Seeking feedback on shallower oval

[SkyHigh]

Hello everyone. I'm new here and looking for some unbiased feedback on an oval for a solitaire engagement ring. The diamond is shallower than typically recommended, but I'm not experienced enough to determine whether leakage is a problem.

Link to video: Video on Adiamor
Video in person:

Specs:
1.7 caret E VS2
Table: 57%
Depth: 55.1%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluor: Medium Blue
10.14 x 6.78 x 3.73

Do you think I'm better off going with something smaller with more depth, or does this look good?

 

[monipod]

She's certainly 'spready' for 1.7 carat! I can't tell from the video if there's enough sparkle going on. I am not one to demand a perfect cut but the stone needs to be visibly sparkly. Have you seen it in person? If there's enough bling factor for you and the price is really good, then why not? But otherwise it wouldn't to look at other options perhaps.

 

[OoohShiny]

I am no expert but it looks like it is 'windowing' (going see-through) at certain angles - you can see it in the video between 0 and 2 seconds, and in the second picture above (the first one after the adiamor image) there is a light area in the top half, which seems to be showing the napkin behind it.

Ovals can be hard to shop for! Do you have a budget you are working to?

 

[tyty333]

I saw what @OoohShiny is seeing.

For fancy cuts, I usually don't pay a lot of attention to the numbers so a shallower stone would not bother me as
long as it didn't suffer from being shallow.

The adimor video it looks like a pretty typical oval. Not perfect light return but pretty typical.

Can you buy the stone and see it in person? I think it's important to see if it sparkles "enough" for you and I dont know
how you can do this without seeing it in person. What is your priority for size over sparkle?

Can you come down in color and go up in size to achieve this spread? Might see what is available in an F/G color.

 

[SkyHigh]

Thank you very much for the input.

My budget for the stone is around $11-12k. Her fingers are not small so I am looking for a decent size, at least 9mm X 6mm and preferably 9.5+ X 6.5+. Maybe that is not a realistic size to get a good cut in my price range?

What drew me to this stone was the clarity, color, and size. My knowledge of cut and its impact on brilliance is minimal. I have seen the stone in person, but they didn't have any similar size ovals for me to compare with so I had a hard time telling if it was lacking compared to other cuts. To my inexperienced eye it looked pretty good, but I could easily be missing a red flag such as the windowing you mentioned.

I came across a short video of an Elyque oval which looked like it had a nice sparkle:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Is that the kind of sparkle I should be looking for? This is my first diamond purchase of any significance and I have only seen about 6 ovals in person, so I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for or what to avoid yet.

Is there an easy way for me to reliably test this diamond to see if it is windowing? Can I e.g. hold it in front of a colored background and see if the color comes through? Is windowing a deal-breaking attribute?

 

[OcnGypZ]

Elyque ovals were designed to eliminate the negative aspects of the oval cut. Yes..... what you see in the video is what you want to see in an oval. August Vintage has numerous YouTube videos. I'd suggest you take a look.

 

[monipod]

For your budget, go and chat to August Vintage for sure. Elyque's were designed to eliminate the bow-tie effect in particular so you might be able to get one in that budget and it would be a unique oval.

 

[tyty333]

Let me point something out as far as "sparkle" goes.

Look at this stone (stone 1)

1.51-Carat Oval Cut Diamond | Blue Nile

www.bluenile.com

Vs this stone (stone 2)...ignore inclusions and just look at faceting pattern

1.50-Carat Oval Cut Diamond | Blue Nile

www.bluenile.com

Can you see how when the stones are turned stone 2 has much better facets that light up nicely under the table? Stone 1 has
the typical pattern of nice facets just right through the center. As the stone turns, you dont really get any more facets coming into focus
(that will have nice light return like Stone 1 has).


Elyque ovals are cut to provide nice facets that light up (sparkle) almost any way you look at them. To get this type of nice faceting, stones usually
have to be deeper which means they will face up smaller. For a lot of people, it's worth the trade-off to gain the extra sparkle.

These 2 stones are sort of middle ground. No new facets outside of the middle light up as the stone turns but the middle area with nice facets
is fairly wide. They don't get you as many nice facets lighting up like the Elyque but does give you extra length.

