Need help choosing the perfect oval, budget is $75k

[evad-ny]

So here is my situation: I am based in NYC and I need to find the perfect oval diamond to complement a beautiful split shank pave setting that I have worked up with a local jewlery designer. My budget for the stone is ~$75k tops, excluding the setting. Ideally am looking for a stone in the ~4.0 carat range, but am considering anything down to 3.7 carats. I don't want to go lower than F VS2 on the color/clarity scale - so I have found that it really comes down to parameters of the cut.

My designer has recommended a 3.70 F VS2, which she has in her own inventory (see full specs below: Oval 1). I have seen it and it is a very beautiful stone. My issue is the proportions - it is very round-like oval, with a l/w ratio of 1.22. While this does not bother me in terms of how it looks (ie I do not have an issue with the appearance of the proportions), I am wondering whether this has an impact on the value of the stone as it is far outside of the AGA ideal range of 1.33 - 1.66 for ovals, and even outside of the "average" range of 1.26 - 1.74. Other cut parameters of the stone seem to be of high quality per AGA standards. The asking price for the stone is $70k, which is approximately equal to current Rap value (29-Oct) of $70.7k ($19.1k x 3.7ct), excluding any premium for being in the high end of the 3.00 - 3.99 range. My question on this stone is whether or not it should trade at a discount to Rap for its odd size proportions.

Oval 1 Specifications
Report: GIA
Shape and Cutting Style: Oval Modified Brilliant
Dimensions: 11.42x9.37x4.98
Weight: 3.70 carat
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Polish: VG
Symmetry: G
Fluorescence: None
Comments: Additional clouds are not shown
Inscription: Canadian product
Table: 62%
Depth: 53.1%
Girdle: Thin - Slightly Thick (Faceted)
Culet: None

My second question relates to an oval which I have found on this site, which is a 4.01 F VS2 that I have not seen in person (see full specs below: Oval 2). I like the proportions of this stone much better, with its l/w ration falling right in the sweet spot at 1.44, and other cut parameters of high quality as well, with the exception of the girdle, which is thin to extremely thick. My worry with this stone is tha the girdle will look very lopsided, ie if it is 1.2% thick in some areas and 7.5% in others (using GIA guidelines), I would think it will appear uneven, not to mention other unwanted effects that may result. Given that the setting I am going with has a circle of pave diamonds surrounding the entire oval, I feel that any lopsided "look" may be somewhat minimized / hidden, but am more concerned with any optical effects that might result. Otherwise, I very much like the stone. The asking price for this stone is ~$74k, which is a fairly deep discount to Rap value of $111.9k (any ideas why?). My question to this group is whether or not anyone has experience with thin to extremely thick girdles, and what I should look out for in a stone such as this. Also, is there a reason this one is called "Oval Brilliant" on the GIA report while the first stone is "Oval Modified Brilliant"?

Oval 2 Specifications
Report: GIA
Shape and Cutting Style: Oval Brilliant
Dimensions: 12.13x8.45x5.37
Weight: 4.01 carat
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Polish: EX
Symmetry: G
Fluorescence: None
Comments: None
Table: 66%
Depth: 63.6%
Girdle: Thin - Extremely Thick (Faceted)
Culet: None

Thanks to anyone who has read this far, I realize it is a lot of information but want to be sure I make the right decision!

 

[antelope1]

<bump>

Do you know the dates on the reports? Perhaps the naming convention changed over time?

 

[Rockdiamond]

So here is my situation: I am based in NYC and I need to find the perfect oval diamond to complement a beautiful split shank pave setting that I have worked up with a local jewlery designer. My budget for the stone is ~$75k tops, excluding the setting. Ideally am looking for a stone in the ~4.0 carat range, but am considering anything down to 3.7 carats. I don't want to go lower than F VS2 on the color/clarity scale - so I have found that it really comes down to parameters of the cut.

My designer has recommended a 3.70 F VS2, which she has in her own inventory (see full specs below: Oval 1). I have seen it and it is a very beautiful stone. My issue is the proportions - it is very round-like oval, with a l/w ratio of 1.22. While this does not bother me in terms of how it looks (ie I do not have an issue with the appearance of the proportions), I am wondering whether this has an impact on the value of the stone as it is far outside of the AGA ideal range of 1.33 - 1.66 for ovals, and even outside of the "average" range of 1.26 - 1.74. Other cut parameters of the stone seem to be of high quality per AGA standards. The asking price for the stone is $70k, which is approximately equal to current Rap value (29-Oct) of $70.7k ($19.1k x 3.7ct), excluding any premium for being in the high end of the 3.00 - 3.99 range. My question on this stone is whether or not it should trade at a discount to Rap for its odd size proportions.

