11 replies to this topic

[DiamondBound]

Hey,

My name is Ron, I finally narrowed down my stone which fell under my budget which is always great!!!. I wanted to see what other's who deal with stones on a daily or more frequent basis think of the stone i picked, and can advise me on pricing and/or other aspects of the stone which seem good/bad.

Stone:
1.58ct H SI1 GIA

1. Depth-63.7%
2. Table- 56%
3. Polish- Excellent
4. Measurement's - 7.32-7.37-4.68
5 Length to Width - 7.37/7.32= 1.006
6. Girdle -none
7. Cut- Very Good
8. Symmetry- Excellent


What price point would you guys value this stone?

[davidelevi]

Use the Diamond Finder to find prices of comparable stones - one of the issues you have with SI1 is that many but not all are eye-clean, and cleaner-looking stones will command a premium over those where the inclusions are visible.

BTW, I assume it's a round, in which case your point 5 is irrelevant, unless it's a grossly misshapen stone, in which case the symmetry and cut grades will be affected. On the other hand, to understand "where" in the relatively large range of "Very Good" cut (about 40% of recently cut stones) your "Very Good" lies, it would be good to have all the measurements on the report, and particularly crown and pavilion angles and heights, girdle thickness (I think your point 6 refers to culet; a stone with no girdle would be uncut) and any notes on the report.

The depth is a little high, but it doesn't seem to impact the spread, so I wonder why that is. High crown? Deep pavilion? Both?

[LaurieH]

I'm with Davide on the earlier part of what he said (personally, I don't pay much attn to angles after the stone has been graded in the Very Good or better, because there's no worries, really, as to how they impact the appearance--IMHO ). Everything looks fine with the stone--ON PAPER. It's going to break down to just how good of an SI1 it is (you have a reasonably good shot at it being eye-clean with a GIA SI1, but it's not a guarantee...just a much better shot than an "equally" graded EGL), where the inclusions are (center mass vs around the outside, where they could be hidden under a prong when you set it) and the nature of the inclusions (is it a little needle or twinning wisp, or is it a dark crystal?) The proof is always in the pudding, but I would say that if it is a fair price for that quality, size and cert, there's little to worry about. Being an H, it will face-up white, and the SI--you could be eye clean or mostly eye-clean enough to pass as once set.

Are you buying this from a local store where you've seen the stone already and like the appearance, or are you buying online sight-unseen? Nothing wrong with either one, but either way, make sure it's a reputable place with a reasonable return policy (preferably up to a month to return, full return--no restocking. charging for return shipping may be acceptable, but generally you're paying to ship and insure to get it to them anyway). Just asking because if you've already seen it in person, then there's much less to be concerned with. If you haven't, then consider the shipping cost just the cost of doing business if you don't like it and have to send it back. But chances are, you won't have much to worry about

Good luck and let us know how it goes! Congrats in advance.

[DiamondBound]

GIA REPORT:
Round BrilliantMeasurements: 7.32 - 7.37 x 4.68mm
Carat: 1.58c
Color: H Clarity
Grade: SI1 Cut
Grade: Very Good
Finnish- Polish-Excellent & Symmetry-Excellent

Fluorescence- Faint
Im getting quoted 11K for the stone.

Thank You both for the quick & detailed responses!

Davidelevi-Thanks, I will use the diamond finder to gauge other stones/price's. Correct the SI1 im looking at is very clean to the eye & inclusions are mostly on the sides of the stones, which the setting can cover up. Yeah I was referring to the culet, the girdle is slightly thick, which is considered ideal. Also, in relation to the depth is a little high, but definitely does not take away from the brilliance. The crown angles are a touch high.


Laurie-I looked at it in person, and it looks like an rare si1. I was very happy with the stone, but i just don't know too much about diamonds then the 2 months of online research i been doing. You are correct the inclusions are located on the outside which can be covered up. Im buying from local dealer which my cousin bought his rings 2 years ago.

Edited by DiamondBound, 01 June 2011 - 04:11 PM.

