Princess Cut Help

[avid]

In the market for a 2+ carat princess cut. Pleased with this stone but hearing conflicting advice on table/depth measures. Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

Certificate > GIA

Cut > Princess

Carat > 2.16

Color > G

Clarity > SI1

Measurements > 7.55-7.43-4.84 mm

Depth Percentage > 65.10 %

Table Percentage > 68 %

Girdle > VT-STK

Culet > N

Polish > Very Good

Symmetry > Good

Fluorescence > None

 

[valeria101]

Looks good to me

The more often heard rule of thumb about depth and table percentages would be that these should be close numbers, with the table % somewhat smaller than the depth %... This is not written in stone (!) though. For your princess cut, the rule demands a rather small table (less than 65%) which few princessc uts would have and some would not consider attractive. So? Nothing wrong with the numbers... in my view. The stone should look square, the depth is a very desirable number, hopefully no inclusion catches the eye. If you consider it's light return acceptable with or without further measurement in this regard, this is it.

 

[avid]

Thanks Valeria. I've actually seen a similar stone and was happy with the dimensions. The one I described below is available via internet and I am a bit leary about going that route. Am considering brining it in to view under return policy. Seems as if most people on this sight are happy with that process - any horror stories?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 2/20/2004 8:19:27 PM avid wrote:



Am considering brining it in to view under return policy. Seems as if most people on this sight are happy with that process - any horror stories?----------------

There have been no failures of the return policy recorded here, and only a couple of returned diamonds (some from Ebay, and the latest two either from an unidentified local business and Mondera). It seem that failing to accept returns is that lowest threshold that would put one's business under risk - so one deal is not worth it. Some stores may have restocking fee or make the process a hussle, but this is about as bad as it gets when "disaster" is reported around here.
As long as you agree with the terms of the return, there does not seem to be any exceptional risk. Previous posts record that some prefer to pay by credit card to hedge further. Also, diamonds can be shipped to an independent appraiser, so you can have professional asistance while judging the stone (a good thing if you do not want to spend time chasing down and inspecting the illusive well-cut princess for reference). All in all, the vast majority of purchases recorded here (I can remenber maybe 3-4 happy-ended trouble stories during my PS time) relied on the return policies and went well: internet sellers depend too much on reputation and too little on just one sale for things to go wrong.

Just ny 0.2, of course...

 

[avid]

I've come across another candidate... Which one do we like better, this one or the one in my first post?

2.13 carats
7.37 X 7.09
71.2% Depth
77% Table
G
SI1

This stone is about $700 cheaper than the first.
Thanks !

 

[avid]

Or I might go up market a bit and go with this one. Is it worth another $3000?

Princess
Carat 2.38
Color D
SI1
8.03X7.45X4.70
Depth 63.1
Table 74
Girdle "M SLTK"
Cutlet N


Thanks so much for your advice!

 

[valeria101]

Actually, the latest two are much worse, in terms of cut, than the first - bigger depth makes them look smaller, and larger tables go against my instinct for choosing diamonds with better rather than worse light return...
As for the D-SI combination, it may be worth it for someone who values "whiteness" allot. However, the G color would most likely hold it's own aganist a D-F color under casual inspection (such as the ring will get once on the "user's" hand). At this point, I would rather improve cut leaving color and clarity in place, rather than get a stone with strange proportions and tad whiter....

This would be an example of princess cut with "sparkly" personality: deeper than I'd want them, but with quite a presence nevertheless...

And one more.

Whyle I might be a ledd emanding judge about princess cut quality than this... it may be useful to take a look at some cut standards for these choices. Here's the respective AGA reference, the one-page rules of usage and cut grading principles.

 

[avid]

Thanks again for your help Valeria.

We are getting close to a decision. I now have the 2.16 princess in my possesion abd am in the process of comparing it to a few other candidates in my area.

I really like the look of the stone - it is spread quite wide, and appearance is very square (a good thing to my eye). Its primary competition at the moment is as follows:
2.53 carats
8.1X7.43X5.18
Depth 69.7%
Table 78%
Girdle Thin to Medium
Cutlet None
Polish Very Good
Symmetry Good
SI2
E
No Fluor.

