Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Price check on a Flanders 1ct Diamond

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
S

stonerman

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
27
Hi,

Im looking at a Flanders diamond at the moment, and just wanted to get opinions and a market price, based on the specs below:

Shape: Flanders Brilliant Cut
Weight: 1.04ct (actual weight 0.210g)
Clarity: VVS2
Flourescence: slight
Colour grade: D
Measurement: 6.56 x 6.54 x 4.04
Girdle: thin to medium
Table width: 55%
Crown height: 13.5%
Pavillion depth: 44%
Finish grade: excellent

To the untrained eye (me) it looks superb. It has just one minute inclusion on the cert, but being a VVS2 stone, its impossible to see it.

Cheers
 
Thanks for your suggestion. Ive checked that site out with no luck.

I dont know a lot about diamonds, as im a first time buyer. Im told the stone is worth just under $19,000 but im trying to verify that somehow before i part with some hard earned money.

Comparing the flanders to a princess cut of similar characteristics, the princess cut comes out at just under $12,000.

Do Flanders stones really command the higher price?

Cheers
 
I *love* the Flanders Cut. They are pretty uncommon and hard-to-find, especially compared to a princess cut. GoodOldGold used to carry them, but stopped a few months ago (sob). They are typically more expensive than princess cuts.

19K sounds high; that might be the appraisal price (rather than the purchase price) for a 1 carat D VVS2. If I had to take a guess, GOG would have sold it a year ago for about 8-9K, and a brick and mortar for around 11-12K... but those are only VERY unscientific guesses by a layperson who''s not only guessing off the top of her head, but basing it on fuzzy recollections.
2.gif
 
Well i jumped in 2 feet first today and i bought the 1.04ct Flanders diamond, and also managed to get the price down aswell.

Im wrapped with my purchase!

Ive spent many hours with the jewler designing a setting for the stone, that will soon become a platinum engagement ring for my lovely girlfriend.

I hope she''ll like it!!
19.gif
 
I love Flanders ... such a beautiful and unusual cut.

I just proposed a couple months ago with mine ... here is the thread.


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/flanders-engagement-ring.64863/

Best of luck with yours! Please post pics when you get them!
 
Date: 10/9/2007 11:29:06 AM
Author: stonerman
Well i jumped in 2 feet first today and i bought the 1.04ct Flanders diamond, and also managed to get the price down aswell.

Im wrapped with my purchase!

Ive spent many hours with the jewler designing a setting for the stone, that will soon become a platinum engagement ring for my lovely girlfriend.

I hope she''ll like it!!
19.gif
Click to expand...
Congrats, I love the Flanders cut. Please post pics for us once it''s set!!
 
A one carat SQUARE at 6.5 mm? Wow. That''s some amazing spread that diamonds got going on. I''m impressed. Can''t wait to see the completed ring! I love Flanders!
 
Date: 10/10/2007 2:28:11 AM
Author: Gypsy
A one carat SQUARE at 6.5 mm? Wow. That''s some amazing spread that diamonds got going on. I''m impressed. Can''t wait to see the completed ring! I love Flanders!
Click to expand...
Be careful. Many proprietary fancy-shapes use their own rules to report measurements.

Normally, the rule in squares is that the diameter reported is the two smallest diameter, from side-to-side. However, many proprietary cuts report the two longest diameters, from corner-to-corner. This is for instance the case in the HOF-dream, and could be the case in a Flanders-cut too. Can somebody verify this?

If so, your remark on the big spread becomes invalid.

Live long,
 
Hi,

I''ll be sure to post pics when the ring is on her finger. The ring which is a platinum hand crafted ring hasnt been made as yet, and anticipate its about 3 weeks away, so it will be a while before i cant get pics up here.

Thanks for all your replies. Ive measured the stone myself, and the dimesions of 6.56 x 6.54 are measured across the cut corners, not the longer sides of the stone. If you meansured the stone using the same convention of measuring a princess cut stone, the 6.56 x 6.54 equates to about 5.29 x 5.27, or thereabouts.

Still a awesome stone, and reasonably sized for a 1.04ct.

Cheers
 
Date: 10/10/2007 7:53:26 AM
Author: stonerman
Hi,

I''ll be sure to post pics when the ring is on her finger. The ring which is a platinum hand crafted ring hasnt been made as yet, and anticipate its about 3 weeks away, so it will be a while before i cant get pics up here.

Thanks for all your replies. Ive measured the stone myself, and the dimesions of 6.56 x 6.54 are measured across the cut corners, not the longer sides of the stone. If you meansured the stone using the same convention of measuring a princess cut stone, the 6.56 x 6.54 equates to about 5.29 x 5.27, or thereabouts.

