Got Diamond Questions?
Our community of diamond experts are here to provide answers
Fishy15

Final Opinion Needed

Recommended Posts

Found this rock online and everything seems excellent on paper. My only concern is the depth of the diamond. It sits at 62.7. Any idea if that cut is too deep?

 

Weight
1.4ct
Color
D
Clarity
VS1
Cut
Excellent
Measurements
7.08 - 7.14 x 4.45
Grading Lab
GIA
Polish
Excellent
Symmetry
Excellent
Fluorescence
Medium
Depth
62.7%
Table
56%
Crown Angle
35.5°
Crown Height
15.5%
Girdle
Slightly Thick
Pavilion Angle
40.6°
Pavilion Depth
43.0%
Culet
 
Any help would be appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Furqan Shafi said:

It's a D color with medium flourescence, it should come at a discount compared to non flourescence stones. 

Yeah the price is right on my budget. I don't mind the fluorescence but I've had people tell me that the 62.7 depth is too deep. Any advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the closest I can find in my budget that's a D color. Will med fluor plus the extra depth be that bad to the shine of the stone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fishy15 said:

This is the closest I can find in my budget that's a D color. Will med fluor plus the extra depth be that bad to the shine of the stone?

No, it's not going to have any significant effect on the appearance. Is this the cheapest stone you can find on internet? Please use search functions on this forum, Search for your parameters and compare average prices to see where your diamond rank in terms of prices. 

  • Like 1

Swanstar Diamonds.
http://www.swanstar.com.au
Melbourne, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Furqan Shafi said:

No, it's not going to have any significant effect on the appearance. Is this the cheapest stone you can find on internet? Please use search functions on this forum, Search for your parameters and compare average prices to see where your diamond rank in terms of prices. 

It's the cheapest I can find within the 1.4 ct and D color range. If fluoro doesn't have significant effect, will the 62.7 depth affect the brilliance/shine?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

62.7 is still within the possible range of GIA excellent cut, and indeed they did just that. The problem here is that it’s not a very useful overall metric, which is why neither GIA nor AGS uses depth% in their cut calculations. In short answer, no it’s not likely to be a problem.

 

Furqan is picking on the fluoro so hard because D/medium is such an unusual combination for people to seek out.  That's why it's cheaper than what you're seeing as similar, not the depth percentage. (you didn't list a price or where it's coming from but one of the dealers in the database here is listing that same stone)


 

Edited by denverappraiser

Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

 

There's never a crowd when you go that extra mile.

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, denverappraiser said:

62.7 is still within the possible range of GIA excellent cut, and indeed they did just that. The problem here is that it’s not a very useful overall metric, which is why neither GIA nor AGS uses depth% in their cut metrics. In short answer, no it’s not likely to be a problem.

 

Furqan is picking on the fluoro so hard because D/medium is such an unusual combination for people to seek out.  That's why it's cheaper than what you're seeing as similar, not the depth percentage. (you didn't list a price or where it's coming from but one of the dealers in the database here is listing that same stone)


 

Thank you, everyone I've spoke to said that I should avoid this diamond because of the depth. I'm aware that it barely meets the excellent cut grade but its right within my budget. The fluoro I can live with since I feel like the price is right. The website that is offering this stone is selling it for 10.6k. Would you possibly have a link to that stone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

 

There's never a crowd when you go that extra mile.

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, denverappraiser said:

Thanks. Wow almost identical but the Crown angle and Pav angle is slightly different. Also my budget is max 10.7k. So do you think the 62.7 won't be a problem?

link to the diamond

https://www.yadavjewelry.com/diamonds/3039597?utm_source=rarecarat.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rarecarat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fishy15 said:

Thank you, everyone I've spoke to said that I should avoid this diamond because of the depth. I'm aware that it barely meets the excellent cut grade but its right within my budget. The fluoro I can live with since I feel like the price is right. The website that is offering this stone is selling it for 10.6k. Would you possibly have a link to that stone?

Who is everyone? People on internet on another forum ?

62.7 depth is not problematic depth. And I have seen excellent cut stones with depth uptown 63.5 (that's sixty three). So no that's not barely excellent. 

My only contention is the price. If right price you could buy it. But remember if it comes to selling this one no one will wanna buy this. 

  • Like 1

Swanstar Diamonds.
http://www.swanstar.com.au
Melbourne, Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s up to you. I showed you a pretty good comp from a discounty seller that’s nearly 10% more money.  That makes it a comparatively good price.  I don’t see a particular problem with it.  I’ve never heard of the dealer, which doesn’t matter a hill of beans, but do make sure to check their terms and conditions to make sure there are no zingers in there.

 

Whether or not it’s what you want and if you should buy it is a totally different question. The right price on the wrong thing is no bargain.

