too deep?

[mercerdnky]

Hi - I need help with a diamond. We are looking to buy a shy 2 carat RB on the internet. I ran this diamond on the Cut Advisor and it is ''1'' - showing excellent in first three categories and very good Spread. However, I''ve been told its too deep and I should go with a bigger table.
GIA
color: H
clarity: vs2
size: 1.85
table: 54%
depth: 62.7%
crown angle: 35.6
pavillion angle: 40.2
Girdle: medium to slight thick, faceted
culet: none
Polish/Symetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: none
measurements 7.83-7.87X4.92mm

I am interested in you thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[Caratz]

It's not too deep. With those numbers, it should perform quite well.

However, if you want to maximize bang for your buck, go for a diamond with depth between 59 and 60. The diamond you listed has a diameter of 7.85 (total surface area 48.37 sq mm). By way of comparison, here is another pricescope stone that weighs slightly less (1.81) and also has a 54% table. Note how you get an extra .14 mm in diameter. That extra .14 mm gives you an extra 4% surface area (50.24 sq mm) with a lower carat weight but still within ideal cut parameters.

Of course, we do not have the crown angles, so we don't know how well this stone would perform, but it gives you an idea of the tradeoff between depth and spread within the "ideal" cut parameters. The girdle size also has an impact on spread.


1.81
H
SI2
59.8%
54%
8.00x7.98x4.78

 

[magna2]

While the diamond falls outside the "ideal" range, it still is a very nice diamond. As this diamond demonstrates, just because it is not ideal, it does not mean that it won't be a great diamond.

 

[canadiangrrl]

Looks like it might be a very nice diamond.

The smaller table wouldn't worry me much, the table on my e-ring diamond is 54%, and I like it a lot.

I doubt you'd notice much difference visually between a 54% table and say, a 56% table, if you'd notice any at all.

 

[mercerdnky]

Thank you for your replies! I am learning a lot.

I also noticed slight differences between the GIA report and the Sarin report - ie: table is 54% versus 55% and depth is 62.7% versus 62.1%. Which report is more accurate?

Thank you again for your advice.

 

[hoorray]

I've been told that the measurements on the cert are the ones you should go by if they vary slightly from the sarin. Experts, correct me here is that isn't correct!

Also, many people like a smaller table as it increases fire in a diamond (but decreases white light return, I think). It's a personal preference, but not necessarily a bad thing, especially in a larger stone like yours. Mine is a 57% table, and I think if I were doing it over (which I never will, I've been told

) I think I'd go slightly smaller -- around 55%.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The cert will have some rounding on table size - it might be 54.5%.
Depth % is avergae diameter divided into depth.

This stone will have a smaller diameter but the top will stick out of the setting and be very big from the side.
The cut is ideal - because the steep crown is compensated for by the shallow pavilion.
It will appear to have a lot more facets and will have many more slightlym smaller flashes of fire than a 'normal' ideal cut. Very romantic look

 

[Richard Sherwood]

-----------
I also noticed slight differences between the GIA report and the Sarin
report - ie: table is 54% versus 55% and depth is 62.7% versus 62.1%.
Which report is more accurate?
-----------

I usually find the GIA direct measurements to be more accurate than the Sarin's derived measurements, with the possible exception of the top end Sarin machine like Rhino uses. From what I understand, it has increased resolution which leads to more precise measurements.

 

[mercerdnky]

We saw the diamond I mentioned in the previous post - it's beautiful! Under the white light, we did not see flashes of color - it looked clear (you could see deep down into the stone) Is this normal? The table is smaller and the crown is high and from the side - the table looked almost added onto the diamond and in some ways does not look integrated with the rest of the diamond. This confused us - it's so unique from all the other diamonds we've seen - is this what we should expect for a FIC?

Thanks