projectwedding.com/
 

Diamond Jewelry Forums   Picture Gallery   Video Gallery   Journal

   
 Search Posted Today Most Active Help   
 » Home »  » Diamond Prices and Grading »  » RockyTalky »  » Total Depth, should I be concerned


  

 Total Depth, should I be concerned

P:  11/9/2005 12:34:11 AM  
tinhtu
tinhtu

Rough Rock
Total Posts: 10
Last Post: 11/15/2005
Member Since: 11/7/2005
 

Is this answer for the question below true? I saw a lot of H&A on WF and GOG stones have the table depths more than 61% and have excellent light return.  I am confused and need help. Thanks
 
 
Q    Thank you in advance for your feedback. I think you have an excellent site. Here is the specs on a diamond I'm considering and I would like your feedback on the Total dept. This info is from a AGSL report: Cut:000 Table: 56% Crown Angle: 34.6 Pavilion Angle: 40.9 CR. %: 15.3 Pav % 43.2 Total depth: 62.2 size: 6.56-6.59 x 4.08mm color F Clarity SI2 All the other measurements and angles seem to be almost perfect so how can the Total depth be so far from ideal? Is there an error on the report? Thanks Dan
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
A    Hi DanB, Errors? Labs make plenty of mistakes. But it appears that this stones depth is too deep. With a total depth percentage exceeding 61%, the stone becomes a class IV and would only return a maximum of 32%-38% of the light that enters the stone compared to a well proportioned diamond at 88%-91%. Remember additional weight on the pavilion of the diamond equals more money in their pockets.
 
 


Posted:  11/9/2005 12:34:11 AM

 There are 4 replies to this message.  There are 4 replies on this page.

P: 11/9/2005 8:32:15 AM
aljdewey
aljdewey

Ideal Rock
Total Posts: 8,236
Last Post: 2/11/2008
Member Since: 11/25/2002
 
Date: 11/9/2005 12:34:11 AM
Author:tinhtu



Is this answer for the question below true? I saw a lot of H&A on WF and GOG stones have the table depths more than 61% and have excellent light return. I am confused and need help. Thanks


Q Thank you in advance for your feedback. I think you have an excellent site. Here is the specs on a diamond I'm considering and I would like your feedback on the Total dept. This info is from a AGSL report: Cut:000 Table: 56% Crown Angle: 34.6 Pavilion Angle: 40.9 CR. %: 15.3 Pav % 43.2 Total depth: 62.2 size: 6.56-6.59 x 4.08mm color F Clarity SI2 All the other measurements and angles seem to be almost perfect so how can the Total depth be so far from ideal? Is there an error on the report? Thanks Dan





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Hi DanB, Errors? Labs make plenty of mistakes. But it appears that this stones depth is too deep. With a total depth percentage exceeding 61%, the stone becomes a class IV and would only return a maximum of 32%-38% of the light that enters the stone compared to a well proportioned diamond at 88%-91%. Remember additional weight on the pavilion of the diamond equals more money in their pockets.







I don't know who gave you that information, but that someone is reaching a bit.....and embellishing to boot.

Most folks prefer a stone with a lower depth......but it's a PREFERENCE.   If a stone leans toward the deeper side, it does carry some of its weight in the pavilion, and that means it has some marginal affect on total diameter (size - what you see).

62.2 is on the fringe.....but it's still in the ballpark.  There are a lot of changes going on at the major labs regarding their proportions, but I still think today that Dave Atlas' cut grades make a pretty good starting point.  You can find them here:  http://www.gemappraisers.com/

On the left navigation bar, click on "Old AGA cut Grading charts & rules", then select "round" from the drop down bar on the right.  You'll see that the 1A grade allows for diamonds with up to 62.3 depth.

Again, there may be a visual difference if you were to select a diamond with a depth more in the proverbial "sweet spot".....but I don't think the diamond you've mentioned should be dead, either.  If you're really concerned, I'd suggest going to an independent appraiser and getting his opinion on it.

