rate this 4 carat - good stats?

[diamondsareagirlsbestfriend]

Calling all experts!
Round Brilliant
4.06
GIA
SI1 F

61.0 depth
60.0 table
Girdle med to slightly thick
cultet .05
crown 34.9 / 14.0%
pavillion 41.1 / 43.4%
Fluorescence - None

I received Sarin report - the table is reported as 60%, yet the GIA cert says 59% (the Sarin report lists table as 6.12 mm) - which is it??

All my other diamonds are E''s, so I want to make sure that this diamond sizzles, and will still be considered "colorless". I am told that the stone is eyeclean - the online vendor is going to send email magnification of the stone. Thanks in advance for opinions...

 

[hoorray]

This gets a "3.2 -- Very Good -- Worth buying if the price is right" from the HCA Cut Advisor link above using the GIA 59 table. So it is not an ideal cut, but not necessarily a real dog -- depending on what you are looking for. It is typical to have small differences in the GIA cert vs the sarin reports. Experts say to go with the GIA cert. The 6.2mm doesn't make sense to me -- this stone should have a much bigger diameter. Is that the depth in mm?

I wouldn't worry about the F to E comparison. Most people agree that you can't see differences on adjoining color grades, especially at the top of the scale. As far as sparkle goes -- it probably won't sparkle as much as a tightly cut ideal stone. There will be some light loss, but only you can tell if it is enough for you vis-a-vie the price.

Net net -- if you are looking for a top of the line, ideal cut, this isn't it. If that's not important to you, you should continue to check it out. Ask the vendor for an idealscope picture so you can see the light return.

 

[Nicrez]

May I suggest that you spring for a better cut stone within your price range, but you may lose the size of 4ct...You would proabably still be at 3.5, but the cut would be so much better, the light return and brilliance could mask a G-H (if you wanted to retain size at 4ct), and I think you may be more pleased by the effect on a stone that large with such an excellent H&A stone. May I ask your budget, and I will try to help with some reconnaissance?

 

[valeria101]

There will be plenty of room to see cut details on this one

I woudl at least inspect a larger H&A and make sure the difference between a perfect cut an the average is or is not worth it... It can't be too difficult.

 

[pqcollectibles]

Actually, a score of 3.2 is gonna be a pretty good performer. Definitely no dog. Quite possibly in the top 10% of all diamonds out there. And in a 4 carat, it will probably knock people's socks off.

Fire & Ice has a gorgeous, non-Ideal, 3 carat. Her HCA score was something very similar, if I remember correctly. She is very pleased with her choice. By not going with a Super Duper Louper, F&I got a great performer for a very good price.

The qualifier, in this case, is the price. If this diamond is priced appropriately, it could be well worth considering. If the diamond is over priced, then you might consider other candidates.

 

[diamondsareagirlsbestfriend]

As far as the color goes, this will be set in yellow gold, and I was unhappy with my original 1.5 c that was G/H in color - I could definitely tell the difference. My earrings are an "F" (2 c.t.w), and I was unable to see much difference between the E and the F. The whole reason I am looking (again) for a 4 carat stone is a terrible story - I picked out a 4 carat after many months of searching, only to have the ring setter crack the diamond when he switched from the temp setting to the custom design . (Of course, the jeweler neglected to point this out when I picked up my ring - thank goodness I caught it immediately). So, after sending my attorney husband after them, we have money in hand and are once again in the hunt. The original 4 carat was E color (EGL). So, after spending a few months wearing an E 4 carat, you just can't go backwards!

In comparing the quoted price of this stone compared to all the others matching the specs on pricescope, they are in the middle of the pack on price (we haven't done any negotiating yet). Speaking of which, would it be true to say the the larger the diamond, the larger the price, the more room for negotiation?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/12/2004 12:24:33 PM diamondsareagirlsbestfriend wrote:



[...] would it be true to say the the larger the diamond, the larger the price, the more room for negotiation?

----------------

Not sure about this, but unless the seller you are buying from sells pieces like this all day long, yours is likely to be a relatively important purchase one would rather make than break. Such consideration my leave some room to 'haggle'. No idea how much though, since PS prices are not exaclt high - overall.

Some sellers here have a 'price match' policy - so price references may also make a good negotiation argument. For a SI stone, the position of inclusions and cut details of the stone do influence price signifficantly one way or another (since the match between the paper-grade and actual visual presence make these SI stones a great or not-so-great deal), and could be relevant for your 'bid' too - but these are things one can point out with stone in hand only I am affraid.

 

[Mara]

Well possibly wearing an E EGL means you were really wearing a F or G GIA.

But depends on the EGL Lab..however sometimes they are not as strict.




If you are getting a GIA graded stone, an F is more than fine...maybe even a GIA G. The better cut the stone, the more white it faces up by the way.




