Thoughts on this diamond...

[MRoxy0628]

I would appreciate if someone with a lot of knowledge about diamonds would give me some advice on this diamond, e.g. is the depth a concern? Will it look a lot smaller than a carat? Will it still sparkle?

1.02 Round Brilliant

6.30-6.22 x 4.08 mm

Depth: 65.2%
Table: 59%
Crown: 15.7%
Pavilion: 44.4%
Girdle: Medium to Thick

Clarity: SI2
Color: H

Fluorescence: None

Thanks!

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 7/14/2008 11:48:15 PM
Author:MRoxy0628
I would appreciate if someone with a lot of knowledge about diamonds would give me some advice on this diamond, e.g. is the depth a concern? Will it look a lot smaller than a carat? Will it still sparkle?

1.02 Round Brilliant

6.30-6.22 x 4.08 mm

Depth: 65.2%
Table: 59%
Crown: 15.7%
Pavilion: 44.4%
Girdle: Medium to Thick

Clarity: SI2
Color: H

Fluorescence: None

Thanks!

Yes, the depth is a problem, and yes it will look smaller than an ideal-cut stone ( ~ 6.5 mm) of the same carat weight. This stone was likely cut to retain weight and therefore reach the "magic" 1 carat mark, and unfortunately, beauty has probably been sacrificed in the process.

We need crown and pav angles to better judge the cut (and therefore the "sparkle"), and since you are asking for opinions, mine is "pass".

 

[honey22]

Yep, that stone is deep and the difference between the measurements I am not crash hot on either ie. 6.30 x 6.22 - you can do a lot better.

Which vendor are you using? We can suggest other stones if you like?

Good luck!

 

[kcoursolle]

Waay too deep and the table is slightly large. It''s facing up like a .85 carat stone... Try for a stone with a depth between 60-62 and a table between 54-57.

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Mroxy,

I would pass on this diamond for sure, it is poorly cut and will look small for it's weight. A well cut 1 carat should measure around 6.5 mm.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/14/2008 11:48:15 PM
Author:MRoxy0628

1.02 Round Brilliant
6.30-6.22 x 4.08 mm

Depth: 65.2%
Table: 59%
Crown: 15.7%
Pavilion: 44.4%
Girdle: Medium to Thick

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/15/2008 11:49:07 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/14/2008 11:48:15 PM
Author:MRoxy0628

1.02 Round Brilliant
6.30-6.22 x 4.08 mm

Depth: 65.2%
Table: 59%
Crown: 15.7%
Pavilion: 44.4%
Girdle: Medium to Thick

 

[MRoxy0628]

I''m not sure what the picture you''ve shown is depicting. Can you explain what that means?

 

[John P]

Date: 7/15/2008 12:24:12 PM
Author: MRoxy0628
I''m not sure what the picture you''ve shown is depicting. Can you explain what that means?

Sure. It is a computer simulation of the diamond''s light return based on the numbers you provided. The actual image would look different in terms of internal details (since the sim assumes perfect wireframe symmetry which no diamond has), but with the table, depth & angle info we can place it in an overall category of light return that is accurate.

Here is a reference chart: http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart.asp

 

[MRoxy0628]

Where would you say this falls in that chart?

 

[John P]

Light return: Between Good and Fair.
Proportions: Deep.

We'd need an actual ideal-scope image to gauge accurately. Since the computer constructs a perfect wireframe the one I generated is a "best case" scenario.

If you're truly considering this diamond I hope it's for sentimental reasons. Based on the numbers, by GIA grading, it would receive a "Good" in cut, which is not a robust value. The AGS cut guidelines predict this combo to earn a 7 on a scale of 0-10 (0 is best) in light performance. This, before considering the weight ratio penalties those labs would assign.