Thoughts on round 1.21ct/EX/J/SI1

[wow346]

Hey guys, I'm looking for a stone for an engagement ring and I came across this one. It's a round 1.21ct, GIA excellent cut, J, SI1. Polish and symmetry are both excellent, and no fluorescence. HCA is 1.8. The inclusion map and the angles on the GIA certificate are shown below.

The vendor also sent me the picture below. No IdealScope though, sorry! The vendor's gemologist assures me the color is good and it's eye-clean, but obviously he's trying to sell me the stone so it'd be nice to have a 2nd or 3rd opinion.

What do you guys think? I'm thinking about setting it in white gold or platinum, so would the color be too noticeable? How is the cut? Also, the vendor is asking for $5,300. Do you think that's a good price? Thanks for your help!

 

[diamondloveaffair]

decent choice for SI1 clarity based on picture shown but proportions wise, it is slightly "overweight" and on the borderline of GIA's grading on excellent.

 

[diamondloveaffair]

by the way, that's a very nice price point for this stone based on your descriptions.

 

[Christina...]

I agree the price point is very good. I love these proportions, the stone should exhibit lots of colored fire! I think that GIA favors steeper pav angles and they exclude many proportion combinations that AGS considers ideal while keeping many that AGS considers sub par. I'm ok with giving up some face up spread for a small table and high crown, but I wish that this stone wasn't quite so deep. My personal limit is 62.3. If you are specifically looking for a stone with these angles then this might be a good choice for you though, however if you are trying to get the most size for your dollar, then you may want to move on. BTW, what are the dimensions of the stone? 6.7 or so?

 

[John P]

I agree the price point is very good. I love these proportions, the stone should exhibit lots of colored fire! I think that GIA favors steeper pav angles and they exclude many proportion combinations that AGS considers ideal while keeping many that AGS considers sub par. I'm ok with giving up some face up spread for a small table and high crown, but I wish that this stone wasn't quite so deep. My personal limit is 62.3. If you are specifically looking for a stone with these angles then this might be a good choice for you though, however if you are trying to get the most size for your dollar, then you may want to move on. BTW, what are the dimensions of the stone? 6.7 or so?

I agree completely with the comment about lots of colored fire. The angles work very nicely together. As a side-note, this diamond does fall into the proportions-window of both GIA EX and AGS Ideal.

I would suspect the average girdle diameter is closer to 6.8, depending on rounding of the given info. As it relates to depth; the small table and CA conducive to the robust dispersion mentioned require a bit more depth. For example, if the table was 57% - with all else equal - the depth would only be 62.1%. It's a trade-off that's opposite in proportions-factors from a 60-60 make, which has a bit more spread due to the reduced crown height but exhibits notably less fire.

To bring depth down a tick more in this 1.21 the girdle could have been thinned, but that would not have increased spread (only reduced carat weight to 1.18 or so) with no visual difference - only statistical. But on the whole M/STK girdles are far more common among manufacturers since that gives end-users more options for setting - and adds another % or so in terms of yield.

 

[Christina...]

I agree the price point is very good. I love these proportions, the stone should exhibit lots of colored fire! I think that GIA favors steeper pav angles and they exclude many proportion combinations that AGS considers ideal while keeping many that AGS considers sub par. I'm ok with giving up some face up spread for a small table and high crown, but I wish that this stone wasn't quite so deep. My personal limit is 62.3. If you are specifically looking for a stone with these angles then this might be a good choice for you though, however if you are trying to get the most size for your dollar, then you may want to move on. BTW, what are the dimensions of the stone? 6.7 or so?

I agree completely with the comment about lots of colored fire. The angles work very nicely together. As a side-note, this diamond does fall into the proportions-window of both GIA EX and AGS Ideal.

I would suspect the average girdle diameter is closer to 6.8, depending on rounding of the given info. As it relates to depth; the small table and CA conducive to the robust dispersion mentioned require a bit more depth. For example, if the table was 57% - with all else equal - the depth would only be 62.1%. It's a trade-off that's opposite in proportions-factors from a 60-60 make, which has a bit more spread due to the reduced crown height but exhibits notably less fire.

To bring depth down a tick more in this 1.21 the girdle could have been thinned, but that would not have increased spread (only reduced carat weight to 1.18 or so) with no visual difference - only statistical. But on the whole M/STK girdles are far more common among manufacturers since that gives end-users more options for setting - and adds another % or so in terms of yield.

Thanks John. I hadn't considered that reducing the girdle thickness would only reduce ct weight without any actual benefit to the stone. It seems rather apparent now, so thank you for pointing that out.

 

[wow346]

Thanks for everyone's advice! The diameter is 6.8 mm.

To help me understand the consensus, let me try and summarize. It sounds like the cut is very good, although it might be a little deep so the diameter is smaller than what it could be for the same weight. The clarity seems good for the SI1, and the price seems very good as well. Is this a good assessment?

Do you guys think the J would look good even if it's set in white gold or platinum?

Given what you guys are saying I'm leaning towards getting this one. Any further comments? It's been quite a battle finding one that fits the budget, has a good cut/color, no large inclusions, and the vendor is actually willing to give useful picture. Thanks for all your help!

 

[JulieN]

J is going to look fine in white metal.

It's really not that deep. John is saying that if you want a stone that favors a bit more fire, giving up some spread is necessary.

 

[tweeter8177]

Hi! I just purchased a stone with almost the same specs...the only difference is I got a color I and the depth is 62.4 (vs 62.5)...and size I guess. Otherwise, all the angles are the same and SI1. I saw the stone in person and had 4 other stones to compare to. This was by far the stone that "spoke" to me! I believe I will be happy with it based on my compares (and they were all GIA triple ex), so I think the cut is great! I hope I feel the same once on my finger in my own environment!

 

[John P]

Christina - My pleasure.

It's really not that deep. John is saying that if you want a stone that favors a bit more fire, giving up some spread is necessary.

Precisely.