4 replies to this topic

[dano28481]

Hi everyone! I have the option of buying a diamond with the following EGL USA certificate specifications. I have seen the diamond and it looks neat with two small, slightly visible inclusions. The vendor is asking for $5k. So what I need to know, does this sound like an ok deal, or can I get something better for the same amount of money?

Thank you very much for your help.

Weight1.24 CT ShapeROUND BRILLIANT ColorJ ClaritySI2 Measurements7.01 x 6.95 x 4.15 mm Depth59.5% Table69% Crown11.2% Pavilion45.1% Crown Angle35.3° Pavilion Angle42.4° GirdleTHIN TO MEDIUM PolishGOOD SymmetryGOOD FluorescenceFAINT BLUE CuletN/A Cut GradeN/A

[bmwdriver82]

stay away ! look for something better, especially the 69% table most likely is going to give you a fish-eye

dano28481, on 27 September 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:

Hi everyone! I have the option of buying a diamond with the following EGL USA certificate specifications. I have seen the diamond and it looks neat with two small, slightly visible inclusions. The vendor is asking for $5k. So what I need to know, does this sound like an ok deal, or can I get something better for the same amount of money?

Thank you very much for your help.

Weight1.24 CT ShapeROUND BRILLIANT ColorJ ClaritySI2 Measurements7.01 x 6.95 x 4.15 mm Depth59.5% Table69% Crown11.2% Pavilion45.1% Crown Angle35.3° Pavilion Angle42.4° GirdleTHIN TO MEDIUM PolishGOOD SymmetryGOOD FluorescenceFAINT BLUE CuletN/A Cut GradeN/A

[davidelevi]

Define better.

Better cut? No doubt, and this alone for me would be cause for skipping this stone. It is NOT well cut.
Better colour or clarity? Certainly - particularly considering the EGL grade.
Larger? possibly not, or at least not without some serious compromises on colour or clarity.

[QuantumDiamonds]

The cut / proportions of the diamond are not good. It has a table of 69.......round brilliant cuts should ideally have a table of anywhere between 53-60.........

[LaurieH]

GIA considers the ideal range for table % to be from 55-65%. From there, it seems to be personal preference. I know Davide prefers a higher crown angle and smaller table, reminiscent of many older cuts, whereas, I like a good "flash" on a RB, so I prefer something on the higher end of that range. But I agree, 69% is out of spec, and it means a much larger window into the center of the stone and potentially less light performance, because you're shortening all the facets on the crown that are needed to help bounce the light around inside the stone, which means you end up with a bit of a "flat" look.

I think you can definitely do better, even if that means going a bit smaller. IMHO, quality is much more important than "quantity" (or, in this case, size). And esp since you're considering something that is EGL (even USA) J SI2, chances are you're going to get something that is going to show a tiny bit yellow (might not translate to the eye as "yellow", but kinda "warm", if that makes sense to you) and you've got potentially visible inclusions. Also a good bet that if EGL was calling it an SI2, GIA would call it an I1. Doesn't mean it's not necessarily a pretty stone, even with all those things (and others) considered, but I really think you can find something else that will be better value for money without sacrificing what you're looking for appearance-wise.