Which princess cut would you choose?

[greenbean4606]

Please help! I''m relatively new at this and want to decide btwn these two princess cut diamonds. Both look eye clean to me...

0.86 ct, $2550
http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=17294380&weight=0.86

or

0.83 ct, $2340
http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=17294364&weight=0.83

Please check out the GIA reports and give me any input you can! Thanks!

 

[Ellen]

Hi gb,

Without an ASET pic, it''s hard to say. However, going by what we do have, we generally like to see at least very good on both polish and symmetry, and table depths smaller or the same as, or just slightly greater than depth. I''m guessing these would not be that great, but again, that''s a guess.

Not sure if you''re shopping online, but this one looks great.

http://www.whiteflash.com/princess/Princess-cut-diamond-1134460.htm#

 

[greenbean4606]

Thanks ellen! What will that affect exactly, the sparkle?

 

[stone-cold11]

gb, as ellen said it is almost impossible to judge fancy cut, in this case princess cut, just by the numbers.

If you want to buy princess cut online without ASET pics, then stick with AGS report.

Good Luck.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/1/2008 6:56:47 PM
Author: greenbean4606
Thanks ellen! What will that affect exactly, the sparkle?

Yes, and it can affect the amount of fire the stone has also. Smaller tables make for more fire.

As stone said, if you''re working online with a company that doesn''t give ASET pics and such, or local, AGS0 stones are a safer bet. The cut of the stone affects how well it performs, more than anything, so don''t skipmp on that.

And you''re welcome!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 10/1/2008 6:26:51 PM
Author:greenbean4606
Please help! I''m relatively new at this and want to decide btwn these two princess cut diamonds. Both look eye clean to me...

0.86 ct, $2550
http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=17294380&weight=0.86

or

0.83 ct, $2340
http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=17294364&weight=0.83

Please check out the GIA reports and give me any input you can! Thanks!

Neither. Both of these options have the tell tale signs of serious leaker. Tables are notably larger than total depths which generally contribute to shallow crowns and a watery appearance. I could show you an I color that would appear more white than either of these due to optics alone. Outstanding optics in a princess cut can alter a persons perception of face up color and dramatically increase the overally beauty of the diamond.

 

[jstarfireb]

I'm a big fan of princesses, and the one Ellen posted looks mighty fine to me (aside from it being a teeny bit off-square)! Pretty close to the size and prices of the others you're considering (their tables are way too big), and bound to sparkle more because of the great cut!

I'd also consider this one. I think I prefer it over the WF stone because it's more square. The I color in a stone of this great cut quality should be plenty white; I have an I colored AGS ideal princess that looks great!

ETA: If you want to see some AGS0 princesses in person and aren't located near a PS vendor, check out Jared's. They carry AGS0 stones, and while I wouldn't buy from them due to their huge markup, it's a great place to compare them to some princesses of lesser cut quality.

 

[Rhino]

Hi J,

I wasn''t aware that Jared''s carried AGS Ideal princess cuts too. Good for them.

 

[greenbean4606]

Thanks everyone! You all talked me into it, and I think I''ve narrowed it down to the two that you mentioned:

http://www.whiteflash.com/princess/Princess-cut-diamond-1134460.htm

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5002/

Which one do you think, or neither one? I''m really torn, the WF stone isn''t the AGS0 ideal but it is a G color (vs. an I). Other than that, I''m not sure how to read ASET reports or anything like that. Although, the GOG diamond seems to have a small table%. Thanks in advance for the input!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/9/2008 4:45:55 PM
Author: greenbean4606
Thanks everyone! You all talked me into it, and I think I''ve narrowed it down to the two that you mentioned:

http://www.whiteflash.com/princess/Princess-cut-diamond-1134460.htm

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5002/

Which one do you think, or neither one? I''m really torn, the WF stone isn''t the AGS0 ideal but it is a G color (vs. an I). Other than that, I''m not sure how to read ASET reports or anything like that. Although, the GOG diamond seems to have a small table%. Thanks in advance for the input!

You can''t go wrong with either, it depends on which diamond has the attributes you value most, both gorgeous diamonds.

 

[greenbean4606]

I''m not even sure which attributes I should value most...that''s the problem! haha

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/9/2008 5:00:55 PM
Author: greenbean4606
I''m not even sure which attributes I should value most...that''s the problem! haha

Gut feeling? Honestly, you can''t get it wrong with these two! If you like the idea of the AGS0 ''pedigree'' then go with that one!

 

[stone-cold11]

Give Jon a call up and ask for his advice on his stone. Maybe make a video for you to see how it perform and if you can see the color of the diamond?

If you don''t like that, then you can go check out the WF stone?

 

[jstarfireb]

Date: 10/9/2008 4:45:55 PM
Author: greenbean4606
I''m really torn, the WF stone isn''t the AGS0 ideal but it is a G color (vs. an I).

In diamonds of this superb cut quality, you shouldn''t be able to tell a difference unless they''re side by side and unmounted (and even then it will be difficult face-up). I have an I colored princess (an ACA), and I compared it to a friend''s F and couldn''t tell the difference. So I''d go for the AGS0 from GOG.

Here''s a link to my princess, FWIW!

 

[jstarfireb]

Date: 10/2/2008 1:20:20 AM
Author: Rhino
Hi J,
I wasn''t aware that Jared''s carried AGS Ideal princess cuts too. Good for them.

Yup, the
Peerless diamonds are AGS0, but of course come with a huge markup.

 

[greenbean4606]

Do you guys think the large difference in table (59%) vs. depth (75%) is an issue in the GOG stone?

 

[stone-cold11]

Not really, since I trust Jon's judgement on the overall effect for the stone and I like what I see in the ASET. If you are worried, just ask him over the phone since he can't reply here...

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/9/2008 10:08:31 PM
Author: greenbean4606
Do you guys think the large difference in table (59%) vs. depth (75%) is an issue in the GOG stone?

It should be a lovely diamond. How do I put this...beauty comes in many forms, two paintings can be both very beautiful but both be of different subjects, painting styles, colours etc. Thus it can be with diamonds! Ask him to do a video comparison for the diamond if that would set your mind at ease.

 

[greenbean4606]

What about adding this one to the mix?

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/3901/

It''s a little more but if its much better I''d be willing to pay the extra money. I''ll probably be calling them soon, but I just want to have things sorted out well before I purchase. Thanks!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:07:48 PM
Author: greenbean4606
What about adding this one to the mix?

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/3901/

It''s a little more but if its much better I''d be willing to pay the extra money. I''ll probably be calling them soon, but I just want to have things sorted out well before I purchase. Thanks!

Thats a lovely diamond! What I would do now is contact GOG and ask Jon''s opinion on which one would be best and see what he can do for you with a comparison.