Dilemma de jour ~ Need Feedback on RB

[Carmel]

Dilemma de jour ~ Need Feedback on RB

.90 Carat
F Color
SI1 Clarity
Measures 6.15-6.18 X 3.80 mm
Depth 62%
Table 55.4%
Crown Angle 35.5 Degrees
Pavilion Angle 40.3 Degrees
Culet .7% (.04mm)
Girdle1.9% - 2.7% Slightly Thick, Faceted
No Fluorescence
GIA Cert.
Polish EX
Symmetry EX
Proportion Cut Grade 0
Non H&A
Brilliance Scope Results:
White Light High+
Color Light Very High
Scintillation Very High
.8 TIC HCA Score
Vendor does not provide an IdealScope image

I have seven days for inspection. I believe the diamond to be eye clean. I perceive the stone to be beautiful, but I have these concerns:

1) I notice a prominent arrow pattern in diffused daylight conditions that I think overpowers the other beautiful aspects of the stone by casting a shadow-like effect. This could just be an obsessive, irrational concern on my part. Please help me decipher if it is normal for a stone to exhibit such strong arrows.

2) I’m curious if the culet is too large and wonder if it’s usual to notice a small circle while looking at the stone face up.

3) My desire was to find a stone with better spread than this one exhibits. Compared to a stone with larger spread, (say ~ 6.24 – 6.29mm) would there be noticeable differences between each stone’s performances?

4) The Brilliance Scope Light View #6 shows a shadow-like depiction of the arrows, even though this stone is a non H&A. I am strongly put-off by this picture, but I don’t know if that’s a valid concern. What would be considered “arrows” are very thick and disjointed. Of course there is no precision since the stone is non H&A, but does the “globby” thickness relate to the fact that I can see strong arrows while just looking at the stone? I will see if I can manage to post of picture of what I’m referring to in a follow-up post.

Thanks to all who have something to contribute.

 

[oldminer]

It is going to be a nice diamond, but as you aparently appreciate already, it is a triny bit toward "deep and steep". Not a whole lot, but a little. A little deep depth and a little steep in pavilion angle.

Sure, a little less of these two things and the diamoeter would increase a tiny bit. The culet size is not a problem.

The TIC is really nice... I don't know what to say without seeing it, but surely it will look better than 85 or 90 percent of any diamonds available with tiny improved cuts. They won't be noticeably better, just potentially better at nearly invisible levels.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Carmel,

Based on your description of the appearance of the diamond it sounds like the stone is one that is cut with short lower girdles. Shorter lower girdles will give that chunky arrow appearance similar to the attached gem file I've generated for ya (though perhaps not the same precision as this example). The shallow pavilion angles is what would concern me, not so much how the stone would appear in direct light conditions. I'd be willing to bet it's a real fireball but moreso in diffuse light conditions.

In the scheme of things and considering the balance of lights and darks (contrast brilliance) that are observed in standard office lighting (or diffuse light conditions) my experience with diamonds that have pavilion angles this shallow has been showing me that the balance is offset by too many darks as opposed to lights which affects the overall brilliance in those conditions. This may or may not be the case but I would not know without a physical inspection. The only technology I am aware of that can check for this is the Isee2 technology.

It is not my intent to be critical but that is my experience with stones we've tested like that.

 

[wonka27]

I'm adding this for Carmel, due to some technical difficulties she is having.

 

[Carmel]

Thank you so, so much to the both of you ~ Dave and Jonathan. I am so grateful to receive your intellectual perspectives.

More repartee to come, but first an Honorable Mention to wonka27 who has single handedly managed to extract highly sensitive computerized documents from deep within the confines of my archaic circuit board and ~viola~ post them on my behalf.

 

[wonka27]

Awww shucks....

 

[Carmel]

First off ~ to the very kind Mr. Atlas, you are gracious to give me credit, but no credit is due regarding my supposed knowledge that this stone is considered deep and steep. I was clueless.

And Jonathan, your guess about the stone performing well in sunlight is affirmative. I would also agree that there seem to be too many darks vs. lights in diffuse lighting conditions. That’s what I think the strong arrows look like . . . like a yummy-looking pie with sections already removed.

FYI the Isee2 score was 9.4.

So I guess you guys are telling me that with this deep of depth and this shallow/steep of pavilion – I’m going to see those chunky arrows and unbalanced contrast. Well I don’t want that if I can get better! Oy! I am such a head case!!