Oval 1 Specifications
Report: GIA
Shape and Cutting Style: Oval Modified Brilliant
Dimensions: 11.42x9.37x4.98
Weight: 3.70 carat
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Polish: VG
Symmetry: G
Fluorescence: None
Comments: Additional clouds are not shown
Inscription: Canadian product
Table: 62%
Depth: 53.1%
Girdle: Thin - Slightly Thick (Faceted)
Culet: None

My second question relates to an oval which I have found on this site, which is a 4.01 F VS2 that I have not seen in person (see full specs below: Oval 2). I like the proportions of this stone much better, with its l/w ration falling right in the sweet spot at 1.44, and other cut parameters of high quality as well, with the exception of the girdle, which is thin to extremely thick. My worry with this stone is tha the girdle will look very lopsided, ie if it is 1.2% thick in some areas and 7.5% in others (using GIA guidelines), I would think it will appear uneven, not to mention other unwanted effects that may result. Given that the setting I am going with has a circle of pave diamonds surrounding the entire oval, I feel that any lopsided "look" may be somewhat minimized / hidden, but am more concerned with any optical effects that might result. Otherwise, I very much like the stone. The asking price for this stone is ~$74k, which is a fairly deep discount to Rap value of $111.9k (any ideas why?). My question to this group is whether or not anyone has experience with thin to extremely thick girdles, and what I should look out for in a stone such as this. Also, is there a reason this one is called "Oval Brilliant" on the GIA report while the first stone is "Oval Modified Brilliant"?

Oval 2 Specifications
Report: GIA
Shape and Cutting Style: Oval Brilliant
Dimensions: 12.13x8.45x5.37
Weight: 4.01 carat
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Polish: EX
Symmetry: G
Fluorescence: None
Comments: None
Table: 66%
Depth: 63.6%
Girdle: Thin - Extremely Thick (Faceted)
Culet: None

Thanks to anyone who has read this far, I realize it is a lot of information but want to be sure I make the right decision!

The AGA charts are not accepted by the trade at large- and will have no impact whatsoever on pricing. No question stones that look "odd" will trade at lower prices- but many stones downgraded on the AGA charts are amazing- and very pretty.
If you've seen a stone, and you like the proportions, that's far more important.

Girdle: Since an oval is not nearly as symmetrical as a round- by it's very nature- variations in girdle with are not necessarily a problem. The tolerances for round girdles, and oval girdles are completely different.

 

[Rhino]

I'd concur what Dave said. Additionally I'd also add it's pretty impossible to judge the optics of an oval strictly by data on a GIA Report. I've seen comparable dimensions & table/depth info on ovals where some had more noticeable bowties than others altering the optics.

 

[evad-ny]

Thanks for the replies, I really appreciate the feedback. Its amazing how some people make these decisions without the slightest consideration to this level of detail...I suppose the ultimate test is how the stone looks to the buyer, absent of any GIA reports.

antelope1 - the Oval 1 report is dated April 2010 while the Oval 2 report is dated June 2008. Could this be the reason for the discrepancy?

Rockdiamond - would you consider an otherwise high quality / visibly beautiful oval with a l/w ratio of 1.22 to look odd? Just trying to get a sense of what would be taken into consideration when a professional buyer is looking at the stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for the replies, I really appreciate the feedback. Its amazing how some people make these decisions without the slightest consideration to this level of detail...I suppose the ultimate test is how the stone looks to the buyer, absent of any GIA reports.

antelope1 - the Oval 1 report is dated April 2010 while the Oval 2 report is dated June 2008. Could this be the reason for the discrepancy?

Rockdiamond - would you consider an otherwise high quality / visibly beautiful oval with a l/w ratio of 1.22 to look odd? Just trying to get a sense of what would be taken into consideration when a professional buyer is looking at the stone.

Not at all!
I consider a lot of factors when I select stones. For example- is there a detrimental bow tie?
By that I mean one that's static- and does not change as the stone goes though a range of tilt and motion.
Does the stone have good visual size for it's weight?
How does the color manifest itself?
In an F color I'm looking for blinding white- colorless to the n'th degree.

How does the shape look on her finger?
Can you place the stone on her finger to model it?

 

[Rhino]

While Dave may not think a 1.22:1 ratio is odd, I definitely think a 1.22:1 ratio would absolutely play into the pricing. That is not a desirable ratio for an oval in the sense that it is not in high demand. If your woman prefers that ratio though, more power to you. You should get it cheaper. More of a bonus if indeed the optics are there.

 

[Gypsy]

For what it is worth, I agree with Rhino... but also think Dave might have a point.

As a (very) general rule, the closer to round the better the chances of avoiding a bow tiel. Your first oval is very shallow though, so I'm glad you've seen it and liked it as another factor that can play into bow ties is depth. On the plus side, shallow means spread, and that's a nice thing (are you sure the table and depth aren't reversed on that first stone though?)

A visually appealing stone (bright, clear, and one that reflects light well and has no bow tie) will command a higher price. So, that's why I think Dave is saying that the 1.22 MIGHT be reasonably priced, if the 1.22 statistic is it's only 'flaw'... and especially if the ratio is what is helping the optics.

