Soliciting Opinions on a Stone

cool_rock · Jan 19, 2004

I am contemplating on the purchase of the diamond with the following specifications. I just want to get opinions of the forum members on the quality. Just a sanity check...

Shape: Round
Size 1.06 Ct
Cut Grades: AGS triple "0" Ideal Cut (BUT NOT sold as Hearts and Arrows)
Color grade: D
Clarity grade: SI1
Measurements: Length 6.57, Width 6.51, Depth 4.05 mm
Depth: 62%
Table: 56%
Girdle: 2%
Crown Angle: Avg. 34% (33.1 - 35.2)/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

Crown Height Avg.14.8% (14.2 - 15.5)
Pavil Angle: Avg. 41% (40.5 - 41.7)
Pavil Depth: 43.6% (42.7 - 44.4)
Culet size: Very Small (1.8 - 2.3%)
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Fluorescence: None/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

Is the stone not perfectly ideal and/or symmetrical due to some of the dimensional ranges falling outside of the ideal? (So I guess AGS cert. only reflects the average dimension.) However, how will this "slight" deviation affect the performance to the naked eyes?/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

I look forward to your comments.

strmrdr · Jan 19, 2004

With all the demensions swinging all over the place I rather suspect that diamond will be a woof wooof dog.

What is your budget and we will try and hunt something better up for you?

niceice · Jan 19, 2004

strmrdr is correct, there is too much variance in the proportions of the diamond... Hold out a little while longer and look for a diamond that is cut more precisely...

valeria101 · Jan 19, 2004

There's something confusing in theis post... the polish and symetry are labeled "ideal" while being the main detraction form H&A quality and all. How come ?

Oh, and why D-SI1 instead of F-VS2, or E-SI? You could probably get better choices on cut if you allow for a small range of both color and clarity (say one grade of each).

How about this F-VS1 or E-SI1 ?

diamondsman · Jan 20, 2004

I dont think that it is as bad a it looks on paper,did you see the stone?In my opinion it has the right diameter for a 1.00+ct.stone,the depth is ok, the table is nice,I think that in regards to your question(However, how will this "slight" deviation affect the performance to the naked eyes) It will not have any deviation affect on performance.the numbers are right, I would not hesitate to go for it.
The only other suggestion I would have is to drop in color to maybe an F color and go for either a bigger stone or better quality.or both

good luck

pqcollectibles · Jan 20, 2004

The diamond could look like this diamond. Check out this PS thread from last week. MDX had a diamond that looked good based on numbers but wasn't really a good performer. MDX suspected the diamond was cut to achieve weight. Might be the case here as well.

valeria101 · Jan 20, 2004

Actually, I would agree with Diamondsman: if you are after light return not H&As (which is a perfectly defendable position), these numbers are ambiguous and you would need at least on of those red IdealScope images if not a good look at the stone. Otherwise, if there are options with convincing data (including direct diagnostic of light return, as oposed as an estimation based on those two angles only) that may be the way to go. If the price on this piece is comparatively attractive, why not ask the seller about a scope pic or such?

cool_rock · Jan 20, 2004

Thanks everyone for providing insights/opinions.