGSO ID/ID/ID but I don't have any other info on it yet, and I'm going to view a couple of larger (4+ ct) stones today too, but I just want to make sure I end up with a good one. That being said, I refuse to let this consume my life to the degree that my oval search did!!! If I find a stone that I find appealing, even if it is slightly out of the ideal range, I'm going to consider it.

I hope you won't mind, by the way, if I end up setting whatever round I get like yours! I have my original pear side stones (which I will probably have to change out to a bigger size) but as of right now that is the setting that I like the most. That being said I would like to pay a visit to Pearlman's and peruse the awesome setting selection to make sure I'm not missing anything -- LOL!

 

[KristyDarling]

Date: 6/20/2006 10:29:44 AM
Author: Dee*Jay
Thanks for responding KristyDarling! I''ve called in a 3.57 H SI2 AGSO ID/ID/ID but I don''t have any other info on it yet, and I''m going to view a couple of larger (4+ ct) stones today too, but I just want to make sure I end up with a good one. That being said, I refuse to let this consume my life to the degree that my oval search did!!! If I find a stone that I find appealing, even if it is slightly out of the ideal range, I''m going to consider it.


I hope you won''t mind, by the way, if I end up setting whatever round I get like yours! I have my original pear side stones (which I will probably have to change out to a bigger size) but as of right now that is the setting that I like the most. That being said I would like to pay a visit to Pearlman''s and peruse the awesome setting selection to make sure I''m not missing anything -- LOL!

Me, mind? I''d actually love to quit my job and become the official round-with-pear-sides spokesperson!

I say go for it, it''s such a classic and timeless look. I''m always happy when I see others on PS with this style. (yay and congrats, Virginia!)

I''m so glad you''ll be considering stones in the almost-ideal range. Let us know if you can perceive any noticeable differences between ideal and almost-ideal, I''m always curious to hear what others think!

 

[aljdewey]

Hi, DJ....Yes, the 35 crown angle is most likely rounded, and it''s why you''re getting a 1B on the AGA cut advisor.

Kristy is right that the slightly lesser cut should result in favorable pricing. It can be tough to find stones in that range where all the numbers are spot on.

Having said that, I''m not terribly wild about the pavilion angle on the stone.....and even more so if the true crown angle is really 34.6, 34.7, 34.8. That could result in a lack of contrast in the stone.

Will it be noticeable? Don''t know.....but just something to be aware of and keep in mind as you look.

At the end of the day, if it''s pleasing to your eye, that''s really all that matters, so I''d key on that as the top priority, and use the numbers to make sure you''re paying a fair price for what it is.

 

[belle]

Date: 6/20/2006 10:10:10 AM
Author:Dee*Jay

3.37 ct
GIA certed
H color
SI1 (completely eye clean)
9.65 X 9.70 X 5.91
VG cut grade
61.1% depth
56% table
35 crown angle (((is this a rounded number? if so, what is the impact on analysis?)))
15.5% crown height
40.4 pavillion angle
42.5% pavillion depth
55% star length
85% lower half
girdle thin to medium, faceted
culet none
EX polish
EX symmetry
Fluor. none

yes it is, and so are all of the other numbers. that is what gia does.
the impact on analysis could be significant if you did not have the option of seeing the diamond. there would be a question as to what side of the rounding those numbers are on and what the effect would be on the appearance.

Date: 6/20/2006 10:10:10 AM
Author:Dee*Jay

When I put the info in the Atlas DIY cut grading chart I only get a 1B (I think the crown angle is an issue) and the stone only scores a .6 on the HCA.

the crown angle combined with the pavilion angle actually. either by itself could be okay...it''s the combination of the two that determine performance. everything works together.

Date: 6/20/2006 10:10:10 AM
Author:Dee*Jay

Is this a *bad* stone? I found it to be an attractive rock but maybe I just don''t know what I''m looking at...

not necessarily.
is chocolate bad? no, there are just some that are better. there are also some that are supposed to be worse that many find quite pleasing. it''s all a matter of taste.

keep looking and find what YOU like dee jay. you may find that the more you look, the better you are able to pick up the subtle (and not so subtle) differences that each level of cut has to offer.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Al and Belle, thank you for the info. I thought that rounds would be *easier* than ovals, but that is JUST NOT THE CASE! As least I am starting to understand (a little!) what I''m looking at.

 

[belle]

they are easier dee jay! once you get fully into round mode, you will feel more confident about it. just take your time and find what you like.
and keep us posted!