You can compare prices on the diamond by searching some of the online retailers, etc, but for as to if that's a good price for the diamond AND setting, you'd have to let us know more about the setting, as well. (but from a quick look-up, sounds like you're getting a good price)
I wonder that, too...it DID get a triple excellent from GIA...I see no issues... the proof will be in the pudding (well, the viewing)and I'd say if it looks great in person, don't sweat any of the numbers.
HI Rocktwo,
1.36 is a hard to find size. The price is certainly not out of line, if other factors are correct- such as terms of sale, reputation of seller, etc.
I'm with Neil on this one.
Stones graded EX cut grade by GIA can be considered well cut by virtue of that fact.
There is a fairly wide range of stones that meet this criteria however.
That means that there's an element of taste that comes into play.
For that reason, it's a good idea to have a look at the stone in person to make sure it fits your taste.
A money back guarantee is essential if it's an online purchase.
Thanks for everyone's response. I have looked at the ring and it looks great, It has the fire and sparkle. I am new at this. Is there an ideal way of how a diamond is suppose to look like? Maybe if it's possible examples with pictures of bad and great looking diamonds?
Yes but... you can easily identify a "bad" diamond from looks. It looks dull, dark, lifeless. There seems to be a widespread opinion nowadays that something approaching a certain set of measures will look "best" - I beg to disagree. Above a certain level, personal taste enters the equation, and the diamond you find most enthralling may well come second on my list and vice versa.
The only way of solving this is to see quite a few and form an idea of what one likes. Sites with videos - like www.goodoldgold.com and diamondsbylauren.com can often help; you may disagree with the preferences of the owners, but at least you get to make a comparison of how different diamonds may look next to each other.
Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com
One of my big complaints with GIA is about the methodology that led to their cut grading scale. They took a group of 70 or so stones that they knew a lot about and showed them in groups of 3-5 stones to a variety of viewers under a variety of lighting conditions and asked them to force rank them in terms of what they thought was the best or worst. They collected several hundred thousand observations like this and then churned the data to find that certain stones were consistently more popular than others. From this they created 5 broad groupings to predict whether an unknown stone would be likely to appear near the top, bottom, middle or in between if *IT* were to have been included in the study.
Even ignoring the issues of who these observers were, and what sorts of bias they had as a result (most were GIA employees), I have a problem with the whole gestalt study. SOMETHING is definitely being measured here, and it’s certainly of interest to dealers, but I’m not sure it’s an independent evaluation of the cutting. Is this really a reasonable way to identify which stone has ‘better’ cutting? Put another way, is ‘better’ really a synonym for ‘more popular’ as this whole approach would suggest?
I understand what Neil is saying- however in my mind the methodology GIA used is less important the the reasons behind it.
That is to say: There are branded diamonds- the sellers want to bill these stones as "the best cut"- which is necessary to justify the premiums they charge.
I believe that GIA was looking to avoid endorsing this type of selling technique with their cut grade.
If we look at AGSL, which is attempting to promote cut grades for Fancy Shapes( with spectacularly unsuccessful results) we'll find what I'm pointing out GIA wishes to avoid.
When cutters and dealers honestly say what they like best, there's going to be a fairly wide variety of opinions.
AGSL is basically attempting to ram one set of opinions down everyone's throats.
I have never been convinced that we can objectively prove one diamond's cut is better than another- especially within certain guidelines.
One of those that is objective is the visual size of a stone.
A well cut round of 1.00cts should spread in the neighborhood of 6.5mm.
In terms of how shiny the stone is- or put another way, how it reacts to light- again- we only really have subjective measurements.
Rocktwo- I've attached two photos of a stone that virtually every expert will agree is poorly cut.
From the front view we can see a dark ring in the middle.
The side view shows how thick the girdle is, and how deep the stone is.
This combination produces a small for it's weight looking stone- that's fairly dull.
The video I've posted shows a stone that would be considered well cut by a majority of experts
Looks like a good deal indeed. The Blue Book price for a Round Brilliant 1.36 E VS1 with the characteristics quoted is $14,350. Check it yourself - it's free and easy (diamondpricebluebook.com). That is for an ONLINE price, so if your local jeweler is offering that price it is an excellent price - competitive with online prices. Good Luck.
M
I tried to run your diamond using the HCA scope, it came back with the following result:
Light return: fair
Fire: fair
Scintillation: fair
Spread: very good
Total visual performance: 6.0 - fair
I'm by no means a gemologist, but if these factors are important to you, then it should be criteria for your selection.
Ishyjo,
All that means is that the creator of the HCA won;t like the stone. I have found MANY stones ( including one I gave to my wife) that score poorly on HCA yet look AMAZING in real life.
GIA graded the cut EX- which in itself does not mean everyone will love it- but it does mean the stone is well cut, and many people will love it more than other stones scoring better on HCA
0
