Wanted to run a diamond by everyone

[candide]

Hi everyone -

New User. Thanks for the great forum. Was hoping to run the specs for a diamond by everyone, and see what people thought of the sounds of it.... and also what you think a reasonable price would be. The lady has decided she wants round center stone with trilliants. I get the sense she wants a ''wow'' ring..... but with her being 5''2" and 100 pounds, I want to be careful to not go overboard.

EGL Report:
2.78 Carats H VS2

9.43-9.26 * 5.24
Depth 56.0 Table: 66.0%
Crown 11.1% Pavilion 42.4%
Girdle Medium to Slightly thick
Culet: Very small
Polish: Very good Symmetry: Good
Fluoresence: None

Was wondering what people thought of the sounds of that stone, and what a reasonable price would be for it. The trilliants are 089 CT total weight. She wants to set simple in platinum, probably low. Also is that the right trilliant size for this size center stone?

Thanks so much
Jon

 

[niceice]

----------------
On 8/29/2003 11:33:27 PM candide wrote:
EGL Report:
2.78 Carats H VS2

9.43-9.26 * 5.24
Depth 56.0 Table: 66.0%
Crown 11.1% Pavilion 42.4%
Girdle Medium to Slightly thick
Culet: Very small
Polish: Very good Symmetry: Good
Fluoresence: None

----------------

Does it BARK?

1. It's "out of round" just look at the measurements 9.43 x 9.26 is an extreme difference in the outside diameter... Never let it go beyond 10/100th's of a millimeter... This is 17/100th's!!!

2. It is way too SPREAD! The total depth is too shallow and the table diameter is too wide... Spend some time reading the tutorials on "cut" so you don't end up buying a dog for your bride...

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/29/2003 11:58:54 PM niceice wrote:




Does it BARK?

[/P>
----------------

If this is indeed a round stone, then Leonid's avatar has company.

Pass on this stone for NiceIce's reasons.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hi Jon. This stone is a "headlight". It is a stone which has the spread (diameter) of a 3 carat stone, heavy on white light return (brilliance) and light on colored light return (fire), with moderately diminished light-dark-light-dark contrast simulation.

Because it has a shallow depth (56.0%) and large table (66.0%), it will have a tendency to show the girdle reflecton just inside the table when it is rocked slightly. The girdle is 1.8% out-of-round, which is not the end of the world but not as good as a stone which falls within the tolerances NiceIce mentioned.

The make grades a 3A on the AGA Cut Class ranking, which is characterized as a "commercial make". Probably 80% of the diamonds I examine daily fall in this category. On a scale of poor, fair, good, very good & excellent I would rank the cut as being "fair to good". An average jewelry make.

The interesting thing about these types of stones is that they are often what we call "bluff" stones, stones which appear better to the eye than they "technically" are. If you're not a cut aficianado (sp?) looking for a top make, and the stone pleases you visually (and the price is right), I wouldn't necessarily drop it.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a fine make, then my friends above are correct in that you should move onto another stone.

Here's the DiamCalc's POSSIBLE Light Return Analysis and POSSIBLE simulated IdealScope image for the stone-

Light Return (mono)…...: 0.95 Very Good
Light Return (stereo)…..: 0.95 Very Good
(Non) Leakage (mono)..: 0.96 Very Good
(Non) Leakage (stereo).: 0.91 Very Good to Good
Contrast............................: 0.90 Good to V.Good
(Non) FishEye Effect…...: 0.50 Poor (I would term it "fair")

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated, sometimes dramatically. The computer generates an image with “perfect” symmetry, which is rare. Also, the star/lower girdle facet lengths will probably be different from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or Sarin info is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in considering the major light performance aspects.
-----------

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/31/2003 9:18:12 PM Richard Sherwood wrote:

The interesting thing about these types of stones is that they are often what we call "bluff" stones, stones which appear better to the eye than they "technically" are. If you're not a cut aficianado (sp?) looking for a top make, and the stone pleases you visually (and the price is right), I wouldn't necessarily drop it.

----------------

Rich, could you elaborate? "Bluff"? On paper, this stone really resembles Leonid's avatar. You know I am a professed non-cut geek; but, this stone gives me shivers on paper. So, are you saying that in "real life" it may not be so bad - provided the price is right. Alot of bang for your buck so to speak?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

-----------
So, are you saying that in "real life" it may not be so bad - provided the price is
right. Alot of bang for your buck so to speak?
-----------

Exactly. Let's look at the positives. The stone has the spread of a 3 carat, but escapes the per carat price jump, not to mention you're only paying for 2.78 carats instead of the 3.00 it looks like. It could be considered a bargain for the visual size impact it puts out.

And take a look at the IdealScope photo. It shows a tremendous amount of light return, with just slight light leakage. This stone has nowhere near the light leakage that a lot of "steep and deep" so-called fine makes exhibit, along with their "ring of death".

In other words, you've got a large, brilliant stone which probably can be purchased quite a bit less than an ideal cut of the same weight (and even quite a bit more less than a 3 carat having the same diameter).

I guarantee this stone is not going to look "ugly" to the average person. They will consider it quite pretty, big and impressive. If they are not cut connoiseurs, it might satisfy their wants and pocketbook quite nicely.

The negatives of course are the tendency for the girdle reflection to show upon rocking the stone, the diminished contrast of the stone, and the diminished "fire" (colored light return) because of the spread table and lower crown.

I'm not saying it's the prettiest looker on the block. I'm just saying that it might fit the bill for some people.

 

[Papermaker]

Richard:
Any chance you can give the stone under the "Rate this Rock" the same kind of run through???
I'm close to making a decision to have it sent to me to have a closer look and would feel more comfortable with some of the "tech stuff" I see going on here. As a frist timer, I am very nervous!!!! (most I ever bought over the web is a book!!)

Papermaker