Let''s get into angles!

[DS]

Ok, I have been reading on this forum for over 6 months. I have been searching for a diamond for 4 months. Two of those months have been spent with Todd @ Nice Ice. Many of the basic questions are asked, but no one ever seems to ask about angles. If angles are talked about, it is usually a, "will this diamond be nice" type of thread.

From my understanding here is what is ideal:

Depth: 60-62%
Crown: 34-35%
Pavilion angle: 40.5-41%
Table: 53-57%

I would like to know how much I can deviate from these angles while still maintaining brilliance. Can someone please advise?

Thank you to all those that have helped me so far

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 2/29/2008 12:56:34 PM
Author:DS
Ok, I have been reading on this forum for over 6 months. I have been searching for a diamond for 4 months. Two of those months have been spent with Todd @ Nice Ice. Many of the basic questions are asked, but no one ever seems to ask about angles. If angles are talked about, it is usually a, ''will this diamond be nice'' type of thread.

From my understanding here is what is ideal:

Depth: 60-62%
Crown: 34-35%
Pavilion angle: 40.5-41%
Table: 53-57%

I would like to know how much I can deviate from these angles while still maintaining brilliance. Can someone please advise?

Thank you to all those that have helped me so far

A good guide is to reject any stones that have an HCA score of over two. From there use other selection criteria like images. I guess I would say you can deviate from these angles as long as it still gives you an HCA of under two.

 

[DS]

Thank you. Most of the diamonds that I have been looking at are in the 1.1-1.4 range. I would assume that there are no "preferred" amounts then, rather a combination of all the angles?

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 2/29/2008 1:07:15 PM
Author: DS
Thank you. Most of the diamonds that I have been looking at are in the 1.1-1.4 range. I would assume that there are no ''preferred'' amounts then, rather a combination of all the angles?

1.1-1.4 is excellent!

Basically crown/pavillion angles need to be "compatible" with eachother for great performance. However, there are many many compatible combinations that look good. From there you have to consider preferences in slight differences and other aspects of the stone.

 

[DS]

Great! At least I am doing something right. I am just worried that Todd is a little bit of a perfectionist! I''ve personally seen a stone that rated at 1 and it was beautiful. It is at the higher end of my price range but when compared to other stones it seems like a pretty good deal. Right now he is trying to locate similar stones so that I can make a visual comparrison.

Here is the diamond:

http://www.niceice.com/certcopies2008/ags0009015501/index.htm

=195&src=loupe:2o8h065d]http://www.craftedbyinfinity.com/index.php?pid=63&lang=eng&sid[]=195&src=loupe

Here is the HCA:
Factor Grade
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spreador diameter for weight Very Good
Total Visual Performance 1 - Excellent within TIC range

 

[kcoursolle]

The stone looks amazing, it should be incredible in person!!! You don''t have to worry about the angles, they are very compatible!

 

[DS]

Yeah, it is very pretty. Honestly I thought that a 1.7 carat diamond would look a little bigger though, hahaha. It is amazing what 13k in your hand looks like! Maybe it is time to make another call to Todd. Does the price look acceptable? Also how much can I deviate from 1 before I notice a difference? 1.6? 1.8?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

A 1.9 is not worse than a 1.0 on the HCA. The lowest number is not better than a higher number under 2.0. When you are dealing with AGS0 Ideal stones, you don''t even need to use the HCA! AGS has already determined that the stone is ideal in light performance!

 

[DS]

Sweet! That makes it a little easier since I have been only looking at AGS0 stones.

Any more comments? Specifically about price or angles?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I have an H VS1 that is almost the same size, and it was a few hundred more than that over a year ago. So the price looks good to me.

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

A good guide is to reject any stones that have an HCA score of over two. From there use other selection criteria like images. I guess I would say you can deviate from these angles as long as it still gives you an HCA of under two.

I don''t know mine scored 2.5 BUT is AGSO & AGA 1B and GIA EX/EX/EX.

 

[DS]

Thank you, any more opinions?

 

[JulieN]

Infinity makes top cut stones.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/29/2008 8:06:35 PM
Author: JulieN
Infinity makes top cut stones.

bingo, and that one is a top cut.
Id buy it.

 

[DS]

Guess when you got Todd on your side it is hard to go wrong. Thank you everyone. I think that a 1.7 will look nice on her size 5-6 finger.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/1/2008 2:05:13 AM
Author: DS
Guess when you got Todd on your side it is hard to go wrong. Thank you everyone. I think that a 1.7 will look nice on her size 5-6 finger.

yep it will look awesome!

Todd is a good guy even when we disagree which isnt that often :}

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/29/2008 12:56:34 PM
Author:DS
Ok, I have been reading on this forum for over 6 months. I have been searching for a diamond for 4 months. Two of those months have been spent with Todd @ Nice Ice. Many of the basic questions are asked, but no one ever seems to ask about angles. If angles are talked about, it is usually a, 'will this diamond be nice' type of thread.

