Which shape diamonds have the best ''spread'' to $ value?

[fisiogrl]

Hi again,

I have been trying to sort out some of the information on ''spread'' of a diamond. From what I can figure this value is the face-up area of a stone. True?

Now since perceived size is considered so important (rightly or wrongly), what shape diamond gives you the best spread for the money? Assuming that you have the ''best cuts'' possible for each shape, what would be the list?

I have seen it posted that pear and marquise shape may be the winners here. Is this correct?

 

[fisiogrl]

Oh jeez,

I have just found part of my answer in the tutorial section:

"Larger fancy shapes cost a little less than round diamonds on a per carat basis because cutters get a bigger yield by cutting a fancy shape that "fits" into various shaped rough diamonds. Some fancies, like marquise and pears, can have bigger spreads than rounds, but most fancy shapes are deeper with smaller spreads. On a $ per square mm basis, there may not be much difference between rounds and fancies, but on a $ per sparkle, rounds usually win. "

Does this hold true with some of the new cuts?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/14/2005 2:34:53 AM
Author: fisiogrl
Oh jeez,

I have just found part of my answer in the tutorial section:

''Larger fancy shapes cost a little less than round diamonds on a per carat basis because cutters get a bigger yield by cutting a fancy shape that ''fits'' into various shaped rough diamonds. Some fancies, like marquise and pears, can have bigger spreads than rounds, but most fancy shapes are deeper with smaller spreads. On a $ per square mm basis, there may not be much difference between rounds and fancies, but on a $ per sparkle, rounds usually win. ''

Does this hold true with some of the new cuts?

If by ''new cuts'' you mean the H&A squares or AGS princess cuts, than those are no cheaper per carat than rounds... and they are smaller. So if the argument holds, it may not be in their favor.

I am not so sure about the ''$ per sparkle'' part, especially for larger things.

 

[valeria101]

... considering that ''sparkle'' is not all that easy to show in a picture let alone silly drawing, this is what a few examples matching prices and grades across different shapes in this database here yield.

Not sure how relevant this is: every search seems to begin and end with a shape. It is not obvious at all that anyone would be willing to consider shape versus size anyway.

 

[fisiogrl]

thanks Ana for the pictures,

Although pictures never do tell the whole picture, it is interesting to see the line up!

I agree that most searches begin with shape. However, I am considering some upgrade options and I am torn between a few shape choices. Most specifically, I like RB and some of the new square shapes - like the flanders, radiant, jubillee and even the cushion.

If I were to discover that one has a bigger appearance (all other things considered!), I might be more tempted by it.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/14/2005 3:31:14 PM
Author: fisiogrl


If I were to discover that one has a bigger appearance (all other things considered!), I might be more tempted by it.

I don''t think any of those shapes is on the spreadier side in general - but some stones of any shape will be relatively large all the time, so you can still look for your shape and hunt down the right size and weight. Perhaps for some shapes it is more search involved. Squares don''t strike meas the largest looking...

Anyway, the ''In House'' search has a new column in the database called ''spread'': that gives a percentage for the difference of area (=size) of the respective stone relative to a spready round (AGS0). So far the spread % is calculated for rectangular and square shapes. For example, if you look for princess cuts, there will be a few with positive spread numbers - meaning they are larger than a round of the same weight. Which is nice, and not quite what one would expect from princess cuts by reputation alone

And... I don''t thin you need a branded cut to get great brilliance. A fine cut would be great in any shape - and it can''t be that hard to find one.

Just a thought