This stone is more rectangular, but I don't mind the proportions. However when view side by side with the first stone it appears to give off light with bigger sparkels. Very hard to explain in writing, but basically the first stone looks consistently "sparkely" all over, and the second stone has larger flashes of fire in different places.

Any idea what part of the measurements would contribute to this effect, and is one considered more desirable? (They both look nice to my novice eye!)

Also - the second stone prices out at about $15,500 while the 1st stone is at $12,000.

Any advice?


Thanks again for all your help...


Plan to pop the question in St Lucia on March 20th.

Adam

 

[valeria101]

About what measurements... no idea: this is Jonathan's domain

As far as I know, the "light return" of ps. cuts gets substantially better when such flashes (which appear as black areas under the Ideal Scope) are present rather than an overal even but medium light return (pale red under Ideal Scope). As far as I know, there is no complete asessment of what each type of facet angle does to the total light return (for princesses this would mena at least two types of pavilion angles, for example).

It is lucky that you have these two to choose from. I can't say even what I would prefer based on "what I imagine you see". It may help to consider the overall look of the ring with either stone, rather than the diamonds alone.

How do they compare in terms of color and clarity for you? Do inclusions how in either stone ? Does the E look blatantly better ?

For the cut alone, I am still in favor of the first stone: the last is bigger but that "ice skating ring" table would not be anywhere near my liking, and neither is the square-towards-rectangle shape.

Both the G-SI1 and the E-SI2 seem well priced, so neither wins for being a bargain. Tough call

 

[avid]

Color appears very close, I have viewed them side by side in several types of light and struggle to tell any difference at all. The larger stone has at least one inclusion that is visable when viewed from the side, but appears invisible when viewed from the top (it is quite low in the stone). I am still leaning to stone #1, but am still slightly torn because of the bigger "light flashes" in stone #2.

Anyone Chicago know a good independent appraiser in Chicago? There is only one link on the pricescope page and I wasn't very impressed with the service when I called to make an appointment.

 

[avid]

I searched through the old Rocky Talky archives and saw some good feedback on progem (appraiser in Chicago). Maybe the bad phone call was just a fluke. Suppose I will them a try, will post my thoughts once complete.

Still very curious for any other advice on my two stones...


Thanks,
Avid

 

[Indescisive]

I'll tell you my experiences in searching for my engagement ring... I think almost all of the stones I saw were around the 70% table range. The one diamond I saw with a smaller table (59%) was the one I ended up getting... that sucker shimmers at every slight movement! I'm sure it's all personal preference, but I REALLY liked the smaller table on the princess.

 

[avid]

Had the stone appraised/verified by Progem in Chicago today. Overall experience quite mixed. First the bad news: Bad phone experience turned into worse first impression as the counter help was not very helpful at all. Price quoted when I showed up was 3X what I was quoted on the phone, but I really wanted to have the stone looked at by an independent party so I paid the $115. I asked the guy if he would supplement the certificate he would provide (I already had the GIA cert and the stone was inscribed)with a qualitative assessment from an expert since that is what I really wanted. His reply: "I'm not a gemologist" I only know about cut. But, the place seemed pretty nice overall, and there was previously positive feedback on this site so I decided to take my chances. Now the better news...
My stone assessment came back very similar to the GIA, and they added the crown% and a few other tidbets. The whole process only took a few hours, and when I picked up the stone I got to speak with Tom (the CEO of the company). He walked me through his thoughts on the diamond which I would rate as okay (the qulaity of his comments, not his thougths on the stone itself). He seemed to have a bit of a bias about the princess cut, and wasn't really willing to say if it was a good stone compared to what else I could get for the money, but did provide some reassurance and taught me a lot about the importance of the crown height. So.... If you use progem, be sure to deal with Tom directly and maybe I just caught them on a bad day. I was really hoping for a strong opinion on the stone one way or the other (and made this clear), but I never really got it. Oh well...

One last question for the group - my stone came out with a crown of 8% - Tom said this was okay but not great, anyone else have any thoughts?


Thanks again for the help...