From my understanding here is what is ideal:

Depth: 60-62%
Crown: 34-35%
Pavilion angle: 40.5-41%
Table: 53-57%

I would like to know how much I can deviate from these angles while still maintaining brilliance. Can someone please advise?

Thank you to all those that have helped me so far

Also crown and pavillion angles which are on the steeper end ( cr 35 - pav 41) and shallower ( cr 34 - pav 40.4) as examples, need further evaluation to make sure the angles on each end are complimentary, so a trusted vendor's eyes and Idealscope image are useful for this.

 

[DS]

Thanks for the comments guys/gals. I have an email into Todd.

Visually how do you think that these will compare to the Infinity diamond?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1122762.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1105598.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1122760.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Do you think that the difference in angles will change the diamond enough making it not worth purchasing?

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 3/5/2008 3:33:28 PM
Author: DS
Thanks for the comments guys/gals. I have an email into Todd.

Visually how do you think that these will compare to the Infinity diamond?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1122762.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1105598.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1122760.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131

Do you think that the difference in angles will change the diamond enough making it not worth purchasing?

Yucky inclusions in #2 and #3, so I would pass. Number one is fine, but I prefer the combination of the other stone you picked out personally.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 2/29/2008 1:01:23 PM
Author: kcoursolle

Date: 2/29/2008 12:56:34 PM
Author:DS
Ok, I have been reading on this forum for over 6 months. I have been searching for a diamond for 4 months. Two of those months have been spent with Todd @ Nice Ice. Many of the basic questions are asked, but no one ever seems to ask about angles. If angles are talked about, it is usually a, 'will this diamond be nice' type of thread.

From my understanding here is what is ideal:

Depth: 60-62%
Crown: 34-35%
Pavilion angle: 40.5-41%
Table: 53-57%

I would like to know how much I can deviate from these angles while still maintaining brilliance. Can someone please advise?

Thank you to all those that have helped me so far

A good guide is to reject any stones that have an HCA score of over two. From there use other selection criteria like images. I guess I would say you can deviate from these angles as long as it still gives you an HCA of under two.

I have seen (and possess) some diamonds with the rarest optics and cut qualites in the world that are over 2.0 so I don't necessarily agree. A diamond with a 41.0 pavilion angles and a crown angle = or slightly over 34.6 when combined with superior optical symmetry will be as beautiful as any HCA <=2.0 and even more beautiful than alot of those combos.

DS ... on the pavilion angle front I'd be more cautious with the shallower end you've listed regardless of great HCA score. Pavilion angles around that 40.5 zone stand a greater chance of reflecting back darkness depending on the length of the lower girdles and there are folks who just don't prefer the appearance. Only way to know for sure is to *see*. One thing that helps alleviate that darkness is longer lower girdles which will add brightness off the lower halves. Also, the closer you get around the 41.0 zone the greater the chance the diamond has to grab light from around the viewer rather than reflect the viewer himself into the diamond.

Just reading through the rest of this thread ... good advice on down the line.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/5/2008 6:40:39 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 2/29/2008 1:01:23 PM
Author: kcoursolle

Date: 2/29/2008 12:56:34 PM
Author:DS
Ok, I have been reading on this forum for over 6 months. I have been searching for a diamond for 4 months. Two of those months have been spent with Todd @ Nice Ice. Many of the basic questions are asked, but no one ever seems to ask about angles. If angles are talked about, it is usually a, ''will this diamond be nice'' type of thread.

From my understanding here is what is ideal:

Depth: 60-62%
Crown: 34-35%
Pavilion angle: 40.5-41%
Table: 53-57%

I would like to know how much I can deviate from these angles while still maintaining brilliance. Can someone please advise?

Thank you to all those that have helped me so far

A good guide is to reject any stones that have an HCA score of over two. From there use other selection criteria like images. I guess I would say you can deviate from these angles as long as it still gives you an HCA of under two.

I have seen (and possess) some diamonds with the rarest optics and cut qualites in the world that are over 2.0 so I don''t necessarily agree. A diamond with a 41.0 pavilion angles and a crown angle = or slightly over 34.6 when combined with superior optical symmetry will be as beautiful as any HCA <=2.0 and even more beautiful than alot of those combos.

DS ... on the pavilion angle front I''d be more cautious with the shallower end you''ve listed regardless of great HCA score. Pavilion angles around that 4.05 zone stand a greater chance of reflecting back darkness depending on the length of the lower girdles and there are folks who just don''t prefer the appearance. Only way to know for sure is to *see*. One thing that helps alleviate that darkness is longer lower girdles which will add brightness off the lower halves. Also, the closer you get around the 41.0 zone the greater the chance the diamond has to grab light from around the viewer rather than reflect the viewer himself into the diamond.

