Patty
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,455
Okay, I found this post from April 12, 2004 by Mara. Hope you don''t mind my reprinting it here, Mara!
Let me attempt to give some extra perspective from my experience...
Until recently I was the proud owner of a beautiful non-ideal diamond. The parameters of the stone put it in to an AGS9 or AGS10 category (depending on which Sarin you looked at!), obviously far from ideal. The depth was 57% and the table was 61.4%. The pav and crown angle were at the right spot for the stone to look really great. We always got compliments on my ring. Then again, my ring also has eternity prong set stones around it, so it DOES have the same bling bling look that your friends will have with the Ritani setting. So maybe that does make a difference.My stone when you would look inside looked like cut glass, not super symmetrical but very shimmery glassy white, very brilliant (white light return) to the eye in almost any condition.
Specs on old stone:
1.23c: 7.15mm x 4.08mm (looked like a 1.35c due to spread)
Table: 61.4%
Depth 56.9%
Crown Angle: 29.9 or 29.1 (two Sarins)
Pav Angle: 41.1
No Fluor, VG VG on Polish and Symm, No Culet
We made the decision to sell that stone and get one that is more typically ideal. We ended up with one that did not quite make the stellar Hearts and Arrows A Cut Above grade from WhiteFlash, but in terms of idealscope image, sarin report etc, this stone was a knockout. Pictures of it blew us away. Having heard about all the great ideal cut stones people got, the sparkle, the fire, the scintillation, it was a huge tease to us. We could not wait to see this new stone and expected it to be 100000% better than my old one.
New Stone Specs:
1.29c: 7.10mm x 4.31mm
Table: 55%
Depth: 60.7%
C. Angle: 34.9
P. Angle: 40.8
No Culet, No Fluor
EX EX Polish and Symm
The new stone arrived and it blew our socks off. Beautiful, amazing, the symmetry in this thing was hugely different than my old stone. I think the ONE thing I have to say I notice the most in this new stone day after day is the excellent symmetry. You can SEE the arrows so crisply and cleanly in certain lights. The old stone never had that, because the symmetry was not remotely as nice as this stone. No arrows appeared. The arrows in this new stone are what throw off most of the flashes too. I get broader flashes of color and white light, my old stone gave off more of a shattered glass prism look.
So there ARE different looks and neither one of them is WRONG. If you prefer the look of your friend''s stone, then try to find one similar. Having had a stone like that, and knowing that I was not always going to keep that stone, I wanted to trade up later for something bigger, it made sense to start playing the field now and figure out what really floated my boat for the future. I LOVE my new stone. While the old stone was beautiful in many lighting environments, this new stone is just as beautiful in those same lighting environments and also is more beautiful in others! Whereas before my old stone threw off rainbows in one scenario, this new stone throws off 2ce as many rainbows!
I don''t think I can really honestly say that there are times where I feel like my old stone would have looked MORE beautiful in a situation than my new stone. I guess also knowing that my new stone IS the more acceptable ideal standard and does have the sweet angles and numbers also makes it more beautiful anyway. A mental thing. My old stone was beautiful, but I knew inside that it was far from the ideal numbers and some may even consider it a borderline fish-eye. So I think that diminished some of the pleasure from it..AND in some scenarios where it did not look as great, I used to wonder if it was because it was not ideal! So now that I have this new ideal stone...I can really know for sure that it was or was not the old stone cut that would make it sparkle or not...and I guess I feel more ''well rounded'' for lack of a better phrase.
Sorry to ramble, but as someone who has seen both sides of the coin....figured I''d try to add a little perspective. I plan to only buy ideals from this point on but if a stone like my old one presented itself for something like a pendant, I would not be adverse to it as long as it was discounted appropriately. So...go with your heart but be sure that you KNOW you will be happy with what you selected. Your friend''s stone may be sparkling more because of the pave around it, or it just may be a great cut non-ideal stone! If you get something like that, will you be happy inside, since as you noted you are now a cut-nut on paper thanks to the forum? If you don''t think you can subscribe 110% to the non-ideal way of thinking...then don''t go there, because you may regret it later. Same with the ideal cut. Whatever you buy, be sure that it really floats your boat...because you will be wearing it!
If it helps, here is my new thread on the new stone and my ring:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-ring-oops-i-mean-rings.14091/
In there is a link to my OLD stone and ring pictures....some say they can see a huge difference...what do you think?
