Would this diamond be considered "Ideal"?

[Valleyboy]

Hi everyone.

This is the first time I have posted on the forum after lurking for a while and picking up LOADS of invaluable information. I thank you all for your great ideas and knowledge.

I do however have a very dumb question which I apologise for up front. I have a diamond on hold which I have been assured is within the proportions of what would be considered "ideal" but would like to check with a few of you if this is actually the case.

Here are the details on the GIA Certificate:

Shape and Cutting Style: ROUND BRILLIANT
Measurements: 5.84-5.89 x 3.64
Weight: .77 carat

Proportions
Depth: 62.1%
Table: 57%
Girdle: THIN TO SLIGHTLY THICK FACETED
Culet: NONE

Finish
Polish: EXCELLENT
Symmetry: VERY GOOD

Clarity Grade: VS2
Characteristics: FEATHER, NEEDLE

Color Grade: F
Flourescence: NONE

Comments: NONE

Any opinions would be very much appreciated. And once again, sorry for the silly question.

 

[dragongem]

You will at least need the Crown and Pavilion angles.
Don''t be so eager to buy the diamond based on the GIA. It took me 3 months to learn enough to find my perfect cut diamond.

 

[JulieN]

Please post the GIA number.

 

[Valleyboy]

Hey thanks for the replies.

I only photocopied one side of the GIA cert. Would the rest of the information be on the reverse side with the plotting etc?

Is there somewhere online that I can quote the GIA number to find this info?

Thanks again!

 

[JulieN]

http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/

Then post all the information.

 

[Valleyboy]

Thanks for that! Here''s the additional information, I think the angles all sound okay:

Crown Angle: 35°
Crown Height: 15%
Pavilion Angle: 41°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star length: 60%
Lower Half: 75%
Cut Grade: Excellent

 

[JulieN]

It's a 2.4 HCA.

CA/PA is borderline steep/deep.
at 62.1% depth, it's a teeny bit deep
Combined with star length and and lower half, I think you could do better. If it's an absolute steal, then it might be worth it. But if it's pretty average price, then I'd say pass.

edit: to answer your original question, it would not be a candidate for AGS-ideal, it would not be 1A ideal under AGA, and for PS it would not be ideal JUST by the numbers.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/14/2006 10:13:06 PM
Author: JulieN
It''s a 2.4 HCA.

CA/PA is borderline steep/deep.
at 62.1% depth, it''s a teeny bit deep
Combined with star length and and lower half, I think you could do better. If it''s an absolute steal, then it might be worth it. But if it''s pretty average price, then I''d say pass.

edit: to answer your original question, it would not be a candidate for AGS-ideal, it would not be 1A ideal under AGA, and for PS it would not be ideal JUST by the numbers.

Julie
LOL....i didn''t know there''s a PS ideal cut.

 

[Mara]

it wouldn't be necessarily considered my top sort of ideal...but it's surely not a slouch stone either.

i don't like the over 62% depth, or the 35 crown angle in conjunction with the pavilion 41. i also am not loving the over 2 score on the HCA.

but it's surely better than alot of what is out there...but if you can keep looking to find something to compare it to with maybe slightly better specs, at least then you'd have one more option.

ETA: GIA rounds their angles up a little so actually that 35 crown angle may not be accurate, aka my stone has a 34.8 crown angle on a sarin but GIA has it at 35. it scores MUCH better with 40.8 on the HCA than 35 and also i prefer a 40.8. so it's hard to use those GIA numbers as 1000% correct so i'd try to get a sarin to confirm those #'s. i still don't love the 62+ depth but with better angles it may be more of a performer.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 5/15/2006 1:41:57 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 5/14/2006 10:13:06 PM
Author: JulieN
It''s a 2.4 HCA.

CA/PA is borderline steep/deep.
at 62.1% depth, it''s a teeny bit deep
Combined with star length and and lower half, I think you could do better. If it''s an absolute steal, then it might be worth it. But if it''s pretty average price, then I''d say pass.

edit: to answer your original question, it would not be a candidate for AGS-ideal, it would not be 1A ideal under AGA, and for PS it would not be ideal JUST by the numbers.

Julie
LOL....i didn''t know there''s a PS ideal cut.

yup. It''s no 35/41. It''s like the sign of the beast.

 

[Valleyboy]

Thanks for all of those replies!

The reason I ask is because after viewing many diamonds for my centre stone (3 stone setting 0.27/0.77/0.27 in platinum e-ring) I thought this was the nicest diamond I saw. It just seems to sparkle but if the numbers aren''t right maybe I should give it a miss.

The two side ndiamonds I have chosen are 0.27 each and F VVS but there was no other information on them. They seem to compliment the centre stone very well though.

I''m not sure what 35/41 is and why it''s so bad

Thanks for all the help!

P.S. The reason for all the sevens (0.27/0.77/0.27) is that I''m asking my girlfriend to marry me on our 7 year anniversary. And because we have such a long and fantastic past I like the idea of the past/present /future ring.

 

[JulieN]

Valley, your stone isn't that bad. It's just slightly steep/deep, and without more information, it's hard to know if it actually has an effect on the stone.

You've seen it and you like it, which is good.

When the CA>35 and PA>41, the stone leaks light along the edge (which makes it look smaller) and leaks light inside the table (which makes it look dark and lifeless.) Also, they may look worse than shallower stones when dirty. However, yours is borderline and it's really not as bad as I'm making it out to be (Garry is considering extending HCA up to 2.5 for slightly steep deep for several reasons); if it's a good price, then I think you should buy.

The 7s are cool!

 

[Mara]

Date: 5/15/2006 2:46:02 AM
Author: JulieN
When the CA>35 and PA>41, the stone leaks light along the edge (which makes it look smaller) and leaks light inside the table (which makes it look dark and lifeless.) Also, they may look worse than shallower stones when dirty. However, yours is borderline and is probably not as bad as I''m making it out to be; if it''s a good price, then I think you should buy.

Again I think it''s important to note that we just have the GIA crown and pav angles and since they do round, it''s hard to say it''s 35/41...my stone is a 34.8 with the sarin and 35 on GIA. big difference in numbers and i would not be as into a 35 as i would a 40.8. anyway i think a sarin could be called for to really know, BUT valleyboy if you liked the stone with your eyes then the numbers would support that the stone is a nicely cut one, ideal by many standards...and possibly ideal by more than we realize based on what we have here. anyway good luck!!

 

[Valleyboy]

Hey guys.

Thanks for all of your input. I''ve actually chosen a very similar centre stone over the one I posted earler to match my two side 0.27 F VVS stones and the ring is being made as we speak.

I suppose this diamond is not perfect either but it looked great when i viewed it:

Report Type: GIA Diamond Dossier®
Date of Issue: April 03, 2006

Round Brilliant
Measurements: 5.87 - 5.91 x 3.65 mm
Carat Weight: 0.77
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: VS2
Cut Grade: Excellent

Proportions:
Depth: 62.0 %
Table: 56 %
Crown Angle: 35°
Crown Height: 15.5 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion Depth: 43 %
Star length: 55 %
Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None

Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None
Clarity Characteristics: Crystal

Thanks again everyone!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/15/2006 2:08:32 AM
Author: JulieN

Date: 5/15/2006 1:41:57 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Julie
LOL....i didn't know there's a PS ideal cut.

yup. It's no 35/41. It's like the sign of the beast.

LOL. The steepbeast.

Valleyboy, the 40.8 Pavilion is more in-line with that perceived 'PS Ideal.'

Mara makes an excellent point about GIA reports: Since the numbers are rounded you won't know exactly what the CA and PA averages are. 35/41 is on the border of perceived 'PS steep/deep' and because the diamond may actually be 35.2/41 (or similar), that casts it into the realm of 'pass on this stone' for some.

Regarding the 40.8 PA: Even with rounding the 35/40.8 is closer to proven preferences here, so most PS enthusiasts will be comfortable with it sight-unseen. The Ex polish and Symmetry are also a nice indicator of care in craftsmanship. You've seen it and think it's great which is most important - sounds like a winner.

 

[KristyDarling]

VB -- just want to echo what others have said and say that since you've seen it with your own eyes and have judged it to be the most beautiful, then you have your answer right there. I have a steep-deep (35.4 CA, 40.9 PA) and it is FIERY like you wouldn't believe. Very bright, too, even though the experts believe steep-deeps appear less bright-white due to light leakage. Visually my stone actually out-performed a diamond with with perfect PS ideal numbers...and this was the professional opinion of a respected independent appraiser. In short, the numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm glad you are trusting your eyes.

 

[Valleyboy]

Thanks everyone.

I can''t tell you how glad I am I discovered Pricescope whilst searching for an e-ring.

The ring is being set now so I''m sure there''ll be more questions on the way and pictures of the finished piece.