Hope this helps ease your concerns. 

_____________________
Note: Chainsaw Not Sold Separately.

Posted:  11/9/2005 8:32:15 AM
P: 11/9/2005 11:14:04 AM
JohnQuixote
JohnQuixote

Ideal Rock
Total Posts: 5,212
Last Post: 5/24/2008
Member Since: 9/9/2004
 
I prefer an upper limit of 62.0 for goods larger than melee, but diamonds close to that can still be dynamite, depending on the other parameters.

With those combos 62.2 indicates a slightly thick girdle, but could be a very good performer.  I did those measurements with single ray trace at 62.2 (1.08 ct) and 60.8 (1.04 ct, thinner girdle).
 

 

John

__________________________

John Pollard

Whiteflash Director of Education 2004-2007

Posted:  11/9/2005 11:14:04 AM
P: 11/9/2005 11:14:31 AM
JohnQuixote
JohnQuixote

Ideal Rock
Total Posts: 5,212
Last Post: 5/24/2008
Member Since: 9/9/2004
 
60.8 depth
 

 

John

__________________________

John Pollard

Whiteflash Director of Education 2004-2007

Posted:  11/9/2005 11:14:31 AM
P: 11/10/2005 12:09:31 PM
valeria101
valeria101

Ideal Rock
Total Posts: 14,048
Last Post: 4/30/2006
Member Since: 8/29/2003
 
Date: 11/9/2005 12:34:11 AM
Author:tinhtu

 With a total depth percentage exceeding 61%, the stone becomes a class IV and would only return a maximum of 32%-38% of the light that enters the stone compared to a well proportioned diamond at 88%-91%.


 These numbers seem total fantasy.  It would help to know what the % were taken of, and how these things are modeled etc.

By all accounts, depth alone says squat about light return - so this evaluation flies in the face of every cut quality evaluation for round brilliant diamonds starting with Tolkowsky and ending with the latest GIA and AGS cut grading studies.

If this guy is right, everyone else on the planet is wrong

OK, I have to admit that the 1% of extra depth add a bit a weight - more if it is due to a wider girdle than other details. However, the difference is easy to observe in diameter size that is apparent on the lab reports and prices are out there to see too. It doesn't seem to matter, really.  If you were asking about a 65% deep round, that would deserve some ink, this... well, not quite.

Just my 0.2, of course


 

Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian]

Posted:  11/10/2005 12:09:31 PM

 Previous Page Next Page 
« Need DiamCalc and GemAdvisor Results «» Scheiner Diamonds »
Next Topics
Fully bonded diamond: Your opinion please Help Me Decide Please :-) Please help me pick diamond for pendant What should I look for in an appraiser for an antique ring? How hard is it damage a diamond and is mine? question about HW's RB with pear-sided setting size or quality?? Newbie seeks good advice...... seeking e-ring advice please define: mounting vs. head vs. setting Radiant - Princess or Emerald Cut Specs? In-House Diamond Search (beta) Endless Love wedding band~any look alikes for less$? Cushion Cut Opinions and Conversion Help Please! Settings for earrings Wearing white gold ring next to sterling silver ring Question on clarity grading Which diamond would have more face up surface area? ALL HELP / OPINIONS WELCOME!! ...EGL Europe Diamond Diamond size chart by carat & shape Scheiner Diamonds Beautiful diamond with bad numbers? The bad thing about buying from a on-line vendor... choosing a diamond with high light performance Online Diamond Retailers? Are they safe What brand ulrasonic cleaners do Jewelry stores use? Do any of you have experience with 3-sided pave with wedding band? Help! Lost a stone..... How many people have lost stones from pave settings? $6000 Maybe band is too skinny or smalll?

Jump to:



Contact Us  |  Back Home  |  Privacy Statement  |  Forum Agreement  |  Forum Policies

Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.4.beta1 Message forum software powered by  the Ideal BB

IdealBB Badge


Pricescope - Knowledge - Diamond Prices - Tools - Resources - About

© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives