Thoughts on the numbers

[autumngems]

Depth 62.90%
Table Percent 55.00%
Crown Angle
Crown Height
Pavilion Angle
Pavilion Depth
Girdle Min Medium
Girdle Max Slightly Thick
Girdle Condition
Measurements 9.40 x 9.45 x 5.92

 

[Dancing Fire]

IMO, cut too deep at 62.9%. You are losing diameter. The stone will look small for its weigh.

 

[SimoneDi]

I wouldn’t rule out a stone just because it’s depth is at 62.9%. The stone has beautiful proportions and nice high crown. @autumngems can you please share the appx carat weight and color/clarity combo?

 

[autumngems]

3.2 K VS

 

[sledge]

Small table and steep crown paired with complimentary shallow pavilion should make for a nice firey stone. As pointed out by @Dancing Fire, the depth of the stone concerns me a little.

I would prefer to be at 62.4 or less, with a preference of < 62 on depth. Also, I'd be curious to see a picture or video the stone. LGF's are reported at 80 but that GIA value can vary from 77-82. The larger the actual number, the skinnier the arrow and more splintery the light return will be, whereas the smaller the LGF the fatter the arrow and more bold flashes you get (which most people tend to prefer). Unless you can get a SARIN report of the actual values, we will never know for sure but sometimes you can make an estimated guess where they fall based on the picture.

That said, this stone still has good potential, albeit at the sacrifice of some spread. Just using the diamdb.com website as reference an "average" 3.2 carat round measure around 9.58 x 9.58mm. You can see this stone measures up about 0.20mm smaller in diameter, mainly due to the result of the overall depth. This is about 1/128th of an inch, and right at the point where people start to see a visual difference with their eyes if two stones were placed side by side. If not in a side by side comparison, the difference would be minimal and likely not memorable.



A few questions:

1. Can the vendor you are considering purchase from provide you an ASET or idealscope image of the stone to confirm there is no leakage? Additionally, a hearts image would be great to confirm symmetry.

2. Have you seen a GIA K colored stone in person, and are you certain this is a color choice that is sufficient? If you aren't the wearer of the stone, have you done your homework to make sure the wearer is okay with a K color? Color is very subjective and what one person loves, another may find either too icy white or too warm so please consider this before in your purchase analysis.

 

[Karl_K]

(which most people tend to prefer).

Where does that come from?

 

[lovedogs]

I wouldn't rule it out. It's a little deep, so you'll be paying for some ct weight you can't see, but I'd ask for ASET/IS if you can!

 

[OoohShiny]

What's the HCA score on it?

 

[bmfang]

Are there any images of said stone? At 62.9 depth, I’d want to see how it looks IRL before passing judgment.

 

[sledge]

What's the HCA score on it?

Great HCA score.

I'd just want the warm fuzzies of an ASET/IS image. Problem is as size increases, availability decreases. If OP can't get images ahead of time, might be worth gambling and buying their own ASET scope and analyzing from the comfort of their home and then accepting/rejecting based on the results.

 

[autumngems]

Sledge - I have had a K before with negligible flour and was fine with it and I have had a J so I am not worried about color. This does have strong flour, which I like so long as it's not hazey.
I hope to be able to ask for ASETs/IS soon as dealer was out of town.

 

[sledge]

Sledge - I have had a K before with negligible flour and was fine with it and I have had a J so I am not worried about color. This does have strong flour, which I like so long as it's not hazey.
I hope to be able to ask for ASETs/IS soon as dealer was out of town.

Good deal. Sounds like you are the wearer, and are very in-tune with your color preferences and acuity. More times than not, people asking for advise aren't as aware and so they have to back up and take this into consideration during the purchasing analysis stage.

I bought my fiancee a BGD Blue stone that is H in color with MBF. Honestly, under normal viewing I do not believe there is any color boost as a result of the fluor. Even with your stone having SBF, I doubt you will see much of a color boost in normal every day wearing.

Why? Because the fluor molecules only get excited and activate when it's exposed to strong UV lighting (think black light, or intense daylight). Unless the molecules are exposed to these limited conditions, then they lay there in a dormant condition and do nothing to effect color viewing of a stone under normal (non-excitable) conditions. However, if you are comparing stones of similar color in strong UV lighting then you may see a slight color boost in a stone with SBF, because the molecules will be excited and fluorescing.

While you likely won't see a color benefit under normal viewing, you may enjoy a price discount as a result. Stones with higher levels of fluor typically trade for a lower price. Also, as the strength of fluor increases, so does the likelihood for negative effects (milky, cloudy, etc). Even under very strong conditions, GIA reports less than 1% of stones exhibit such negative effects. Of course, when buying a stone with ANY level of fluor, I always encourage you check for negative effects as it's the prudent thing to do.

https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/news/buy-diamond-strong-blue-fluorescence/

https://4cs.gia.edu/en-us/blog/fact-checking-diamond-fluorescence-myths-dispelled/

https://4cs.gia.edu/en-us/blog/understanding-diamond-fluorescence/

 

[autumngems]

Sledge,
Thank you for all the info you have passed on to me. While I like flour, that is the first question I ask, is it hazey, milky, does it detract from the stone at all. This is definitely a process, it's been a while since I purchased last and forgot what a chore it is to review all the possibilities.

 

[bmfang]

A stone with fluor from a vendor other than those who have stones in-house can be a bit of a crapshoot. My wife’s BG Blue (K VS2 with MBF) is gorgeous and outperforms many other stones I’ve seen on her friends’ fingers (and a lot of those are higher colour and clarity but only standard GIA XXX or lesser cut quality).

 

[sledge]

A stone with fluor from a vendor other than those who have stones in-house can be a bit of a crapshoot. My wife’s BG Blue (K VS2 with MBF) is gorgeous and outperforms many other stones I’ve seen on her friends’ fingers (and a lot of those are higher colour and clarity but only standard GIA XXX or lesser cut quality).

Definite plus having an experienced and trusted set of eyes looking for the slightest hint of negative effects from fluor. Of course, precision faceting is also at play.

 

[autumngems]

True, sadly WF and CBI don't do fluor.

 

[gm89uk]

9.425mm average diameter, 3.2ct. The spread is better than the depth 62.9% suggests and if standardised to 1ct would be 6.4mm which is not bad at all, much better than one might think looking at the 62.9% stone.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-depth-are-we-too-strict.239598/ this is a thread I made on the topic before.

If it was a 3.1ct and had a spread of 9.425mm that would be a great spread of 6.46mm if standardised to 1ct. Can the OP find a well cut 3ct or 3.1ct equally priced stone with the same spread? Or is this the best bang for buck? At >3ct, consumers are not spoilt for choice. I would certainly not exclude this stone because of depth %.

The 80% rounded LGF is a useless figure, a single good photo will tell you more about the arrows. Fat arrows may look nicer on the high mag photos that PS drools over, giving a high contrast look but how many have compared well cut skinny arrows to fat arrows in a variety of lighting environments? Personally I am attracted to fat arrows on highly magnified shots, in real life, I was very surprised.

 

[Karl_K]

The 80% rounded LGF is a useless figure, a single good photo will tell you more about the arrows. Fat arrows may look nicer on the high mag photos that PS drools over, giving a high contrast look but how many have compared well cut skinny arrows to fat arrows in a variety of lighting environments? Personally I am attracted to fat arrows on highly magnified shots, in real life, I was very surprised.

The difference is some what overblown, on the finger the difference is smaller.
That said a short lgf% can appear dark under the table to some people because less of the area under the table is bright so its not a universal preference.
With a small table this can be worse, because the smaller the table the more of the area is taken up by the mains.
It also depends on the pavilion angle, the size of the mains determines the ratio of dark to light, the angle controls how much obstruction is shown at any given distance.
In the super ideal range the differences are relatively small but could be enough for someone to say I like this one better in live viewing but it can go either way.

 

[bmfang]

True, sadly WF and CBI don't do fluor.

WF you may be able to snag one if it is Expert Selection rather than ACA. The fluor would kick it out of ACA contention.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The 80% rounded LGF is a useless figure, a single good photo will tell you more about the arrows. Fat arrows may look nicer on the high mag photos that PS drools over, giving a high contrast look but how many have compared well cut skinny arrows to fat arrows in a variety of lighting environments? Personally I am attracted to fat arrows on highly magnified shots, in real life, I was very surprised.

I haven't really compared the two stones under different lightings. The stone on top is 80% LGF and the one on bottom is 76%. The fatter arrow 76% LGF definitely have bigger flashes. Both stones are very well cut.

 

[sledge]

Ahem....I found your unicorn earlier today, but "only" in a 2 carat variant. Hopefully the OP of that thread jumped on it.

HPD/CBI 2.01 G VS2 @ $24,074
https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD7776

56.7 table, 61.3 depth, 34.5 crown, 40.9 pavilion & 77 LGF

Holy crap, someone pinch me. Rarely do you see a CBI stone with medium blue fluor. The price reflects this and this is a phenomenal deal!!. Many people would jump on this deal here as you are getting a premier cut stone and fluor (which gets a discount & many people love).

This stone measures slightly smaller at 8.12 x 8.15, but again it's so minimal it's a non-issue from my perspective.

