JamesB, on 24 May 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:
I've been looking at a lot of diamonds lately, mostly at major retail jewelers (Tiffany's, Kay's, etc.). I have about $12,000 to spend, and clarity and color are more important to me than carats... nothing lower than an F/G and VS1/2 (warranty is important, too). I'm also looking closely at the measurements... I want it to be as square as possible.
Square is good, but don't become obsessed with hundredths of a millimetre. The eye won't see them, and you may pass over better cut stones which will look perfectly square; there's a lot more to cut than squareness. Same for colour and clarity: if you can see the difference between G and H (or I), fine; if you can't (and most people can't unless the "other" colour is right next to the one you are judging), don't fret too much about it.
Quote
She has her heart set on a princess cut, but apparently that isn't real well-defined. Officially everything is "square modified brilliant", and every jeweler has their own "princess cut", with xx more facets, etc. I'm not sure at what point the number of facets begins to detract from the diamond rather than enhance it, but there definitely doesn't seem to be any standard.
"Princess" is actually a trade mark/registered name. Think "Coke" for "caramel-coloured carbonated drink with vegetable extracts", "Biro" for "ballpoint pen" or "Aspirin" for "acetylsalicylic acid". At some point, the trade mark is so identified with the category that it
becomes the generic name.
It's actually pretty well defined as a shape (rectangular or square, with pointed corners) and basic cutting style (brilliant - meaning that the pavilion main facets converge to a point, and that the crown is cut with a table, a star and some accessory facets). Then, as you found out, cutting varieties abound. 3, 4, 5 pavilion main steps. 8 rather than 4 pavilion mains. More crown facets or additional lower girdle faceting. Some of these variants are marketed as specific cuts (e.g. "Princess of Hearts"); others are not - bear in mind that some of the reasons why a cutter picks a style of cutting have little to do with looks, and more to do with weight retention from the rough and elimination of visible inclusions.
Does it matter? It does if you like it; personally, I find that many facets creates a "busy" look that detracts from the beauty of the stone; others like the "crushed ice" effect. There is no right answer.
Quote
I find myself attracted to the Tolkowsky "Ideal Cut" from Kay's... the diamond appears larger than other, higher-carat diamonds, which is nice, but leaves me wondering what the tradeoff is. Side by side, a 1.08ct Tolkowsky from Kay's looks about 10-12% bigger than a 1.21ct "traditional" princess cut.
It may well
be larger visually. Visual size is proportional to area, length x width. Weight is proportional to volume, which is proportional to length, width and depth. Decrease depth keeping the same weigth, and length x width increases. However, be careful of some comparisons: what are you comparing to may well be unbranded, but is it well cut? Or is it a carefully chosen stone to demonstrate a particular point? Not that I'm cynical about it, you know, but a little paranoia doesn't hurt.
Quote
A 1.08ct F-VS1 runs about $8,000... a 1.5ct runs about $15,000. Yeah, that's me, right in the middle. Apparently they don't cut them in 1.25cts.
They are not on the catalogue, but since diamonds aren't (usually) cut to calibrated sizes and weights, I would not despair. And there's plenty of unbranded (and well cut) princesses between 1.1 and 1.49 (about 250 on the Diamond Finder here, and more available from people that don't advertise).
Be VERY careful about grading. Kay's/Tolkowsky use IGI to grade their stones. This is not a reliable indication of the
real colour and clarity (never mind cut) of the diamonds; what IGI calls F/VS1 may well be called I/VS2 (or lower) by a reliable lab like GIA or AGSL. This in turn skews all the comparisons: $8000 is reasonable for a 1.0x F/VS1 stone, though it's at the top of competitive pricing; for an I/VS2 I would not hesitate calling it a
ripoff poor price. Same at the 1.5x size.
Quote
So I guess my questions are:
- What are your opinions on the number of facets... is there a point where it's too many, or is it "the more you can cram in, the better"?
. - Can anyone familiar with Kay's Tolkowsky cut tell me what the tradeoff is that makes them look bigger? Pure conjecture is also welcome here.
. - Is an "Ideal Cut" a standard term with precise specifications? Is there a "better" cut?
. - How common is it for major jeweler's to come down in price? Gordon's offered to come down nearly $1,000 (I didn't even ask them to)... I don't know if Kay's would, or not.
. - Any advice anyone wants to offer? Even if it's just personal preferences... never shopped for a diamond, so I'm learning as I go.
I originally had 6 questions, but then Firefox crashed before I could post
If I think of the other one I will add it.
Thanks, all, for the help!
James
1. More facets is definitely not the same as better cut. The main factors determining cut quality and appeal are others, and they are not easily accessible to consumers (grading reports don't mention them, and most dealers are not equipped to measure them): main pavilion and crown angles, consistency in cutting and facet alignment count for way more than the number of facets.
Having said this, if someone prefers the look of the XYZ brand over that of the ABC brand or of an unbranded stone, it's a perfectly legitimate choice. Just make sure that you are making comparisons between what is actually on the market and not being led down a very specific (and higher margin) garden path.
2. It may well be that they are larger visually. The current published wisdom on cutting a square brilliant dictates relatively deep stones for perfectly valid physical reasons - the laws of optics being what they are - in order to get a good balance of sparkle, fire, brightness and contrast. Cutters love deep stones because they have a high yield from commonly found rough shapes; in fact the princess cut was developed precisely for the purpose of having a high yield.
It is possible to get visually larger stones, usually at the expense of the balance between sparkle, fire, contrast and brightness (i.e. a bright but relatively lifeless stone or a dark but lively one), by making them less deep and putting more "weight" in the cross section. Perhaps Tolkowsky are doing that or they have found a set of proportions that works better than what current wisdom dictates; they don't publish online grading report info on specific stones (and grading reports don't contain enough info anyway), so it's difficult to say.
Whatever you do, before making a decision, take a good look at a "traditionally well cut" stone - by which I mean an AGS-0 (Ideal) cut princess. Jared's "Peerless" collection is all AGS-0, and Helzberg also stocks AGS-graded stones.
3. "Ideal" has two precise meanings: in the course of sales patter it means "I want to sell you this stone". When the diamond comes with an AGS grading report, it means that it meets AGS's highest standards for proportions, cut quality and finish. Unfortunately, the information that AGS uses to define "Ideal" is not published on the report: the algorithm is public, but it relies on information like pavilion angles that are measured during grading but not printed on the grading report. Perhaps more fortunately, it's not a single set of proportions: there's many different combinations of angles and ratios that work well. This increases the chances of finding a well cut stone, but makes it difficult to identify it; you are reliant on your eyes, your memory, the dealer's honesty and skills and - if the stone is graded by AGS - the cut grade.
4. Almost everybody will negotiate; how far they will go is a different question. And if they go very far, I would question their good faith in the first place.
5. I think I have written enough above, but if you have more questions (including your #6) or want to discuss specifics of stones, offers etc., please post back!
0
