spread too big? comments please........

[fishcca]

Good afternoon-
I am looking at a Diamond right now that is:

GIA certified
G in color
1.36 carat
Vs1
63.6 depth
79 table
m-sthk girdle
Good Polish
VG symmetry
6.40x6.38 (didn''t write down other part)

This stone seems a little shallow but still looks very, very nice.

In your novice and expert opinions; how do you all feel about this stone from the information given?


Thanks folks!

 

[Giangi]

Depth should be 4.06mm

.
There are no rules when it comes to fancy shapes. The shallower depth makes it very large for its weight. The table is quite wide too. But, if it looks so nice to you it may be the right one! Do you have any clue about the crown height?

BTW, what about the stone with m.blue fluorescence?

 

[fishcca]

Hi! thanks, I don't have the other specs with me. but I can get them. I was thinking that the table was too large. Is this noticeable to the naked eye? The med blue stone wassold while I was deciding what I thought about it, which is fine. But I have read conflicting views on the opaqueness that is the result of such a characteristic.

 

[Rank Amateur]

This can't be a round! What shape is it?

 

[Giangi]

It's a princess. Or so I hope

.
Well, when compared with an 'ideal' princess with 60% table, you'll definitely see a difference...

 

[jenntheten]

I have a princess cut diamond with a 79% table.....I would advise you to find a smaller table. It was BEAUTIFUL to me at the time, but after awhile you can see the difference. OR, just compare it to a similar princess cut with a better table percentage and you will be able to see the difference.

 

[Rank Amateur]

I'm not sure of the significance, but Barry's princesses over at SC have much, much smaller tables. Too small in fact for a class 1 rating from Dave Atlas, but I presume they are cut that way to maximize weight AND light return.