Did you make a typo Rhino?
4.05 = 40.5 degrees?

Would you like to take a 41 35 stone and an 40.5 34 and make the pavilions dirty, then compare them and report back?
(BTW I like that combination too, especially when it is painted slightly, and of course super symmetrical)

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/5/2008 6:47:12 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 3/5/2008 6:40:39 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 2/29/2008 1:01:23 PM
Author: kcoursolle

Date: 2/29/2008 12:56:34 PM
Author:DS
Ok, I have been reading on this forum for over 6 months. I have been searching for a diamond for 4 months. Two of those months have been spent with Todd @ Nice Ice. Many of the basic questions are asked, but no one ever seems to ask about angles. If angles are talked about, it is usually a, ''will this diamond be nice'' type of thread.

From my understanding here is what is ideal:

Depth: 60-62%
Crown: 34-35%
Pavilion angle: 40.5-41%
Table: 53-57%

I would like to know how much I can deviate from these angles while still maintaining brilliance. Can someone please advise?

Thank you to all those that have helped me so far

A good guide is to reject any stones that have an HCA score of over two. From there use other selection criteria like images. I guess I would say you can deviate from these angles as long as it still gives you an HCA of under two.

I have seen (and possess) some diamonds with the rarest optics and cut qualites in the world that are over 2.0 so I don''t necessarily agree. A diamond with a 41.0 pavilion angles and a crown angle = or slightly over 34.6 when combined with superior optical symmetry will be as beautiful as any HCA <=2.0 and even more beautiful than alot of those combos.

DS ... on the pavilion angle front I''d be more cautious with the shallower end you''ve listed regardless of great HCA score. Pavilion angles around that 4.05 zone stand a greater chance of reflecting back darkness depending on the length of the lower girdles and there are folks who just don''t prefer the appearance. Only way to know for sure is to *see*. One thing that helps alleviate that darkness is longer lower girdles which will add brightness off the lower halves. Also, the closer you get around the 41.0 zone the greater the chance the diamond has to grab light from around the viewer rather than reflect the viewer himself into the diamond.

Did you make a typo Rhino?
4.05 = 40.5 degrees?

Would you like to take a 41 35 stone and an 40.5 34 and make the pavilions dirty, then compare them and report back?
(BTW I like that combination too, especially when it is painted slightly, and of course super symmetrical)

Haha... yes and corrected.

What I have trouble understanding about the HCA Garry is that it assumes precise optical symmetry yet hits 34.8/41.0 combos that are perfectly fine.

Admittedly most diamonds do not have precise optical symmetry but the HCA is assuming this.

Dirty diamonds: When I''m out rolling around the mud next time I''ll be sure to bring those combos with me.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/5/2008 6:53:41 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/5/2008 6:47:12 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 3/5/2008 6:40:39 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 2/29/2008 1:01:23 PM
Author: kcoursolle

Date: 2/29/2008 12:56:34 PM
Author:DS
Ok, I have been reading on this forum for over 6 months. I have been searching for a diamond for 4 months. Two of those months have been spent with Todd @ Nice Ice. Many of the basic questions are asked, but no one ever seems to ask about angles. If angles are talked about, it is usually a, ''will this diamond be nice'' type of thread.

From my understanding here is what is ideal:

Depth: 60-62%
Crown: 34-35%
Pavilion angle: 40.5-41%
Table: 53-57%

I would like to know how much I can deviate from these angles while still maintaining brilliance. Can someone please advise?

Thank you to all those that have helped me so far

A good guide is to reject any stones that have an HCA score of over two. From there use other selection criteria like images. I guess I would say you can deviate from these angles as long as it still gives you an HCA of under two.

I have seen (and possess) some diamonds with the rarest optics and cut qualites in the world that are over 2.0 so I don''t necessarily agree. A diamond with a 41.0 pavilion angles and a crown angle = or slightly over 34.6 when combined with superior optical symmetry will be as beautiful as any HCA <=2.0 and even more beautiful than alot of those combos.

DS ... on the pavilion angle front I''d be more cautious with the shallower end you''ve listed regardless of great HCA score. Pavilion angles around that 4.05 zone stand a greater chance of reflecting back darkness depending on the length of the lower girdles and there are folks who just don''t prefer the appearance. Only way to know for sure is to *see*. One thing that helps alleviate that darkness is longer lower girdles which will add brightness off the lower halves. Also, the closer you get around the 41.0 zone the greater the chance the diamond has to grab light from around the viewer rather than reflect the viewer himself into the diamond.

Did you make a typo Rhino?
4.05 = 40.5 degrees?

Would you like to take a 41 35 stone and an 40.5 34 and make the pavilions dirty, then compare them and report back?
(BTW I like that combination too, especially when it is painted slightly, and of course super symmetrical)

Haha... yes and corrected.