Still a true H&A stone, and all the other perks. Again, have them pull and confirm it's eye clean but I see no major concerns here.

Honestly, bang for buck this would probably be my selection. Hopefully you put this on reserve ASAP!!

 

[sledge]

Not sure the exact proportions on your stones @Dancing Fire but I know you like small tables like me, so I presume both are in the 54-56 range.

If so, the top 80% LGF illustrates @Karl_K's point about the area under the table being lighter (not as much contrast), whereas the bottom one has fatter arrows (76% LGF's) and provides more contrast. At least to me, this aspect seems obvious.

There's two other elements at play here though. Looks like the tilt of each stone is slightly different. This in combination with the exact angle/location/intensity/etc of the light source may be exaggerating the effects visually. Make sense?

I think it comes to preference though, as I think (proper) contrast adds overall beauty.

 

[gm89uk]

The difference is some what overblown, on the finger the difference is smaller.
That said a short lgf% can appear dark under the table to some people because less of the area under the table is bright so its not a universal preference.
With a small table this can be worse, because the smaller the table the more of the area is taken up by the mains.
It also depends on the pavilion angle, the size of the mains determines the ratio of dark to light, the angle controls how much obstruction is shown at any given distance.
In the super ideal range the differences are relatively small but could be enough for someone to say I like this one better in live viewing but it can go either way.

My msg truncated early, I meant to say in real life I liked the look of the longer lgf%

 

[Dancing Fire]

Not sure the exact proportions on your stones @Dancing Fire but I know you like small tables like me, so I presume both are in the 54-56 range.

Yes...

 

[gm89uk]

Not sure the exact proportions on your stones @Dancing Fire but I know you like small tables like me, so I presume both are in the 54-56 range.

If so, the top 80% LGF illustrates @Karl_K's point about the area under the table being lighter (not as much contrast), whereas the bottom one has fatter arrows (76% LGF's) and provides more contrast. At least to me, this aspect seems obvious.

There's two other elements at play here though. Looks like the tilt of each stone is slightly different. This in combination with the exact angle/location/intensity/etc of the light source may be exaggerating the effects visually. Make sense?

I think it comes to preference though, as I think (proper) contrast adds overall beauty.

I believe this is mostly from camera obstruction from the tilt.

 

[Karl_K]

Not sure the exact proportions on your stones @Dancing Fire but I know you like small tables like me, so I presume both are in the 54-56 range.

If so, the top 80% LGF illustrates @Karl_K's point about the area under the table being lighter (not as much contrast), whereas the bottom one has fatter arrows (76% LGF's) and provides more contrast. At least to me, this aspect seems obvious.

There's two other elements at play here though. Looks like the tilt of each stone is slightly different. This in combination with the exact angle/location/intensity/etc of the light source may be exaggerating the effects visually. Make sense?

I think it comes to preference though, as I think (proper) contrast adds overall beauty.

The bottom stone is obstructed but the camera more and its exaggerating it but it does show the point.
One is darker under the table than the other.
Traditionally 77-78 has been considered a good balance of contrast and not to much contrast.
My opinion is it is personal preference.
Like anything with diamond proportions there is no free lunch.
There is a trade off with shorter lowers: slightly bigger flashes off the mains in exchange for darker under the table and smaller flashes off the lowers under the table.
The trade off for longer lowers is smaller flashes off the mains but you gain brightness under the table and larger flashes off the lowers.
It comes down to preference except in the areas where the change in the lowers angle increases leakage or the larger arrows increase an obstruction issue by making the arrow shafts bigger.

 

[Dancing Fire]

My msg truncated early, I meant to say in real life I liked the look of the longer lgf%

Just a personal preference. The 80% LGF does have quicker smaller flashes vs the 76% bigger flashes. The 80% LGF stone does have tiny clefts on the hearts, so according to some PSers it is not a true H&A stone but then there aren't rules what true hearts should look like.

 

[Karl_K]

Just a personal preference. The 80% LGF does have quicker smaller flashes vs the 76% bigger flashes. The 80% LGF stone does have tiny clefts on the hearts, so according to some PSers it is not a true H&A stone but then there aren't rules what true hearts should look like.

Small clefts up to and including 80%ish lgf are allowed in most h&a standards.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Small clefts up to and including 80%ish lgf are allowed in most h&a standards.

That is Stormy's rule ??. I don't wanna hijack this thread. I'll start a new thread on this topic.

 

[Karl_K]

That is Stormy's rule ??. I don't wanna hijack this thread. I'll start a new thread on this topic.

Brian Gavin allowed 8% clefts in his system when I was learning this stuff. Good enough for me.