VVS2 0.51 Carat Princess

[nelmr]

GIA
Square Modified Brilliant Princess
4.19x4.17x3.19
0.51 carat
76.5 Depth
74 Table
Medium to Thick Girdle
No Culet
Good Polish/Symmetry
VVS2 Clairity (only has 1 Needle)
Color F
No Fluorescence

$1550

The length/width ratio on this is 1.004 as well

Is this a good buy? I saw the diamond in person it relfects light very well looks great. Thought? Comment? Suggestions?

I was also looking at a .57 VS1 F T:81 D:70.6. The one above is a little deeper cut. Is it still a better diamond? I think it is but just want others'' input. I''m most concerned about finding a exellent to very good cut. VVS2 vs. VS1 doesn''t mean as much to me.

 

[Robyn12]

Hello,

I think the price looks okay for that stone, but I would definately go to VS2 or SI1 and lower that color to a G or an H... you will save a lot of money, or you can spend the same amount, and get a larger stone.

 

[nelmr]

First of all I want D - F on my color anything higher and I would start to notice. Thats my preference and I'm not trying to start any debates. I agree about the VVS2 vs. VS2 but I don't want a SI1 unless it was 100% eye clean. I'm not buying via the internet. I'm buy from jewelery stores. This one I found at Lange. So I don't know if that affects the price any compared to buying on the net.

Also I notice the size 4.19x4.17x3.19 seemed a bit small on the len/width for a .51 stone. Any idea why?

And again I'm not concerned about the clairty or color. I want info on the cut (ie. Depth and Table) Thoughts?

 

[Robyn12]

I really do not appreciate that "First of all..." tone of yours, nor do I think it was called for. You come on a forum asking for opinions, and when you get them, you bite off heads.

 

[nelmr]

Sorry, I didn't mean to step on any toes. I didn't mean to have any tone. I just want D-F thats all. I thank you for your input though and I agree with you on the clarity. But what do you think about the cut? just average? it looks like a 2b on the AGA chart.

 

[sumi]

Robyn: Maybe you took his last post the wrong way? I think he just wanted to make it clear that he knows exactly what color/clarity range he wants. A lot of times people will suggest a lower color range or clarity range for a larger stone right off the bat. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but I think he just wants everyone to know that he's already decided on his color/clarity range, but has questions about the cut.

That's how I read the post.

I can't help with the cut issues, I don't have that knowledge. But I am sure there will be others who will chime in and help.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/12/2004 2:01:25 PM nelmr wrote:



I notice the size 4.19x4.17x3.19 seemed a bit small on the len/width for a .51 stone. Any idea why?

And again I'm not concerned about the clairty or color. I want info on the cut (ie. Depth and Table) Thoughts?----------------

The stone is somewhat deep, and thus the small size. It would be great to find one within the 1A-2A AGA parameters with total depth on the 'smaller' side (say table and depth both below 70% and preferanbly close to 65%), but it does not seem such cut parameters are very often available for this shape.

Actually... even if you do not want to buy online, this makes a good example of what I mean (WWW )

 

[nelmr]

That what I though but this is still a better cut than a 81T 70.6D stone right? That was one i was looking at and have since decided against.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/12/2004 2:34:26 PM nelmr wrote:

That what I though but this is still a better cut than a 81T 70.6D stone right? That was one i was looking at and have since decided against.----------------

I would say so!

And here's one more, of the same sort ( WWW )