Replacing Lost GIA Good cut diamond

[meg lowans]

My original diamond was a GIA "good cut" which I now know his not the best. I was however very pleased with my diamond. I have to replace it and I am trying to figure out if my tastes are just easy to please or if my diamond was cut in a way that made the grade go down because the spread wasn't so good but the light return was decent. The reason I suspect this is because many of the proportions were in the "ideal" range. The diamond did have a thick girdle. 5.5%.

The specs were 55% table
35 degree pavilion angle and 41 degree other angle.. the GIA number was 5151705527 if that helps. Would I be happy with most "good cuts"? Or was there something in particular about this was that made it ok? Thank you in advance.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Would I be happy with most "good cuts"? Or was there something in particular about this was that made it ok? Thank you in advance.

No, Not if you hang around here.

 

[meg lowans]

For what it is worth, I had those angles backwards...clearly not an expert!

 

[OoohShiny]

Do you know the depth of your original stone?

I can't get the GIA number to come up in the HCA tool (under the Tools tab at the top), which would help indicate how good it was performance wise.


Whereabouts are you in the world? If you've not seen a 'superideal' diamond (or even a very good GIA XXX that falls within Pricescope-recommended parameters) you won't know what you are missing!

 

[meg lowans]

The depth was 64.6. I will double check the number when I get back home.

 

[Matilda]

So with the GIA certificate is:

https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno= 5151705527&s=1547855969769

HCA for it is 2.6:

https://www.pricescope.com/tools/hca?

Could be a combination of the diamond being too deep, only very good in symmetry and the girdle isn't great, rather than just one thing. Though to me the depth percentage really stands out, perhaps it wouldd have been Very Good instead, I asm just thinking out loud though, or typing rather.

 

[John P]

...Though to me the depth percentage really stands out, perhaps it wouldd have been Very Good instead.

@Matilda nailed it.

GIA has a hard cutoff for VG at 64.5% depth. Anything deeper becomes Good. This is attributable to the girdle running all the way to Very-Thick. In essence, your 0.69 carat diamond had the vertical spread of many 0.62-0.63 carat diamonds, thus the harsh penalty.

With that said: Overlooking the VT girdle, those basic table/crown/pavilion proportions are candidates for AGS1 in light performance. That would depend on rounding minutia, but your descriptions of its pleasing light performance are not a surprise. It sounds like a diamond that didn't have the vertical spread to be in the 0.69 carat class physically, thus the penalty, but performed very nicely.

 

[meg lowans]

Thank you everybody.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The depth was 64.6. I will double check the number when I get back home.

Cut too deep.

 

[rockysalamander]

You found a unicorn in that diamond. You probably will not be happy with a VG or G unless you find similar proportions. If you have a budget we can point to some options.