 

Edited by denverappraiser
  • Like 1

Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

 

There's never a crowd when you go that extra mile.

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Other suggestions from the other forums were diamonds from whiteflash that were in the 1.15-1.2 range with lower color and clarity but super ideal cuts. I'm totally new to this so I'm looking for some guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear on something that has not been addressed in this particular thread:

32 minutes ago, Fishy15 said:

It's the cheapest I can find within the 1.4 ct and D color range. If fluoro doesn't have significant effect, will the 62.7 depth affect the brilliance/shine?

Thanks

Within pretty broad ranges, the only thing that additional depth because of a thick(er) girdle will do is to make the diamond look smaller. It won't affect brilliance, scintillation or fire.


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fishy15 said:

Thanks. Other suggestions from the other forums were diamonds from whiteflash that were in the 1.15-1.2 range with lower color and clarity but super ideal cuts. I'm totally new to this so I'm looking for some guidance.

Horses for courses. Have you seen in real life different colours, clarities and sizes, not to mention cut grades?

For some people (myself included, to a point), cut dominates, but preferring size (or colour, or...) is not wrong; aesthetic preferences vary, and the whole point of purchasing a diamond is to have something that one likes visually and emotionally, not something that "mathematically" works best. Especially when the mathematics isn't well defined.

ETA - if you haven't, then my strong recommendation is that you do, prior to embarking on a journey that may cost you several hundred $ (if not thousands) and a lot of frustration.

Edited by davidelevi

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, davidelevi said:

Just to be clear on something that has not been addressed in this particular thread:

Within pretty broad ranges, the only thing that additional depth because of a thick(er) girdle will do is to make the diamond look smaller. It won't affect brilliance, scintillation or fire.

So the only effect is that the diamond will look smaller? I doubt I can even see that difference with the naked eye. Everyone in the other forum told me to skip on this because of the depth.

 

https://www.diamdb.com/compare/1.4ct-round-7.08x7.14x4.45-vs-1.25ct-round-6.93x6.95x4.27/

 

it's considered a "spread" diamond?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, davidelevi said:

Horses for courses. Have you seen in real life different colours, clarities and sizes, not to mention cut grades?

For some people (myself included, to a point), cut dominates, but preferring size (or colour, or...) is not wrong; aesthetic preferences vary, and the whole point of purchasing a diamond is to have something that one likes visually and emotionally, not something that "mathematically" works best. Especially when the mathematics isn't well defined.

ETA - if you haven't, then my strong recommendation is that you do, prior to embarking on a journey that may cost you several hundred $ (if not thousands) and a lot of frustration.

Totally understood,  beauty is in the eye of the beholder kinda thing. So I do care about cut but not as much as carat size and color. So far the cut seems "ideal" but the depth is slightly deeper. Is that enough for me to skip this diamond is my question. If the difference is so minimal and it won't make a difference to the naked eye, I don't think it would be an issue for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fishy15 said:

So the only effect is that the diamond will look smaller? I doubt I can even see that difference with the naked eye. Everyone in the other forum told me to skip on this because of the depth.

https://www.diamdb.com/compare/1.4ct-round-7.08x7.14x4.45-vs-1.25ct-round-6.93x6.95x4.27/

it's considered a "spread" diamond?

Yes, the only effect (certainly with this diamond; extremely thick girdles can have other effects) is a slightly smaller diameter. How much smaller? Probably about 0.1 mm diameter to an "average ideal cut" and 0.2 mm to a spready stone (which means something that looks "larger" than typical for its weight). No, I wouldn't skip just because of the depth, but Furqan and Neil both make valid points: the fluorescence and slightly deeper proportions will make this difficult to (re)sell, and it may therefore not be something you want to get involved with. On the other hand, you may be able to wring a bit of a discount precisely because of that reason, but a great price on the wrong thing is not a bargain.

9 minutes ago, Fishy15 said:

Totally understood,  beauty is in the eye of the beholder kinda thing. So I do care about cut but not as much as carat size and color. So far the cut seems "ideal" but the depth is slightly deeper. Is that enough for me to skip this diamond is my question. If the difference is so minimal and it won't make a difference to the naked eye, I don't think it would be an issue for me

0.1 mm is typically visible with the naked eye having the two items next to each other; it won't be memorable (meaning: if you see the two items one at a time, you typically won't be able to tell which is which). This speaking of loose stones; if the setting "hides" the size by surrounding the diamond e.g. with a halo, it may be completely impossible to say which is which without tools.

My question about having seen different colours etc. is also a part of the "enough to skip this diamond". Most people - myself included - cannot distinguish D from F seen from above, and have a fair amount of difficulty in telling F from G once set. If you haven't seen D and F (and E and G) stones, you may be creating barriers for yourself that don't really exist. If you are keen on D because of the symbolic value, fair enough; if you are keen on D because you think E or F (or G, or even H) will look visibly yellow, then go out and check first. To most people they don't, in any realistic circumstances. Same applies to VS2 vs. SI1 clarity, 0.1 mm in diameter or 0.5% in depth.

