Please help us! Partner is planning to purchase this diamond tomorrow! 2.04, VS2, J, excellent cut GIA

[Alicer2014]

Hi All,

My boyfriend is about to pull the trigger on this diamond tomorrow and has asked me what I think - and I don't know very much about diamonds so would really appreciate your thoughts!

It is 2.04 carats, VS2, J colour, excellent cut. GIA graded.

Its been a challenge finding something within our budget (this came to £9600). I'm not too fussed about a warmer colour and don't mind if it looks small-ish for its carat weight as I'm only a size 4.75 hand size - my main point is I'd like it to have a nice sparkle

It will be set on a yellow gold setting with white gold prongs.

Thank you so much for any help!

 

[lovedogs]

the angles are complementary, which is good. The negative to this stone is that it's too deep (we recommend 62.4 as the max depth), so it won't look as big as it's ct weight.

 

[Alicer2014]

the angles are complementary, which is good. The negative to this stone is that it's too deep (we recommend 62.4 as the max depth), so it won't look as big as it's ct weight.

Thank you for your response, really appreciate it.

I actually don't mind too much if it looks small for its carat weight because I was a bit worried that 2 carats would be a bit too big for my hand size! Long as it doesn't look tooooo small, I don't mind if it looks closer to 1.8

 

[lovedogs]

Thank you for your response, really appreciate it.

I actually don't mind too much if it looks small for its carat weight because I was a bit worried that 2 carats would be a bit too big for my hand size! Long as it doesn't look tooooo small, I don't mind if it looks closer to 1.8

I think the issue is that you don't want to pay for a 2.04 stone that looks like a 1.8. Becuase dealers will charge you for ct weight even if it looks like a smaller stone. Are you tied to this specific dealer/vendor? PS. this isn't *too* small, but it is a touch smaller than it *should* be.

 

[elizat]

Thank you for your response, really appreciate it.

I actually don't mind too much if it looks small for its carat weight because I was a bit worried that 2 carats would be a bit too big for my hand size! Long as it doesn't look tooooo small, I don't mind if it looks closer to 1.8

You are paying for the 2 carat bump though, in all likelihood. Once it hits the next marker, prices generally go up. You see this at .5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0, etc. Why not pay for a 1.8 that is less warm and not as deep?

 

[ccuheartnurse]

Firstly, tell your partner to pause on the go button. You are clearly stressed & although he is the one paying, he did ask you to give the go ahead. So again, pause it. If you want a stone to look smaller, buy one that is smaller. An extra .25 pts is very costly at this size.

 

[lovedogs]

Firstly, tell your partner to pause on the go button. You are clearly stressed & although he is the one paying, he did ask you to give the go ahead. So again, pause it. If you want a stone to look smaller, buy one that is smaller. An extra .25 pts is very costly at this size.

Exactly.

 

[kb1gra]

You should mind if it looks smaller than its weight, because you're paying for its weight. If 2ct is too big, why buy one? A 1.7 is quite sizeable - and substantially cheaper.

 

[Kaycee2018]

Agree with others. If you don’t mind 1.7-1.8 ct, why pay for 2.04? I’d look for something around 1.7-1.8 ct with a depth of no more than 62.4 (and personally I’d go higher in color, G-H range). Have You seen diamonds I’d this size in J color IRL?

 

[headlight]

The only comment I will make is that if you want the “small table, high crown” profile, it’s got to come from somewhere. I have same table (55) and crown height (16%) and I am just drawn to that profile vs a more “shallow, spreads-er” stone. So I guess “pick you poison”. I, too, felt similar as to size. It has a very “sweet, delicate” personality. and I like it. My ring size is also 4.75 (although I have large knuckles, yuck!). Mine has a “long, graceful” appearance, vs a “squat-ier” (for lack of a better way to describe). It is just a different “flavor” than, for example, the BGD in my other ring in my avatar. (Disclaimer: This “55/16” is my stone that is the E color so I can’t say if that plays a role in its appeal.).
I have seen 62.3 depth in an 2.03ct, 8.04 mm, so you have same thing and the depth falls within your max parameter. Some charts equate a 2ct with 8mm. Others at 8.10mm however, even at that, you are talking only a difference of seven one-hundredths of a mm!
Also, whether it is a “mind thing” or ego or whatever, that 2 ct threshold means something to some people, including myself. My jeweler wasn’t going to show me anything under a 2 carat... I was trading stones from a 3.29ct and he (and the others in the store, all who knew me well, as well as my husband) all felt I should not have been shown anything less than 2ct. Paying for the 2ct magic # was just the cost to have the “bragging rights” for that size. Perhaps OP’s intention was to get her a “2ct”? Honestly, unless you are going for a shallower, more spread-y look, I don’t think there’s a lot of “paying for weight you aren’t going to see”. It’s just in another personality from what many here who are really trying to maximize on spread are going for.

 

[mewing]

Thank you for your response, really appreciate it.

I actually don't mind too much if it looks small for its carat weight because I was a bit worried that 2 carats would be a bit too big for my hand size! Long as it doesn't look tooooo small, I don't mind if it looks closer to 1.8

I have nothing to add except listen to these people here. I've dodged many bullets over the years by tapping on the collective experience of everyone here.

