Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Should I Be Worried? Cut Review

K

kayteena

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
5
Newbie here, what are thoughts on this diamond in terms of cut (not color)? 1.54 K-VS2 IDEAL CUT ROUND

I'm aware many feel some way about K colored diamonds from reading through the numerous color sensitivity comments, so I'm not really looking for the watch for color comments. HCA score came back as "0.6 - Should sparkle beautifully and look a good size for its carat weight." It is eye clean. What would be your main concern?

image0.jpeg
 
The table is a little larger and the crown angle a little lower than I tend to go for, but that's splitting hairs.
 
Thank you for providing input Kim N! I really appreciate it.
 
Kim N said:
The table is a little larger and the crown angle a little lower than I tend to go for, but that's splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
Seriously Kim - 57.8% is a little too large????

KayT - These are my favourite proportions. The only issue is that if you are short sighted and like to lay in bed looking at your diamond from 6 inches 15cm it will be dark and dull. But on a had it will be bery bright and sparkly
 
Kim N said:
The table is a little larger and the crown angle a little lower than I tend to go for, but that's splitting hairs.
Click to expand...

This is overly harsh IMHO. The stone is amazing and looks perfect.
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
Seriously Kim - 57.8% is a little too large????

KayT - These are my favourite proportions. The only issue is that if you are short sighted and like to lay in bed looking at your diamond from 6 inches 15cm it will be dark and dull. But on a had it will be bery bright and sparkly
Click to expand...

Why would it look dark & dull in that situation but bright on the hand?
 
In all fairness to Kim N, she said she was splitting hairs. Great follow-up question Polabowla, because I had the same one.

Garry H (Cut Nut) & lovedogs thank you for the input! I've been lurking across the forums for weeks trying to take in all the knowledge and advice from other posts. It helped me reject at least 3 stones the James Allen reps suggested to me. While right on the cusp of diamond search fatigue, I came across this one in the middle of the night. I recognized the table and depth were outside the range of what some would recommend, and that other posts have suggested the rejection of diamonds that fall outside the 1-2 range on HCA...but something about this one stuck. I have never made a large USD jewelry purchase and wanted to be sure my budget was well spent- especially with everything going on.
 
kayteena said:
In all fairness to Kim N, she said she was splitting hairs. Great follow-up question Polabowla, because I had the same one.

Garry H (Cut Nut) & lovedogs thank you for the input! I've been lurking across the forums for weeks trying to take in all the knowledge and advice from other posts. It helped me reject at least 3 stones the James Allen reps suggested to me. While right on the cusp of diamond search fatigue, I came across this one in the middle of the night. I recognized the table and depth were outside the range of what some would recommend, and that other posts have suggested the rejection of diamonds that fall outside the 1-2 range on HCA...but something about this one stuck. I have never made a large USD jewelry purchase and wanted to be sure my budget was well spent- especially with everything going on.
Click to expand...

Garry H developed the HCA - he should know best. That said, the ASET and AGS 0 Cut Grade trump the HCA anyway. The HCA is based on calculations only, the ASET is an actual image of this stone's light performance.
 
Not to go against @Garry H (Cut Nut) as I'm a huge fan, but the stats on my recently recut stone by BGD that is now an AGS000 are as follows, similar to the stone being considered by @kayteena, and I do not experience any of the head blocking issues as described by Garry (sorry!):
Table 57.4, Crown ht 14.2, Pavilion depth 43.1, Crown angle 33.7, Pavilion angle 40.8, Total depth 60.1.
I actually had been worried about that because my stone also has a really low HCA score, but given this was an inherited and now recut stone, it would be what it would be. Happily, there has not been any issue.
To the preference that @Kim N expressed, I feel similar, as I'm a small table, high crown girl, I'm drawn to that profile but, given this was a recut, BG had to work with what he was presented with. With that said, the diamond is gorgeous. You also get a lot of bang for your buck on size since it is more "spread-y", yet you won't be sacrificing on performance given you have the security of knowing the light performance with the AGS000 grade. So I think if the other specs fit the bill, go for it, it should be fabulous!
 
I think it will be great and I am joining you soon in the K club. Search out Soxfan’s recent posts with her 2.12K from CBI... seriously can’t believe it’s a K.