 

[MelanieC]

You know, I would love to see some of these stones that score under 1 on the HCA. They always seem to have steep/deep angles. Not sure why the lowest numbers on the HCA seem controversial. The numbers that most people on here seem to prefer tend to be over 1.

My 1ct is a non hearts and arrow, although it was never tested to be. I can definately see arrows. They are very prominent in certain lighting conditions, like at work or in my bedroom with the light from my bedroom set on. I also see them very well if I cover my diamond with only a little light coming in from the top. I actually love the way it looks with the arrows. It's my favorite view and I think the contrast is so pretty. All other diamonds (except my new H&A .35 stud) that I have display no arrows and they just don't have that same sparkle. I think the arrows give it the magic that other diamonds miss out on.

 

[Carmel]

Well you could be onto something there. Whenever I mention I don’t like to see the arrows everybody seems to scratch their head and look all squirrelly-eyed at one another as if to say, “What’s her problem?”

So you think that if you don’t see arrows in a stone, then you don’t see as much flicker??

 

[Regular Guy]

Carmel,

Good luck with this.

I have to tell you at first, though, I thought you had my diamond. Initially, they seemed to be so close, same weight, equal on color and clarity, (mine G & VS2), and the angles...less than 10% of 1 degree total difference...with mine depth at 62 like yours, table at 55, crown at 35., pavillion at 40.1, same culet at .7.

And yet mine is an FIC, .9 HCA

My wife and I like ours. Can't advise you further except to wish you well if you go with it. If it's anything like ours (and it sure seems like it is), I think you'd enjoy it. But...you'll have to be the judge.

 

[Brian Knox]

Hi Carmel,

You asked;

Please help me decipher if it is normal for a stone to exhibit such strong arrows.

Yes it is, in fact all of the best cut round diamonds will exhibit this pattern.

2) I’m curious if the culet is too large and wonder if it’s usual to notice a small circle while looking at the stone face up.

If it is similar to the white spot in the attached picture, it is nothing to worry about, well cut diamonds will also exhibit this effect.


Brian

 

[Carmel]

Thanks for your input, Regular Guy. I've been trying for an hour to take some digital images, but I can't get those arrows to appear in the picture due to all the flashes that gleam off the stone. I’m still debating the diamond and it’s qualities.

Brian ~ Thank you for your perspective, as well. Thank goodness…the round white spot in the center of my stone looks like looks like your example, so I’m ok there. My biggest concern is seeing the thick arrows that really look like gray lines. That’s really normal? Could I find a stone with more slender lines/arrows, at least?

 

[Rhino]

Nice pic Brian.

Carmel... a 9.4 via Isee2 should be just fine.

Using the dimensions you've given for proportions you can have one of 2 different looks depending on how long the lower girdles were cut. You'd either have this ... (longer lower girdles of 82% length)...

 

[Rhino]

... or something more similar to this. Altering only the lower girdle length to 74% changes the appearance of the diamond to this which according to your description sounds more like it.

Which would you like better? My advice ... compare and see for yourself. I have an opinion but it's not me who's buying. You are the one who must be happy in the end. From what you've shared regarding the results it sounds like you have a winner on your hands but you may want to make that comparison before you take the final plunge.

Hope that helps.

 

[Carmel]

Thanks Jonathan...

OK - I hate to be crude, but for lack of better descriptive terminology, I still think the stone looks like someone took a silver/gray felt marker and drew 4 lines across the diameter, making eight segments. How could that look good to anyone?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/12/2004 7:19:41 PM Carmel wrote:



I still think the stone looks like someone took a silver/gray felt marker and drew 4 lines across the diameter, making eight segments. How could that look good to anyone?
----------------

Does a diamond look like this in your hand, or it is just the picture above ?

 

[Carmel]

There is no picture involved with my diamond...my observations are from observing the actual stone. It mostly was evident this morning when the stone arrived, so my indoor lighting was, I guess, what you'd call difuse lighting - natural daylight but with the shades somewhat drawn. There they were...big old fat lines in the diamond. I know I'm harping, but shouldn't I be noticing the sparkle and brilliance? Tonight I tried to re-enact the lighting conditions - I guess the arrow, or lines in my case, are a little less noticeable, but I also don't think this stone flickers like I thought it would. I might be expecting too much, though. It's very hard to evaluate without a comparable stone beside it. It looks nice and white and crisp, but those lines stick out over the other good stuff. UNLESS THAT'S NORMAL. I'm very confused.