What they are trying to do is to help get you the biggest bang for your buck.

 

[headlight]

I have nothing to add except listen to these people here. I've dodged many bullets over the years by tapping on the collective experience of everyone here.

What they are trying to do is to help get you the biggest bang for your buck.

Exactly! My input is just from my experience... and that may push her totally to discarding this stone which is also good if it helps her feel confident in her decision. Given I’m always talking about high color, I agree with @Kaycee2018 in that if size isn’t critical, go for smaller and get better color. But 1.8ct will be around 7.75mm which is definitely going to look smaller than the 8.4mm in the stone under consideration by the partner. But saying that the stone in question has a depth that is going to make it look like a 1.8ct is inaccurate.

 

[lovedogs]

Exactly! My input is just from my experience... and that may push her totally to discarding this stone which is also good if it helps her feel confident in her decision. Given I’m always talking about high color, I agree with @Kaycee2018 in that if size isn’t critical, go for smaller and get better color. But 1.8ct will be around 7.75mm which is definitely going to look smaller than the 8.4mm in the stone under consideration by the partner. But saying that the stone in question has a depth that is going to make it look like a 1.8ct is inaccurate.

Sorry, I didnt mean it was going to look like a literal 1.8. I meant that it will look smaller than the ct weight, which I don't prefer bc you are paying for size you cant see

 

[Dancing Fire]

This stone will look small for its weight.

 

[LemonMoonLex]

Just curious but what spread in diameter is desired for her 2ct?
How many mms do they usually face up?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Just curious but what spread in diameter is desired for her 2ct?
How many mms do they usually face up?

A well cut 2ct MRB should be close to 8.10mm

The Op's stone is 2.04ct, its diameter should be close to 8.15mm

 

[LemonMoonLex]

A well cut 2ct MRB should be close to 8.10mm

The Op's stone is 2.04ct, its diameter should be close to 8.15mm

Costs aside, do you think it's a negligible difference in size from hers and what one should spread to? Or is that small amount very noticeable to the eye?

I guess everyone's different in the end. Me personally I don't see differences in high color but I can in size!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Costs aside, do you think it's a negligible difference in size from hers and what one should spread to? Or is that small amount very noticeable to the eye?

I guess everyone's different in the end. Me personally I don't see differences in high color but I can in size!

She may or may not notice the difference in diameter, but think of it this way...why pay for a 1lb steak with so much untrimmed fats left on the edge when you can buy a lean 3/4 lb steak for less?

 

[headlight]

Sorry, I didnt mean it was going to look like a literal 1.8. I meant that it will look smaller than the ct weight, which I don't prefer bc you are paying for size you cant see

Thanks @lovedogs! I understand, and appreciate your perspective (and everyone else’s). I just wanted her to know that if this is the one the partner purchases it’s going to be okay... 0.07mm difference will not be like they got ripped off, as it still visually is “read” by others as 2 cts (as has been my experience). It’s so nice here on PS where we can all add in our perspectives so OPs can know they’ve gleaned as much info as possible for this major decision.

 

[headlight]

She may or may not notice the difference in diameter, but think of it this way...why pay for a 1lb steak with so much untrimmed fats left on the edge when you can buy a lean 3/4 lb steak for less?

I love your analogy @Dancing Fire!
While I’m not a steak lover, I have heard others say that the untrimmed fat adds flavor when cooking lol
Definitely “food for thought” (sorry for the pun) for the diamond buyer!!!

 

[headlight]

This stone will look small for its weight.

Respectfully suggest there’s a range (emphasis on respect to you, @Dancing Fire!).

 

[kb1gra]

I still wonder what the point is of pursuing a stone over a particular size, if you are concerned that a stone that size will be too big. I've truly never heard of something like that.

 

[lydial]

I suspect this will be a very pretty diamond!

 

[Snowdrop13]

Scores 1.3 on the HCA with a “good” for spread as noted above. I can’t see anything like the same size of diamond for that price. Can you buy it then return if necessary?

 

[LemonMoonLex]

She may or may not notice the difference in diameter, but think of it this way...why pay for a 1lb steak with so much untrimmed fats left on the edge when you can buy a lean 3/4 lb steak for less?

Hence why I said "costs aside" as that point was made earlier in the thread and was thoroughly understood. Although I like your steak analogy...mmmmm

It sounds like it might be hard to find a similar diamond with more accurate spread at that price though?

 

[whitewave]

Compare the mm dimensions to a 1.8 and see where you are.

 

[partgypsy]

I think it's a very pretty diamond. As long as it's cost is in line with other (well cut) diamonds of that spread I think it's a good choice. I would only go down to 1.7 or so carat if you truly don't mind something a little smaller and save yourself some money.

 

[diver]

seems a bit pricey for a stone with those inclusions on the table, indented natural, and medium blue florescence....

 

[headlight]

seems a bit pricey for a stone with those inclusions on the table, indented natural, and medium blue florescence....

It’s funny you mention the fluorescence because I was thinking about it this morning... it’s a plus for this stone, a J. It will definitely have a positive impact on the appearance of this diamond.

 

[headlight]

To illustrate what I was referring to with regard to profile:

This small table, high crown look is very appealing to me. But to have that high crown you are going to have to give up something else, hence being on the smaller side of spread for carat weight.