[jan]

DiamondBound, on 01 June 2011 - 10:29 AM, said:

Hey,

My name is Ron, I finally narrowed down my stone which fell under my budget which is always great!!!. I wanted to see what other's who deal with stones on a daily or more frequent basis think of the stone i picked, and can advise me on pricing and/or other aspects of the stone which seem good/bad.

Stone:
1.58ct H SI1 GIA

1. Depth-63.7%
2. Table- 56%
3. Polish- Excellent
4. Measurement's - 7.32-7.37-4.68
5 Length to Width - 7.37/7.32= 1.006
6. Girdle -none
7. Cut- Very Good
8. Symmetry- Excellent


What price point would you guys value this stone?

In my opinion too deep. That one we would call cheap and deep. I did find an AGS ideal cut that is a pretty good price.

Edited by jan, 04 June 2011 - 07:22 AM.

[DiamondBound]

Do you think 11K is priced fair for this stone?

[davidelevi]

The price seems fair. BTW - it is not what in traditional parlance would be called a "steep/deep" - the pavilion angle is not steep at all, and the extra depth is in the girdle - which is the reason GIA is giving it VG cut. If you don't mind having a stone that faces up slightly smaller than an "Excellent" (and no-one will notice the difference unless they have them side by side), it looks like a reasonable purchase, if you like the looks.

[DiamondBound]

The jeweler assured me it does not take away from the brilliance of the stone, and i love the stone but that might be because im not educated much about stones. I did more research based on the remarks you two posted. I offered 10,500 for the stone, which he refused, im sure i can find a better stone out there for under 11K correct?

Pic of stone:


I also used the HCA calc and got this below, it says its a good buy depending on the price.

[davidelevi]

If you are looking at the stone in real life, you are way beyond the HCA...

As to "can find better" - define better. Cheaper? For sure. Better cut? No doubt. Whiter? Certainly. Less included? Of course. Larger? But naturally. All five at the same time? Well...

[DiamondBound]

Better meaning, best overall value for the money. I don't mind spending 11K, if the diamond it self is worth the 11K, I know a perfect diamond is out my budget, so i can take few teirs down in certain aspects. But being this is my 1st big diamond purchase, i want to make sure i get the right stone which im happy with with no regrets.

I found this one via online, which seems like a better overall diamond. Its 1.54c instead 1.58c which doesnt bother me. Maybe i could use this as leverage to bring the other stone down

[url="http://www.brilliance.com/diamonds/1.54-carat-round-h-color-si1-clarity-ideal-cut-gia-certified-loose-diamond-D12151650"][url]http://www.brillianc...amond-D12151650[/url][/url]

Edited by DiamondBound, 03 June 2011 - 08:13 AM.

[davidelevi]

But the problem is precisely this: what defines "value" in your eyes is not necessarily how I define it, and (if we are lucky) not the way the market prices it. There are people that are very happy with a large clarity enhanced diamond of indifferent cut. Nothing wrong with that, particularly if they bought at a fair price and in the full knowledge of what they were buying, but I would not be interested at all. That doesn't make them - or me - "wrong" (or right) in having that preference.

So, my question is: what is it that makes you feel the "online" 1.54 is a better diamond than the first one?

Don't be fooled by the "ideal" cut label that the vendor has stuck on it; we don't know what grade GIA has given (not "Ideal" because they don't use the term), nor what criteria the vendor has used to determine that they call it "ideal". And don't be fooled by differences in weight (or size) so infinitesimal that you would not see them without precision instruments.

As to the question of whether the first diamond is "worth" 11k: yes, it is. It is not an unfair price for it. Is it the bargain of the century? No. But neither is it unreasonably priced. Yet you feel that it is not - why is that? What is it that does not convince you in the attributes of the first stone you posted about?

[jan]

You really get what you pay for. The reason the stone is cheap is because it isn't cut very well. It also won't look like a 1.50 ct. Most of the well cut 1.50 ct. diamonds are closer to 7.5 mm in diamter. But the above stone has a very thick girdle that the cutter is trying to hide fat in.