What I have trouble understanding about the HCA Garry is that it assumes precise optical symmetry yet hits 34.8/41.0 combos that are perfectly fine.

Admittedly most diamonds do not have precise optical symmetry but the HCA is assuming this.

Dirty diamonds: When I''m out rolling around the mud next time I''ll be sure to bring those combos with me.

It is not a joke Rhino. Diamonds are dirty far more than they are clean.
You love your customers don''t you?
You love researching the effects of various cuts etc, don''t you?

Why not take 30 minutes to test what I am suggesting to you?

 

[niceice]

Date: 2/29/2008 1:22:59 PM
Author: DS
I am just worried that Todd is a little bit of a perfectionist!

Heh heh, this observation always cracks me up

"I want you to find a diamond for me as if you were buying it for yourself" and then people are surprised when it takes awhile because I''m a perfectionist... Well, yea! Five minutes on the web site should have given somebody that impression. I seem to recall that I told you I might be a bit nuts when it comes to our selection process, but it makes for happy clients! The 1.70 from Paul (Infinity) is cut to the center range of the parameters for the zero ideal cut rating, it really doesn''t get any better than that. It''s gorgeous, the fluorescence isn''t affecting the diamond in a negative manner and it''s as lively as can be - if it wasn''t, I would have rejected it - because I''m a perfectionist. I had to laugh a little while ago when one of my primary suppliers sent me an email that said "you might be a diamond snob!" and I''m happy to say that I am, but I don''t feel bad about it because there are plenty of people out there who are willing to buy the rejects. The reality is that there simply aren''t that many really well cut diamonds out there, especially in the 1.70 - 1.99 carat range because the cutters are simply better off financially to produce a mediocre cut 2.00+ because of the price increase that occurs between the 1.99 - 2.00 carat marks.

The primary dilemma here has been trying to find a suitable comparision for DS to compare to the gorgeous 1.70 that I found for him, I haven''t been able to locate something that I consider to be comparable to show him as an alternative to the 1.70 - I can find plenty of stuff that I wouldn''t sell him and that creates an obvious quandry. I''m out of town this weekend DS, but we can get together mid-week if you want to take it for a walk in the Seattle Sun - yea, it''s been kind of sunny lately. It might be too cold to wake board still though.

Strmrdr: I''m really glad that we''re able to play so well together even when we disagree, it is one of the things that I really enjoy about the people who contribute to PS. It''s nice to see somebody else recognize it

Rhino Playing in the Mud! All right, so I''m thinking that we might be able to televise this as an event on ESPN. Mud Bowl 2008! Diamond Professionals in the Ring battling for the brilliance!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/5/2008 6:53:41 PM
Author: Rhino

Haha... yes and corrected.

What I have trouble understanding about the HCA Garry is that it assumes precise optical symmetry yet hits 34.8/41.0 combos that are perfectly fine.

Admittedly most diamonds do not have precise optical symmetry but the HCA is assuming this.

Dirty diamonds: When I''m out rolling around the mud next time I''ll be sure to bring those combos with me.

I like playing in the mud send em too me and I will report back in say 2 or 3 years hehehehehehe

 

[strmrdr]

The biggest thing too keep in mind is that one you get out of the mid-range the minor facets become much more important.
Take a stone that''s 40.8/34.7 and the difference between lgf% 76 and 80 is comparatively minor.
Take a stone with a shallow or deepish pavilion and the difference is much more.
40.5/34 with long lgf% is a different kettle of fish than a 40.5/34 with short lgf% for a ring.
In a pendant the difference is less due too viewing distance.
This is a flaw in ASET that ETAS may account for.
ASET does not take into account the modifying effect of the lgf% because of the fixed head shadow and static nature it just shows them as blue. In the real world it isn''t that simple.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/6/2008 12:11:12 PM
Author: strmrdr
The biggest thing too keep in mind is that one you get out of the mid-range the minor facets become much more important.
Take a stone that''s 40.8/34.7 and the difference between lgf% 76 and 80 is comparatively minor.
Take a stone with a shallow or deepish pavilion and the difference is much more.
40.5/34 with long lgf% is a different kettle of fish than a 40.5/34 with short lgf% for a ring.
In a pendant the difference is less due too viewing distance.
This is a flaw in ASET that ETAS may account for.
ASET does not take into account the modifying effect of the lgf% because of the fixed head shadow and static nature it just shows them as blue. In the real world it isn''t that simple.

Good points Storm.

LGF need to be quite long in the other combo - firey stones - which typically have smaller tables and smaller table refelctions.

 

[DS]

I can understand completely! I just have to be difficult, it is in my nature. Thank you to all that have commented in this thread. Todd, I will see you tomorrow or Wednesday.

Any more comments or suggestions are welcome!