JEJ|1432915393|3882678 said:pfunk|1432875869|3882575 said:So does this mean you can indeed find "superideal" stones scattered in virtual inventories? Glad it turned out to be as beautiful as anticipated. I bet it is gorgeous.
I would say you can. What would be nice is if you knew which cutters had the best equipment and had a propensity to produce higher quality cuts on average. Never mind angles and such, just symmetry in the cutting technique. I'm sure this is a closely guarded secret amongst resellers.
SO I didn't concentrate on using the HCA tool. Even though it scores a 1.4, if you look closely, the center of the 'X' on the plotter isn't actually in the right place, if you use a straight edge to make sure it's plotting at the right crown and pavilion angles. The stone has a depth of 61.7, 56 tbl, 34.5 crn, 40.8 pav. (Must be a glitch on 'X' marks the spot with the HCA tool).
What I did do is use AGSL's charts and found a stone that falls right in the middle of their '0' ideal range. Then I figured if the Idealscope and ASET looked okay, then any minor facet average angular difference wouldn't be that noticeable when it came to light performance and looks.
https://www.agslab.com/docs/pbcg/AGSLProportionCharts.pdf
The stone did have a 1.01 roundness, which concerned me, but that '.01' only amounts to .001 of an inch, which is such a minute amount, that if the stone isn't held perfectly square with any measuring device, it could show that amount easily. Like half of the width of a thin piece of paper out of tolerance.
The moral of the story is that I took a virtual selection F VS2 stone into a HOF dealer and compared it to an H Si and the virtual selection looked just as good sparkly wise and better color wise. I could buy 2 or more of these for what they wanted for their HOF stone.
I also have an engineering background...I have a micrometer sitting on my desk as I type. I understand the importance of angular precision and geometry.
I'm sure that if you compared it to a CBI stone, and stared long enough, you could probably point out slight differences. Now in the real world, you put this stone, and it's clean, against a CBI with a minute amount of hand moisturizer or something along those lines, i.e. needs to be cleaned, then I doubt there would be a discernible difference or the virtual would look better.
I am in no way saying this stone is as good as a CBI stone, because it's not. What I am saying is that it's no slouch, as good as a HOF (at least the one I compared it to), and for the price, it's hard to beat.
kenny|1382639302|3543847 said:All four diamonds were graded by GIA or AGS.
From left to right the color grades are G M N M.
You can clearly see the body colors of three different hues, Yellow, Brown, and Gray.
Again these are diamonds graded on GIA's D-Z scale for 'white' diamonds, not on GIA's Fancy Colored Diamond scale since the color does not qualify as "Fancy" per GIA.
Key to this topic is how the hue of the body color affects price within the same color grade.
All other things being equal, yellow is most expensive and will face up whitest of the three, gray is next, and brown is the least expensive, per the GOG video linked above.
Sometimes brown can have pink undertones, a nice bonus.
Kudos to Jonathan for this lesson. (...Jon @GOG)