I would second and third the other people's notations....I would skip on this stone. Look for something similar BUT with a smaller table. Between something like 55-58. Similar numbers..but a table like that and the diamond should be much better cut.




It's harder to find the well-cut larger stones, but be patient! You don't just want color and clarity and size, you should also make cut a priority. I wouldn't spend a huge chunk of change on a 3.2 HCA performer. I can see a difference in my 2.8 performer and my fiance's 1.0 performer. So the HCA is a valuable tool for helping rule out stones. I would not buy anything over 2.5 as a personal preference and even then under 2.0 is my really sweet spot.

Good luck whatever you decide!

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/12/2004 11:59:04 AM pqcollectibles wrote:

Actually, a score of 3.2 is gonna be a pretty good performer. Definitely no dog. Quite possibly in the top 10% of all diamonds out there. And in a 4 carat, it will probably knock people's socks off.

Fire & Ice has a gorgeous, non-Ideal, 3 carat. Her HCA score was something very similar, if I remember correctly. She is very pleased with her choice. By not going with a Super Duper Louper, F&I got a great performer for a very good price.

--

Yep, also keep in mind that HCA can be arbirary - I don't have my specs in front of me - but if I put in 58.9 instead of 59 table the score was below 2. That minutia of table percentages isn't going to make a visual difference in the performance of the stone.

In the end, only your eyes can make the determination on cut. I would definitely look at a few stones before deciding.

 

[valeria101]

EDITED to add: PQ, we were doing the same thing in the same time

Not sure what to make of all this... but yours is one interesting diamond!

Trying out the HCA with 61% depth - 59% table - 34.9 crown angle and 41.1 pavilion angle, once gets a score of 3.2 (Very Good, with VG-G-G-VG). The signature of a stone with strong light return and good spread, but average fire and scintillation (a BIC, like Mara's).

Usually (for the ideal cuts), the score obtained using percenatges rather than agles is a bit different. In this case, the result using 61% depth - 59% table – 14% crown and 43.3% pavilion you get HCS = 2. very different! And it takes one 0.1% of pavilion depth to make this a 1.9 HCA ( Ex-Vg-Vg-Vg Ideal, TIC range)

Conclusion? How about some more reliable light return test on this one? What is the symetry grade on this stone? If the subject turns out to have great light return despite the weird numbers, this is clearly a deal - an ideal cut of the same, color, clarity and size woudl not be in the 'mid range' of PS prices... I supose.

 

[diamondsareagirlsbestfriend]

On the original 4 c.t.w.: EGL - vs. GIA in color: yes, I knew that it's a strong possibility that the color could be off - I did have an appraiser look at the stone with GIA stones, and he agreed it was at least an F.

You asked on Symmetry - rated "Very Good" and Polish was "Excellent"

I emailed the vendor asking them to send an Idealscope image - I will also have them ship it to a local appraiser so I can see this in person before purchasing - thanks to all here at Pricescope - I encourage everyone looking at diamonds to take at least a month and just read through all the stuff here - very powerful info when dealing with the B & M institutions....

 

[valeria101]

Way to go

I hope we will get to see the Iscope ? It will be very interesting to sort out the HCA versions with a more concrete look. It is often said that the HCA is just a sorting tool (which it is meant to be) not a precise diagnostic unit, and this would be a good example of what the Scope is good for

The "very good" symmetry does rule out the case that the variation on HCA score would be due to some rough approximation of measurement from averaging out cut imprecision. And, of course, it is "very good" news...

All my 0.2 opinion, of course.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
Conclusion? How about some more reliable light return test on this one? What is the symetry grade on this stone? If the subject turns out to have great light return despite the weird numbers, this is clearly a deal - an ideal cut of the same, color, clarity and size woudl not be in the 'mid range' of PS prices... I supose.

----------------

The conclusion I draw is that HCA has a margin of error inherent with assumptions. I have stones that run the gamut between .5 - 4. & they are all visually pleasing (the 4. is my OEC) & sparkely. The only difference I see is in the symmetry. And, most humans do react to symmetry in favorable ways. What that means - I don't know.

The 4c sounds nice. When you get into the large stones w/ the parameters you want - this is about as good as it may get.

 

[diamondsman]

----------------
On 3/12/2004 12:24:33 PM diamondsareagirlsbestfriend wrote:
In comparing the quoted price of this stone compared to all the others matching the specs on pricescope, they are in the middle of the pack on price (we haven't done any negotiating yet). Speaking of which, would it be true to say the the larger the diamond, the larger the price, the more room for negotiation?

----------------

Your best bet is to go on line ,check out different sites for the same type of stone, then start negotiating with the vendor to give you the best price.
as far as negotiating ,it really all the depends on the markup of the b&m, or vendor.there are no set rules.