Still a awesome stone, and reasonably sized for a 1.04ct.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming this. As you see, measurements are not always straightforward.

Good luck with your purchase,

Live long,
 
On a side-note, by taking the long diameter as a reference in the measurement in stead of the short diameter, this also affects the depth- and table-percentages.

Compared to the diameter of 5.29-5.27, a depth of 4.04 is actually 76.66%
The listed crown-height of 13.5% is actually 16.8%
The listed pavilion-depth of 44% is actually 54.7%
The listed table of 55% is actually 68.4%

If I need to clarify this further, please ask.

Live long,
 
Thanks for that side note Paul.

Not fully understanding the meaning of those percentages, in your opinion, how do those percentages look?

Are they typically what id be expecting to see for a diamond of this type?

Cheers
 
All the measurements as reported in the Flanders-cut, look very familiar to someone who is used to judging rounds.

Diameter: 6.5x
Total depth: just over 60%
Crown height: 13.5
Pavilion depth: 44%
Table: 55%

However, in a notation as it should be, like in a princess-cut, all the measurements look totally differently and unlike what people are used to in rounds.

Then, it becomes:
Diameter: 5.29-5.27
Total depth: 76.7%
Crown-height: 16.8%
Pavilion-depth: 54.7%
Table: 68.4%

There is nothing wrong with these measurements as such. But the way that they are noted originally, makes the Flanders-cut look a lot better than any princess-cut. As you noticed, there were already comments about its amazing spread.

The same trick is used in other signature-cuts like the HOF-dream.

Live long,
 
Wow Paul, I had no idea. That was very illuminating. And to think that I was scheming to figure out wo to trade in my asscher for a flanders because I assumed it was measured like a princess. Interesting trick by these people to make the diamond sound larger than it is. I love flanders, but with DSS strongly set in... I''ll stick to my asscher!
 
Date: 10/10/2007 3:38:08 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp


Date: 10/10/2007 2:28:11 AM
Author: Gypsy
A one carat SQUARE at 6.5 mm? Wow. That's some amazing spread that diamonds got going on. I'm impressed. Can't wait to see the completed ring! I love Flanders!
Click to expand...
Be careful. Many proprietary fancy-shapes use their own rules to report measurements.

Normally, the rule in squares is that the diameter reported is the two smallest diameter, from side-to-side. However, many proprietary cuts report the two longest diameters, from corner-to-corner. This is for instance the case in the HOF-dream, and could be the case in a Flanders-cut too. Can somebody verify this?

If so, your remark on the big spread becomes invalid.

Live long,
Click to expand...

Wow, can I describe the fancy cut in my e-ring as being 12mm by 12mm then?


(Okay, why do I think a MAN is behind the "cheater measurement" behind the HOF Dream?
9.gif
)
 
Believe me, I have been tempted more than once to enter the measurement of our 1Ct-princess as 8.0x8.0 (or thereabouts), since this is the diameter from corner-to-corner.

It would definitely sound better.

As a matter of fact, my article in the PS-journal of September 2005 already tried to explain this trick. Here is the link.

Live long,
 
Date: 10/10/2007 2:14:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Believe me, I have been tempted more than once to enter the measurement of our 1Ct-princess as 8.0x8.0 (or thereabouts), since this is the diameter from corner-to-corner.

It would definitely sound better.

As a matter of fact, my article in the PS-journal of September 2005 already tried to explain this trick. Here is the link.

Live long,
Click to expand...

That would be great for about thirty seconds, then John would catch it along with Jonathon, NiceIce, James Allen, Dr. Beatty, the appraisal guru, not to mention Dave Atlas, DiamonBob, and Storm. Sigh, it just will not work! Sigh, better stick to following normal conventions!

Wink
 
Date: 10/10/2007 6:50:58 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 10/10/2007 2:14:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Believe me, I have been tempted more than once to enter the measurement of our 1Ct-princess as 8.0x8.0 (or thereabouts), since this is the diameter from corner-to-corner.

It would definitely sound better.

As a matter of fact, my article in the PS-journal of September 2005 already tried to explain this trick. Here is the link.

Live long,
Click to expand...

That would be great for about thirty seconds, then John would catch it along with Jonathon, NiceIce, James Allen, Dr. Beatty, the appraisal guru, not to mention Dave Atlas, DiamonBob, and Storm. Sigh, it just will not work! Sigh, better stick to following normal conventions!

Wink
Click to expand...
You were right to leave me off Wink

I specialize in the non obvious thought policing
2.gif
 
Oh, silly me...
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top