What do you think? Please Help!

[diaquest]

What do you think? Is this a good stone?

1.46 Round H SI1

Dia 7.19
Depth 4.53 63.0%
Crown 36 16.3%
Pav. 40.7 42.8%
Table 3.95 54.9%
Culet .07%

Girdle 2.1 - 1.7 2.5

Price- $8900

 

[Daniel B]

It should be a

firey stone! I'd like to see one like that-- any crown angles over 35.5 accompanied with a smallish table will give you maximum fire- may suffer in white light return though

 

[belle]

hey diaquest

do you have more information on this stone? who graded it? what are the dimensions (lxw) ....we need more info

 

[diaquest]

Sorry,

Dont have the other dimensions right now. It was graded by GIA.

 

[diaquest]

Any other help?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/30/2005 3:05:29 PM
Author:diaquest
What do you think? Is this a good stone?

1.46 Round H SI1

Dia 7.19
Depth 4.53 63.0%
Crown 36 16.3%
Pav. 40.7 42.8%
Table 3.95 54.9%
Culet .07%

Girdle 2.1 - 1.7 2.5

Price- $8900

The depth, coupled with the crown angle and height indicate that it might be a little bit deep for its weight. I am not crazy about crown angles that steep by the numbers.

The request for mm measurements is sound. An ideal-scope or ASET image would be even more helpful. Have you seen the diamond in person?

 

[valeria101]

Without seeing it, only some limited guessing works and it can be done with a bit of help - HERE A computer simulation will tell you that those numbers add up to potentially good brilliance and a little hit on 'spread' (diameter). There's better - if there is better for the money that is yet another question though.



The HCA does not work with the actual diameter measurements. Since you have them, those can be checked against other diamonds of similar weight.

Is it 7.19mm average diameter? ...I suppose that answers the previous requests for measurements. There are usually two numbers (min and max) because too much variation between them is not well liked. Usually these are well less than a tenth of a millimeter apart.

That 7.2mm is not bad for the weight as much as I can tell. The slight extra depth does have some effect: if only 59-60% deep (and with a thin girdle) this would have been about 7.4mm at most. If you search the database here, it becomes apparent that only a couple 1.4cts-ish diamonds are a hair larger by diameter than yours though.

For what that matters, that 0.2mm difference is about the visible threshold for me - not exactly a vast difference. Of course it is all up to you.



On the other hand, the weight between 1.4 and 1.5 is allot less easy to find than something right above 1.5 and more expensive for that matter. And some come at more than your price anyway.

Looking for size comparisons around here one F-Si1 turned up. Thought I'd mention, in case you cared for the higher color grade. I don't know why this is labeled 'AGS0' - with some wishful thinking this GIA-graded puppy may just have the right proportions. Here it is: LINK It happens to be at WF - well, I wasn't looking for it on purpose - it just happened so and F-Si1 at slightly less than your H sounds good to me.


My 0.2

 

[diaquest]

John,

Thanks for the help. I have seen it in person. It is a beautiful stone, but I dont know evey detail I am suposed to look for.

 

[strmrdr]

Id pass on it.
Dont like the angles.
Not enough of a discount to make it worth it to me.