1.51-Carat Oval Cut Diamond | Blue Nile

www.bluenile.com

1.51-Carat Oval Cut Diamond | Blue Nile

www.bluenile.com

Edit ...here is another one...H which sort of has a wider pattern through the center and on the longer side

1.60 Carat oval diamond

1.60 Carat oval diamond

www.jamesallen.com

I hope you can see the differences between the stones I've posted. If you have questions...let me/us/PSers know.

 

[SkyHigh]

After looking at the stone I first posted some more, I think I am going to pass on it as I was able to see skin tones through it at some angles, and that's something I want to avoid if possible. My head is kind of spinning over all this information. The Elyques in particular have thrown a wrench into the works as far as what I thought was possible with ovals and what is considered a good cut.

tyty333, I think I see what you are talking about, though to my untrained eye the differences are subtle. I'm not sure I could spot that on my own without somebody more experienced pointing it out. Or if I could spot it, I might not be able to describe what I was seeing. The last 1.6 you listed seemed like it may have a more apparent bowtie than the others, which I definitely want to avoid.

tyty333, is it the greater depth of stone 1 that makes it relatively less sparkly than stone 2? I am trying to identify the quantifiable attributes that can help me filter down to the best looking stones. If e.g. a 67% depth reduces the sparkle in this traditional oval cut, then I will shoot for stones with less depth than that.

I think I am going to proceed by bringing in a traditionally cut oval with less surface area and more depth (low-mid 60s), and also a similarly priced Elyque if I can get my hands on one. Then see if the additional sparkle of the Elyque is worth the reduced visible size, or if the Elyque looks too "busy".

The jeweler I have been working with said the Elyque looked good in the pictures, though they were a bit skeptical of something they hadn't heard of before I mentioned it. We will probably have to see it in person to know.

Have any of you seen the Elyque in person? Is it that much of an improvement that I shouldn't even bother with a regular cut?

 

[OoohShiny]

This is an interesting thread - it's focused on discussions around how pricing should be set, but the first post includes what would be (very similar to) an ASETscope image of an Elyque oval (originally called an Opulence Oval) on the left and a 'generic' oval on the right. Red and green is light return, and you can see how much more there is on the Elyque:

What is fair price for nice oval with 80% total depth.

Please compare these 2 ovals. Both ovals have almost same diameters and similar girdle shapes, Color,.. But the left oval has mass 1.51ct, when the right has just 1.2ct (The left has 80% total depth and -19% spread, the right has +4% spread ) In same time the left looks much more brighter and...

www.pricescope.com

You should also be aware that Rhino/Jon at AV has developed a Vintage Oval with excellent light performance, to go alongside the Elyque oval - just to throw another spanner in your decision-making process lol

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Click the picture to go to the video:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[tyty333]

"tyty333, is it the greater depth of stone 1 that makes it relatively less sparkly than stone 2? I am trying to identify the quantifiable attributes that can help me filter down to the best looking stones. If e.g. a 67% depth reduces the sparkle in this traditional oval cut, then I will shoot for stones with less depth than that.

I think I am going to proceed by bringing in a traditionally cut oval with less surface area and more depth (low-mid 60s), and also a similarly priced Elyque if I can get my hands on one. Then see if the additional sparkle of the Elyque is worth the reduced visible size, or if the Elyque looks too "busy". "

Unfortunately due to the fact ovals can be cut in multiple ways (10 main, 8 main, 6 main, 6 main offset, 4 main...see pavilion side on GIA certs)
there are no "numbers" to tell you to stick to, to produce greater sparkle. Each stone has to be evaluated on its own merits. Makes it difficult if
you don't know what you are looking for.

I guess the key is to look for distinct facets lighting up with a slight turn of the stone ( towards the more pointed ends of the stone). Areas that look
gray, with non-distinct outlines of the facets, are considered "mushy". Reduce the mush.

Here is a stone with obvious "mush" in the typical areas for ovals. Mush is easier to see in darker colored stones (because it does not return light,
however, its the same concept in lighter colors (D-H). It doss not return light well and will not sparkle. Mush is on the more pointed ends. Good
facets are running through the center.