Edited by davidelevi
  • Like 1

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, davidelevi said:

Yes, the only effect (certainly with this diamond; extremely thick girdles can have other effects) is a slightly smaller diameter. How much smaller? Probably about 0.1 mm diameter to an "average ideal cut" and 0.2 mm to a spready stone (which means something that looks "larger" than typical for its weight). No, I wouldn't skip just because of the depth, but Furqan and Neil both make valid points: the fluorescence and slightly deeper proportions will make this difficult to (re)sell, and it may therefore not be something you want to get involved with. On the other hand, you may be able to wring a bit of a discount precisely because of that reason, but a great price on the wrong thing is not a bargain.

0.1 mm is typically visible with the naked eye having the two items next to each other; it won't be memorable (meaning: if you see the two items one at a time, you typically won't be able to tell which is which). This speaking of loose stones; if the setting "hides" the size by surrounding the diamond e.g. with a halo, it may be completely impossible to say which is which without tools.

My question about having seen different colours etc. is also a part of the "enough to skip this diamond". Most people - myself included - cannot distinguish D from F seen from above, and have a fair amount of difficulty in telling F from G once set. If you haven't seen D and F (and E and G) stones, you may be creating barriers for yourself that don't really exist. If you are keen on D because of the symbolic value, fair enough; if you are keen on D because you think E or F (or G, or even H) will look visibly yellow, then go out and check first. To most people they don't, in any realistic circumstances. Same applies to VS2 vs. SI1 clarity, 0.1 mm in diameter or 0.5% in depth.

Thanks for the detailed feedback. Initially I chose a 1.45 H VVS2 diamond that had great cuts but after getting some advice from her friends, they advised me to get a D because of the "symbolic" reason. My gf is Asian and it seems like they look at the paper more than the diamond itself. This whole week I've been debating between the 1.45 H VVS2 diamond over the 1.4 D VS1 diamond (With the D having medium fluoro).

For resale value, I don't think my gf would ever sell the ring in the future so I don't think that would be a big issue. The other forum members are dead set on buying from Whiteflash because they have an unbeatable diamond upgrade program. All of which are great points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've heard all sorts on "Asian cultural preferences", including the fact that IF (if not FL) clarity should be preferred too, which however would leave you with a 0.9x... which is probably not acceptable from other points of view. 😉 FWIW, I have a few good Asian friends (ranging from Chinese to Indian, Malay and Japanese): none of them would look at the paper more than they would look at the diamond.

However annoying, it may be wise to try and pry out of her what she values, rather than what her friends think she does.

Yes, Whiteflash has a pretty good upgrade programme. So do many others - and you do pay a premium for the ACA label in the first place which may make an "80% guaranteed trade up" from someone else more interesting financially... The WF policies while good are far from "unbeatable" (or unbeaten - at some times WF had significantly worse terms than others), and they do depend on the business surviving and maintaining its current policies, so I'd be careful about attributing too much value to them.

  • Like 1

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, davidelevi said:

Well, I've heard all sorts on "Asian cultural preferences", including the fact that IF (if not FL) clarity should be preferred too, which however would leave you with a 0.9x... which is probably not acceptable from other points of view. 😉 FWIW, I have a few good Asian friends (ranging from Chinese to Indian, Malay and Japanese): none of them would look at the paper more than they would look at the diamond.

However annoying, it may be wise to try and pry out of her what she values, rather than what her friends think she does.

Yes, Whiteflash has a pretty good upgrade programme. So do many others - and you do pay a premium for the ACA label in the first place which may make an "80% guaranteed trade up" from someone else more interesting financially... The WF policies while good are far from "unbeatable" (or unbeaten - at some times WF had significantly worse terms than others), and they do depend on the business surviving and maintaining its current policies, so I'd be careful about attributing too much value to them.

Definitely understood. Trying to use her friends so I can understand what she values without asking her directly as it would ruin any element of surprise. So going back to the original diamond, I do like it on paper, in your opinion would the stone look good in person also? Again, I don't mind the medium fluoro and understand that it'll be hard to sell. I feel better about the depth after you explained it to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I understand the dilemma on the surprise... on the other hand, you can find out about what she values (colour, clarity, size, appearance) without disclosing much: ask her about what her family values? You were suprised when you learned that a friend got a small D/IF diamond, but she valued "paper perfection" more than size. Does she share those ideas? 

It's very likely to look good; does it look stunning? Only more information - starting as a minimum from reflector images - can give us some indication, and your/her personal preferences play a big role in deciding.

  • Like 1

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
davide@diamondsbylauren.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now