On the other hand, the stone is definitely more on the 'out of round' side of the oval shape than is customary. That is Rhino's point. I personally like 1.33 for my ovals as I prefer fatter ones. So I wouldn't kick a 1.2 something out of the running if I found it visually appealing.

I would ask if there is room to negotiate on the pricing though, cause if you are buying the stone and the setting from the same place, they are really getting a benefit, and I think they should pass that onto you. I would do a little more research and print out stones with specs close to your 1.2 and better prices, then take that in with you and negotiate a lower price as it sounds like you are happy with the stone, just not the pricing.

I also would echo Rhino that with ovals numbers mean ZERO. That second stone could be incredible or it could be a huge dog. Seriously. Just as an educational exercise, take 20 minutes and go to James Allen.com and look for ovals (any color or clarity) with "Ideal" proportions in the 1.2-1.7 carat range. Then just click on the pictures. That's all. Just set your search parameters for 'JA' ideal proportions and carat weight and click on pics. The sheer variety of ovals will probably surprise you. Then pick your top 3 favorites (by sight only), and your top 3 "dogs" and compare their stats. You will (most likely) find that you aren't able to predict much at all from the stats and that the ones you like, and the ones you hate... meh, numbers don't help.

If you do want to try to self source and are looking for PS vendor recommendations, let us know and we'll tell you who we think can find you a nice oval. As the stats are a pot luck, having a vendor experienced with sourcing fancies can be a huge help.

Good luck.

 

[Stephan]

It would be cool you find an AGS0 Oval.
I'd love to see such a diamond!

 

[evad-ny]

Thanks all, this is very helpful advice. I will look for those factors pointed out by Rockdiamond next time I am in to see the 3.70. It sounds like the 1.22 ratio should be acknowledged as a flaw...when I had initially mentioned it to the designer she felt very strongly that it was not a factor, and that instead the overall high quality of the stone was what matters most (similar view to Rockdiamond) - but if the trade preference is for more off-round ovals, my view is that it should be factored into the price, as the next buyer might not prefer these off-market proportions.

Gypsy - I would definitely be interested in any recommendations of yours for individuals who can source quality oval diamonds in the size range I am looking for, specifically who are located in the NY area and maintain their own inventory.

 

[Rhino]

Thanks all, this is very helpful advice. I will look for those factors pointed out by Rockdiamond next time I am in to see the 3.70. It sounds like the 1.22 ratio should be acknowledged as a flaw...when I had initially mentioned it to the designer she felt very strongly that it was not a factor, and that instead the overall high quality of the stone was what matters most (similar view to Rockdiamond) - but if the trade preference is for more off-round ovals, my view is that it should be factored into the price, as the next buyer might not prefer these off-market proportions.

Gypsy - I would definitely be interested in any recommendations of yours for individuals who can source quality oval diamonds in the size range I am looking for, specifically who are located in the NY area and maintain their own inventory.

Not quite sure I would count the 1.22 ratio as a flaw perse. Just not as high in demand. You do have other rarity factors in play here too. The fact that its between 3.5 - 4ct and at 3.70 commands a good premium. At this moment the prices of rough in Antwerp are high and larger diamonds are up across the board. Althought it is a 1.22 ratio the depth/table combo does look like there is potential there as its not cut too deep or too shallow (albeit it does not speak to the crown/pavilion angles). If your lady *likes* what she sees I wouldn't suggest you necessarily strike this one out. Remember, ratio is a preference and as Dave mentioned could be just fine if indeed it appeals to *her eyes*.

Good luck to you.

 

[Gypsy]

Hi. I agree with Rhino. The diamond's ratio isn't a flaw-- it COULD be a flaw, or it could just be a spec. It really isn't a flaw unless it affects the visual performance-- if the stone is otherwise a knock out then it's just a spec. Nothing more, nothing less. With fancies, total picture is what matters and what your eyes tell you. I really can't stress that enough. I know a lot of people with stunning fancies that, statistically, don't have an 'ideal' in each checked box. It's total sum game. The size on that stone is a sweet spot as well. So I really wouldn't let yourself get hung up on one aspect if the stone is otherwise lovely.

As for NY vendors, Rhino has a nice history with fancies, and particularly a few gorgeous ovals (Kaleigh's) plus he has a lot of evaluation tools to make what is a subjective choice a little more objective, which many people find comforting. Alternately, Mark at Engagement Rings Direct has also found some lovely ovals, and has a great eye and great connections. He doesn't have as many tools for online sales as Rhino does, but if you are in NY in person, that won't matter as you can just go and see the diamonds. Those would be the vendors that I would contact if I was looking for an oval with those specs period.

I would tell them EVERYTHING you want. ratio, bowtie prominence... etc. The more specific you can be, the better they will be able to help you. I would also make the effort to call both vendors and schedule time to talk to them. THEN after the call, I would send a follow up email detailing the conversation and the requirements discussed. As well as the time frame you are trying to work in.

Best,
Layla