Picture of a real diamond with Thin Girdle width

[pyramid]

Is it possible for someone to post a picture of a real diamond with Thin Girdle width? What does it really look like?

I know a lot of the Whiteflash ACA diamonds have thin girdles but we never see an actual picture of one to compare to medium or very thin.

 

[Lorelei]

I don''t know how to post a pic Pyramid but I can describe my 3/4 carat diamond in my pendant for you. This stone is all top and no bottom

and the girdle is extremely thin and sharp if you run your finger along it. If it was a great quality diamond, I would be worried about trusting it in a ring as the girdle is so fragile and sharp. However it is fine for a pendant and I am sure that most quality diamonds with thin girdles are thicker than this one. It sparkles a bit but the cut is off and is an uncertified stone. One good thing though, it does look large so I imagine I have gained on spread?

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Lorelei I know that girdles can be graded thin, very thin and extremely thin but as you said in a pendant it does not matter the same

.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Pyramid - It looks the same. Just a bit thinner.

Seriously though, what exactly are you seeking - just a close-up, analytical photo of a thin girdle on a RB? I''d think one of the appraisers might have that.

When the new AGS charts came out I created a graphic (wireframe), but don''t know if that would be helpful for your purposes.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks John Quixote

Yes, I suppose it would look the same. I was just trying to see the difference between very thin, thin, medium, thick and Richard Sherwood posted thick and medium so I wondered about thin and very thin. The only thin I have seen was in Gary Roskin's photo but it was only the thin part of the girdle about a natural as was Richard Sherwoods with a medium so I suppose that is just the same.

It is just that when people post their new diamond we never see the girdle but then it is minute compared to the diamond I know.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Pyramid,

Understand your curiosity.

I realize these are not actual photos, but I thought the chart might be of interest to you.

I created this using virtual models to show relative thickness differences. The percentage for each example medium and above is generally at the midpoint of the AGS defined range. With the thins I put it nearer the small end of the range.

I'll also attach their new thickness chart.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Thickness Chart

(Copyright AGS 2005, used with permission)

 

[pyramid]

Thanks John Quixote.

That is exactly what I wanted to see.

 

[Kaleigh]

Thanks John,
That was very helpful!!!!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Yous all welcome.

 

[Mara]

I actually prefer a thin-med girdle...as opposed to medium average or higher.

See if I still say that if I ever pull a Laney, with my clumsy self you never know!

KNOCK ON WOOD!

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 7/11/2005 4:38:51 PM
Author: Mara
KNOCK ON WOOD!

... but not TOO HARD!!!

Lynn

 

[belle]

hey, those are cool!

 

[pyramid]

On the thin girdle are there little spaces at the midpoint of the valleys or is it just that the ink is darker?

 

[strmrdr]

its a princess but check this picture:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tail-of-a-princess%E2%80%99s-girdle.14798/

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Strmdr. That was an interesting thread.

Does anyone else have a photo of a round diamond with thin girdle?

 

[pyramid]

The lines on the Very Thin girdle is it just that they cannot be seen under 10x magnification or is there no girdle there? I thought Very Thin still had some girdle?

 

[Eightball]

Click Here for Close-up of chipped girdle (from GIA website):

http://www.gia.edu/images/image_library/492.jpg

Article Link
http://www.gia.edu/research/1383/2313/article_detail.cfm

 

[pyramid]

Thank you for this information Eightball.

I had seen the photo around Pricescope before but did not know where it was from. The GIA article explains it well.

 

[pyramid]

http://www.diamonddoctor.com/diamond-proportions.html


Found these on an internet search. Diamonds do not look very pretty though.

 

[pyramid]

http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/horizonwholesale/diagramgirdle.gif


Also found this on an image search on the internet.

What is with this, they are saying a Very Thin Girdle comes under best?

 

[denverappraiser]

Here's a 2.13 Euro with a very thin girdle.

 

[laney]

Date: 7/11/2005 4:38:51 PM
Author: Mara
I actually prefer a thin-med girdle...as opposed to medium average or higher.


See if I still say that if I ever pull a Laney, with my clumsy self you never know!

KNOCK ON WOOD!

Pull a "Laney" LOL!!!

 

[pyramid]

Thanks denverappraiser. Is the whole of the girdle rated as Very Thin or just the part to the left of centre?

 

[denverappraiser]

The Sarin calls this one very thin to medium. The thinnest piece is at the front center. What you see on the left side would probably be called medium.

Neil

 

[pyramid]

Yes that is the bit I meant in the centre to the left of the half facets.

The Very Thin still looks substantial though, is this at 10X magnification?

 

[JohnQuixote]

The wording on the AGS girdle thickness chart above is a bit confusing. It shows 16 points ('Where to measure') on the bottom left photo but the wording at upper right indicates that the smallest or largest measurements 'at any place on the girdle' are used to make determinations - this is what had been done in the past.

It was confirmed to me today that AGS is scrutinizing the entire girdle for thinnest and thickest measures, not just the 16 points illustrated in the lower left diagram.

Old System: Min and max both measured at the valleys (middle of the scallops).

New System: The minimum is still being taken from the valleys. The maximum is now taken from the mountains (the thickest part - most often where the bezel and the main meet or halfway between - where the red dots are on the diagram).

On the chart maximum thicknesses have been changed to accomodate the bigger area, since averages will now read as bigger.

(edited to clarify old versus new)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/12/2005 4:50:41 AM
Author: Pyramid
On the thin girdle are there little spaces at the midpoint of the valleys or is it just that the ink is darker?

Referring to the computer models, the ''ink'' is just darker. No spaces.

Date: 7/12/2005 6:09:50 PM
Author: Pyramid

The lines on the Very Thin girdle is it just that they cannot be seen under 10x magnification or is there no girdle there? I thought Very Thin still had some girdle?

Very thin does have some girdle. Again, those are virtual models at 72dpi. I have zoomed that Very Thin example for you here.

Neil''s actual photo is a good ''live'' reference.

 

[JohnQuixote]

I think it's important to remember that girdle thickness definitions change with the size of the diamond since they are based on percentages.

Thin on a 0.25 ct will range between 0.02 - 0.11 mm.
The same Thin on a 3.00 ct ranges from 0.05 all the way up to 0.26 mm.

The larger the diamond the larger the girdle definitions. This makes complete sense vis a vis durability or (alternately) hidden weight.

Examples:

Very Thin on the chart above ranges from just above knife-edge to 0.50%

On a 0.25 ct diamond that means up to 0.02 mm
On a 1.00 ct diamond (6.5 mm dia) up to 0.03 mm
On a 3.00 ct diamond (9.4 mm dia) up to 0.05 mm

Thin ranges from 0.50% all the way to 2.99%

On the 0.25 ct that is up to 0.11 mm
On the 1.00 ct that is up to 0.18 mm
On the 3.00 ct that is up to 0.26 mm

So thin on a 0.25 ct could be around the thickness of a human hair, while thin on 3.00 cts could be the thickness of 3-4 human hairs (depending on who's hair...if it's mine you could pile on plenty and not have much!)

 

[pyramid]

Thank you John Quixote.

That virtual model explains it now that it is expanded. It also explains the other chart I posted a link to except that Very Thin is being linked under 'Best'. I found it on an internet search so it may not be very accurate.
I notice the diamond posted by denverappraiser is over 2 carats - I like the hairs breadth analogy