Which Princess cut diamond would you choose?

[hinese]

These are online, so I can''t view the actual diamond and have to rely on the specs below.


#1....1.31ct, VG cut, G color, VS1, 66.8% depth, 74% table, VG sym,VG polish, 6.43x6.14x4.10 (1.05 L/W), very thin to medium girdle...price $7914

#2....1.32ct, VG cut, G color, VS1, 72.5% depth, 72% table, Good sym, Excellent polish, 6.02x6.00x4.35 (1.0 L/W), slightly thick to thick girdle...$8837

#3....1.34ct, VG cut, G color, VVS2, 71.3 depth, 75 table, VG sym, VG polish, 6.32x6.13x4.37 (1.03 L/W), medium to thick girdle...$9033


THANKS!

 

[belle]

you really can''t guess about princesses using numbers alone. do you have any pics? are these from the same vendor?

 

[hinese]

I don''t have pics...these are all from Blue Nile.

 

[MrBleeker]

This is just my opinion, do as you wish. You can find more information about diamonds from other pricescope vendors other than Blue Nile. Also, you will save a few hundred dollars, especially on an 8k diamond.

If you MUST go through Blue Nile for some reason, number 2 looks the best by the numbers posted. It is closest to a square shape while the other's are not perfect. Number 2 also has the best depth and table ratios and are relatively low.

Besides those reasons, you can't tell much more and won't be able to from Blue Nile. They won't do Sarin or Idealscopes for you. I would recommond doing a search on pricescope's homepage and seeing what you come up with.

 

[belle]

#2 is my least favorite of those. it is hiding a ton of weight. it is the second largest stone in carat weight, yet the dimensions are significantly smaller than even the smallest carat weight stone.

i would rank them 3,1,2

 

[MrBleeker]

It''s not hiding THAT much weight. The other first stone is cut too shallow, for the table value. If you are after an Ideal type cut.

The third stone is good proportionally, but because it is not square, the dimensions are missleading. It is actually about 6.15 x 6.15 if it were perfect square vs. number 2 which is 6.02 x 6.02 not much difference to your eye at all, I assure you. Number 3 is also a bad table percentage.

I still prefer 2. Size is not everything, and the first and third most likely, just by looking at numbers (NO ideal scopes or Sarin info yet) are worse than 2

 

[MrBleeker]

You have to keep in mind when looking at non square dimensions that the highest number doesn''t mean it is that much larger.

The 2nd stone is 6.02 x 6.01 and is therefore ~6.00

The 1st stone is 6.43 x 6.14 and is therefore ~6.15 or a tad more if perfect square... but it is not. So this makes one assume it is not hiding weight (and number 2 is) just because the dimensions numbers are so much larger. The table value is WAY too high for this diamond. Most likely, it is a fine looking stone, but I would not buy it with a table percentage that high. Just me, as most ideal princess tend to have a table less than the depth, and usuallly both are 72 or below. Ideally, a 68 depth, 68 or lower table would be wonderful, but it is hard to find. I also like the look of a smaller table, so a 68 depth and 74 table is not what I like.

The 3rd stone is 6.32 x 6.13 and is therefore ~6.13 or a tad more if perfect square.... but it is also not. Once again, same as above. Too big of a table percentage, and in my opinion, the overall size that one thinks the stone has because of the first large dimention number is VERY misleading as it is almost a rectangular stone.

 

[belle]

grant,
i see what you are saying as far as the dimensions. and really, i still wouldn''t want to have to try and pick a princess without more information and i should not have tried to do so. especially when i already said it can''t be done!

as far as the ''ideal'' numbers you are talking about, i don''t know where you get that. i haven''t seen any ags ideal princess cuts with depths so low. actually, the depths on them tend to be quite high, in the mid-upper 70''s.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/9/2005 12:21:01 AM
Author: belle
grant,
i see what you are saying as far as the dimensions. and really, i still wouldn''t want to have to try and pick a princess without more information and i should not have tried to do so. especially when i already said it can''t be done!

as far as the ''ideal'' numbers you are talking about, i don''t know where you get that. i haven''t seen any ags ideal princess cuts with depths so low. actually, the depths on them tend to be quite high, in the mid-upper 70''s.

I''ve been noting this too belle. We have some in line for scanning and the shallowest one so far is around a 75% depth. Haven''t looked at em all yet though. How do you like the new GA?

 

[MrBleeker]

Belle,

I whole-heartedly agree I wouldn''t purchase any without more information.

For the AGS Ideal, yes they are deeper. For every other stone on the market, ideal cuts correspond with a shallower depth. See Dave Atlas'' guide on the pricescope home page. Only the AGS0 Ideal have had bigger depth percentages because it isn''t the depth that sets the cut as much as the P2 angle (like Paul has written about).

Unfortunately, the majority of cuts aren''t cut for AGS guidelines yet... so when scanning most of the stones in vendor''s inventory that aren''t AGS cut, usually one wants a depth that is closer to 70, not 80 as some of the AGS 0''s are. I''m assuming Blue Nile''s stones aren''t cut for AGS as right now only Infinity diamonds and a few others are the only ones cutting AGS ideals. I don''t know the others off hand.

 

[hinese]

Thanks everyone. This gets a lot more technical than I thought. I''d been looking only at Mondera and Blue Nile because they seem to be reputable and I wouldn''t have much trouble returning a ring if I needed to. Mondera''s prices seem to run $500-800 less than Blue Nile. Can you recommend another online vendor that you''d consider to be reputable?