Jump to content

Unusual dimensions - large table and girdle - advice required


S4tronic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, just looking for a bit of advice, was offered a diamond with a setting of my choice (white gold) and want to validate that its a good deal.

Diamond spec as follows

1.01ct, G, SI, Cut good, symmetry good, Polish good

Dimensions 6.34x6.43x3.84

Girdle very thin to very thick, bruted

Table 65%, Depth 60.1%, Pav angle 41%, Crown angle 29.5%, Pav size 43.5%, Crown size 10%, Average diameter 6.39mm (100%).

I have only seen photo of the diamond and it looks okay but hard to judge brilliance based on just a photo. It is Archorcert certified which I read is comparable to GIA. My main concern is that dimensions are somewhat unusual and it may look odd (too flat?) when set in the ring? 

 

I would appreciate your collective thoughts if this stone set in the ring is reasonably priced at £4,000.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the setting like? 

What you mean when you say SI? GIA has SI1 and SI2. Both are priced differently. 

Is the stone milky / hazy? 

What's the fluorescence? 

Is the stone proper round? My guess is it may not be. 

All of this affect the price. Without this information difficult to say anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anchorcert (Birmingham Assay Office) has a good reputation... if this is who has graded the stone (you wrote "Archorcert", which could well be another organisation I don't know) but:

1. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the same as GIA (even if internally consistent, they may use different standards). Is the clarity SI1 or SI2? That alone means a difference of 20% or more on price of the stone.

2. Price comparisons are skewed by the setting. A plain white gold setting could be $250 or $5000 and both may be fair prices. How much are they charging for the stone by itself?

3. Independent of fair prices, if it isn't a nice stone it's not something I (me, myself) would want to buy. All the data you have ("Good" cut, polish and symmetry, bruted girdle, off-roundedness, crown and table proportions) point towards this NOT being a nice stone in the canon of a modern cut round brilliant. You may still like it, which makes it OK, but I think you can definitely find better.

For comparison, assuming the report is accurate and comparable to GIA grades, here are prices of somewhat similar stones. Bear in mind that:

a. Prices do not include VAT (and/or duty at 2.5% if they were bought set in a ring)

b. The main drivers of price are visibility of inclusions, quality and attractiveness of cut ("good" covers a huge range) and - to some extent - fluorescence (though the stones in the list are not particularly impacted by it)

https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=0&fShape=Rnd&fCaratLo=1.00&fCaratHi=1.05&fColorLo=G&fColorHi=G&fClarityLo=SI1&fClarityHi=SI2&fCutLo=good&fCutHi=poor&fDepthLo=50.0&fDepthHi=80.0&fTableLo=40.0&fTableHi=80.0&fSymLo=good&fSymHi=poor&fPolLo=good&fPolHi=poor&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=&fFlrHi=vstrong&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=1000000&fLabGIA=1&adv=1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry forgot to add - its SI1 clarity and no fluorescence.

I'll try to attach scan of the grading report.

Setting is whatever I choose in the 18k white gold, I'm inclined towards something like tiffany setting (6 prongs)

My feeling is that its an old diamond (judging by what I read about bruted girdles and the fact it has one).

15021960994200.jpg

Edited by S4tronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was probably cut a while ago, say 1970’s.
 
Yes, AnchorCert is a reputable lab.
 
No, I don’t think that’s a counterfeit although I’ve seen neither the stone nor the report so I’m mostly guessing.
 
The reason this has Anchor paperwork rather than GIA is the missing question.
 
Anchor called this a ‘good’ cut on their scale, which I don't really understand and which is not explained on their website (as far as I found from a quick hunt but it's a big site). GIA probably would call it ‘fair’. That’s a giant deal in this business.  The issue is in the crown, the girdle, and possibly the symmetry.  All of those may be just fine for you, and it doesn't mean it isn't lovely, but a GIA-F is a nearly unsaleable stone and a giant problem for a dealer.  Hence the off-brand lab.  You would be hard pressed to find a GIA-F anywhere in the market for this reason.  It's not that they don't exist, it's that they're sold with different brand paper.  
 
There’s also the more mundane answer.  You’re in the UK.  The stone is in the UK.  The dealer is presumably in the UK. GIA isn’t. That throws in some logistical challenges that can be solved by using a local company.
Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, S4tronic said:

sorry forgot to add - its SI1 clarity and no fluorescence.

I'll try to attach scan of the grading report.

Setting is whatever I choose in the 18k white gold, I'm inclined towards something like tiffany setting (6 prongs)

My feeling is that its an old diamond (judging by what I read about bruted girdles and the fact it has one).

 

OK - that answers a few questions in terms of comparables for the stone, but the main "moving part" (grading aside) is still there: the setting. A 6 prongs Tiffany setting can still cost anything from $300 to $5000... but you are unlikely to be getting a $5000 setting on a $5000 total purchase.

Let's assume that the setting is at the low end. Asking price £4000 = $5250. Net of VAT $4375. Net of setting and labour to set the stone $4,000: that's at the bottom end of the prices for similarly graded GIA stones. Why? It may have relatively visible inclusions, it may not look all that good (one photo is frankly useless to assess that), it may have been sitting there for a long while (but why?) or all of the above.

Having taken a look at the report, I'm even less keen on it than before: four large naturals below a very variable girdle are not (usually) a good recipe for looks. If you cannot return the diamond and/or you cannot compare it live with stones that are at the very least graded GIA very good I would not recommend it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then, it looks like its not as good of a deal as I was led to believe so thank you for your honest opinion. Will try finding aomething else with more modern cut. Out of curiosity what do you mean by 4 naturals? I noticed it on the report but couldn't figure out what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'natural' is part of the original crystal surface that's still visible on the surface after the stone is polished.  They're normally right around the girdle.  4 is a lot.  You can see them on the pavilion side of the plot.  That's probably the heart of why the symmetry got dinged although there may be other issues too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the info available, I'd definitely rather have the BN stone than the other one. However... depending on how fussy you want to get about cut, you could do even better than this one - bear in mind that going from 1.0x to 0.9x means a very significant step down in price/carat, and VS1 is probably overkill in terms of clarity (though it means peace of mind - no VS1 is going to have eye-visible inclusions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

just want to follow up on that and let everyone know that I've gone back to the drawing board, revised budget and have gone for 0.73ct stone - its being set on the ring so no turning back now but thought I'll let you all know.

https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD09164353 is what I picked and hopefully it works out nice. Seems to have nice proportions and from the 360 deg video looks nice and clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...