_____________________________
Let me attempt to give some extra perspective from my experience...
Until recently I was the proud owner of a beautiful non-ideal diamond. The parameters of the stone put it in to an AGS9 or AGS10 category (depending on which Sarin you looked at!), obviously far from ideal. The depth was 57% and the table was 61.4%. The pav and crown angle were at the right spot for the stone to look really great. We always got compliments on my ring. Then again, my ring also has eternity prong set stones around it, so it DOES have the same bling bling look that your friends will have with the Ritani setting. So maybe that does make a difference.My stone when you would look inside looked like cut glass, not super symmetrical but very shimmery glassy white, very brilliant (white light return) to the eye in almost any condition.
Specs on old stone:
1.23c: 7.15mm x 4.08mm (looked like a 1.35c due to spread)
Table: 61.4%
Depth 56.9%
Crown Angle: 29.9 or 29.1 (two Sarins)
Pav Angle: 41.1
No Fluor, VG VG on Polish and Symm, No Culet
We made the decision to sell that stone and get one that is more typically ideal. We ended up with one that did not quite make the stellar Hearts and Arrows A Cut Above grade from WhiteFlash, but in terms of idealscope image, sarin report etc, this stone was a knockout. Pictures of it blew us away. Having heard about all the great ideal cut stones people got, the sparkle, the fire, the scintillation, it was a huge tease to us. We could not wait to see this new stone and expected it to be 100000% better than my old one.
New Stone Specs:
1.29c: 7.10mm x 4.31mm
Table: 55%
Depth: 60.7%
C. Angle: 34.9
P. Angle: 40.8
No Culet, No Fluor
EX EX Polish and Symm
The new stone arrived and it blew our socks off. Beautiful, amazing, the symmetry in this thing was hugely different than my old stone. I think the ONE thing I have to say I notice the most in this new stone day after day is the excellent symmetry. You can SEE the arrows so crisply and cleanly in certain lights. The old stone never had that, because the symmetry was not remotely as nice as this stone. No arrows appeared. The arrows in this new stone are what throw off most of the flashes too. I get broader flashes of color and white light, my old stone gave off more of a shattered glass prism look.
So there ARE different looks and neither one of them is WRONG. If you prefer the look of your friend''s stone, then try to find one similar. Having had a stone like that, and knowing that I was not always going to keep that stone, I wanted to trade up later for something bigger, it made sense to start playing the field now and figure out what really floated my boat for the future. I LOVE my new stone. While the old stone was beautiful in many lighting environments, this new stone is just as beautiful in those same lighting environments and also is more beautiful in others! Whereas before my old stone threw off rainbows in one scenario, this new stone throws off 2ce as many rainbows!
I don''t think I can really honestly say that there are times where I feel like my old stone would have looked MORE beautiful in a situation than my new stone. I guess also knowing that my new stone IS the more acceptable ideal standard and does have the sweet angles and numbers also makes it more beautiful anyway. A mental thing. My old stone was beautiful, but I knew inside that it was far from the ideal numbers and some may even consider it a borderline fish-eye. So I think that diminished some of the pleasure from it..AND in some scenarios where it did not look as great, I used to wonder if it was because it was not ideal! So now that I have this new ideal stone...I can really know for sure that it was or was not the old stone cut that would make it sparkle or not...and I guess I feel more ''well rounded'' for lack of a better phrase.
Sorry to ramble, but as someone who has seen both sides of the coin....figured I''d try to add a little perspective. I plan to only buy ideals from this point on but if a stone like my old one presented itself for something like a pendant, I would not be adverse to it as long as it was discounted appropriately. So...go with your heart but be sure that you KNOW you will be happy with what you selected. Your friend''s stone may be sparkling more because of the pave around it, or it just may be a great cut non-ideal stone! If you get something like that, will you be happy inside, since as you noted you are now a cut-nut on paper thanks to the forum? If you don''t think you can subscribe 110% to the non-ideal way of thinking...then don''t go there, because you may regret it later. Same with the ideal cut. Whatever you buy, be sure that it really floats your boat...because you will be wearing it!
If it helps, here is my new thread on the new stone and my ring:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-ring-oops-i-mean-rings.14091/
In there is a link to my OLD stone and ring pictures....some say they can see a huge difference...what do you think?
_____________________________
300x240.png)