I’m going from a .64 I to a 1.07 K.
 
headlight said:
Not to go against @Garry H (Cut Nut) as I'm a huge fan, but the stats on my recently recut stone by BGD that is now an AGS000 are as follows, similar to the stone being considered by @kayteena, and I do not experience any of the head blocking issues as described by Garry (sorry!):
Table 57.4, Crown ht 14.2, Pavilion depth 43.1, Crown angle 33.7, Pavilion angle 40.8, Total depth 60.1.
I actually had been worried about that because my stone also has a really low HCA score, but given this was an inherited and now recut stone, it would be what it would be. Happily, there has not been any issue.
To the preference that @Kim N expressed, I feel similar, as I'm a small table, high crown girl, I'm drawn to that profile but, given this was a recut, BG had to work with what he was presented with. With that said, the diamond is gorgeous. You also get a lot of bang for your buck on size since it is more "spread-y", yet you won't be sacrificing on performance given you have the security of knowing the light performance with the AGS000 grade. So I think if the other specs fit the bill, go for it, it should be fabulous!
Click to expand...

Same here. My recent upgrade has similar specs (Table 56, Crown ht 15, Pavilion depth 43, Crown angle 34.5, Pavilion angle 40.6, Total depth 60.8) and a .6 HCA score. I went from a diamond with an HCA of 1.8 (FIC with a high crown, etc.) to this one (TIC with a solid ASET) and was worried about the head blocking issue as well, but haven't experienced it. They perform a bit differently, but I don't particularly prefer one over the other. @kayteena , there is nothing about the cut specs of the diamond you are considering that would concern me.
 
whitewave I took a look and WOW. I'm a sucker for a solitaire and find it beautiful! I would have never thought it was a K based on other people's perception that they are pee colored yellow. When I mention changing from the G my partner chose to a K, others look at me crazy and tell me the 0.5ct size difference isn't worth it the "downgrade" in color. As a newbie, it can be really hard fighting off the opinions of others.:eek-2:

Seeing her stone makes me reconsider the thought that I must set mines in yellow gold! I did not even consider platinum or white gold settings since most blogs claimed K's should only be set in warm metals to off set the color.
 
kayteena said:
Newbie here, what are thoughts on this diamond in terms of cut (not color)? 1.54 K-VS2 IDEAL CUT ROUND
HCA score came back as "0.6 - Should sparkle beautifully and look a good size for its carat weight." It is eye clean. What would be your main concern?
image0.jpeg
Click to expand...
Any diamond that has made it through the AGSL ray tracer as Triple Ideal is a diamond I would not be "concerned" about in terms of cut quality. Yes, people differ in the their preferred proportion sets, and it would be a good to see the pavilion side ASET to more fully assess optical precision. But with an AGS Ideal as your starting point, I would be focused more on the other C's, and overall value factors including both price and benefits package.
 
headlight said:
Not to go against @Garry H (Cut Nut) as I'm a huge fan, but the stats on my recently recut stone by BGD that is now an AGS000 are as follows, similar to the stone being considered by @kayteena, and I do not experience any of the head blocking issues as described by Garry (sorry!):
Table 57.4, Crown ht 14.2, Pavilion depth 43.1, Crown angle 33.7, Pavilion angle 40.8, Total depth 60.1.
I actually had been worried about that because my stone also has a really low HCA score, but given this was an inherited and now recut stone, it would be what it would be. Happily, there has not been any issue.
To the preference that @Kim N expressed, I feel similar, as I'm a small table, high crown girl, I'm drawn to that profile but, given this was a recut, BG had to work with what he was presented with. With that said, the diamond is gorgeous. You also get a lot of bang for your buck on size since it is more "spread-y", yet you won't be sacrificing on performance given you have the security of knowing the light performance with the AGS000 grade. So I think if the other specs fit the bill, go for it, it should be fabulous!
Click to expand...
Hi HeadLight and Kaycee - the difference is mainly a result of the 40.8 vs the 40.6 degrees.
Of course there is rounding in this data (worse from GIA)
How close can you both focus - ruler between eyes and run finger along till it is out of focus.
And HeadLight your name suggests you are a real bright spark :cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top