|
|
|
|
| ||
Diamond Jewelry Forums
 Picture Gallery
 Video Gallery
 Journal
|
|||
|
|  Search
|  Posted Today
|  Most Active
|  Help
|
||
 »
Home
»  » Diamond Prices and Grading »
 » RockyTalky
»  » Borderline FIC - Liked more than 2 TICs with better IS?!?
|
|
 |
Borderline FIC - Liked more than 2 TICs with better IS?!? |
 |
| P: 9/12/2008 4:39:48 PM | |
nyc08 Rough Rock Total Posts: 23 Last Post: 10/1/2008 Member Since: 9/8/2008 |
Hello all, The other day I posted specs on a borderline FIC (35.5c/40.6p) diamond and requested some of your input. Well, since then, I have had the opportunity to view against two other HCA<2 TIC diamonds. Below are the #s and my own thoughts: (1) 1.72 SI1 - GIA EX (HCA 1.4 xxxvg TIC, but soooo close to FIC)COMPLETELY eye clean Depth: 61.9 % Table: 57 % Crown Angle: 35.5° Crown Height: 15 % Pavilion Angle: 40.6° Pavilion Depth: 43 % Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 % Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted Culet: None Polish: Very Good Symmetry: Very Good Fluorescence: Faint (2) 1.56 G SI2 - GIA EX (HCA 1.1 xxxvg)- not completely eye clean, but not so bad for an SI2 Depth: 61.9 % Table: 55 % Crown Angle: 33.5° Crown Height: 14.5 % Pavilion Angle: 41° Pavilion Depth: 43.5 % Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 % Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted Culet: None Polish: Very Good Symmetry: Very Good Fluorescence: None (3) 1.71 H SI1 - GIA EX (HCA 1.7 xxxvg - TIC)- not eyeclean Depth: 62.1 % Table: 57 % Crown Angle: 35° Crown Height: 15 % Pavilion Angle: 40.8° Pavilion Depth: 43 % Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 % Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted Culet: None Polish: Excellent Symmetry: Excellent Fluorescence: Faint In viewing the three stones and paying attention only to performance (ignoring clarity and color), to me the clear winner was the near-FIC G 1.72 (stone 1). I had the chance to look at the stone inside (diffused light and spotlight)as well as outside. Under direct spotlight, stone 1 was the clear winner (interestingly, while it appeared to display noticeably more fire than the others at any viewing angle and in larger flashes, it absolutely killed the other ones when viewed from larger angles (relative to a perpendicular view straight at the table). Stone 2 came in second, and it seemed to display smaller bursts of fire. I repeatedly asked for the 1.71 and 1.72 to be mixed up so I didn't know which was which - without exception I picked out stone 1. When it came to looking at the stones under diffused lighting, outside(though I did not compare to stone 3 outside), or under my cupped hand, there did not appear to be a discernible difference. I spent a long time comparing them to each other, but could not make out any differences. For that reason, I was somewhat surprised by what I saw using an idealscope. Stones 2 and 3 both appeared GREAT under the IS. However, stone 1 had some noticeable leakage under the table. There was a very noticeable difference between stone 1 and stones 2/3. Not quite believing my eyes, I again asked for stones 1 and 3 to be mixed up without me knowing which is which, and I picked out stone 1 as the better stone very again and again. I compared the stones with tweezers, by laying them in a line between my fingers, while lying face up on a black surface, and while placed on sample rings - and every single time, I preferred stone 1 (despite what the IS suggested, and despite the 35.5c/40.6p combo being combined with an lgf% of 75 instead of the recommended 80%). I simply noticed no comparable darkness in the diamond no matter how hard I tried. Given the dissonance between what my eyes told me and the IS, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts... ------------ BTW - Working with Yekutiel and Tami at ID Jewelry was a fantastic experience. They were patient, knowledgeable, and a pleasure to work with. Before I ever mentioned even pricecsope, Yekutiel got on his computer and went straight to the HCA to weed out HCA 2+ diamonds and helped me find exactly what I was looking for. |
| Posted: 9/12/2008 4:39:48 PM | |
|
There are 13 replies to this message. There are 13 replies on this page. |
|
| P: 9/12/2008 4:55:11 PM | |
JulieN Ideal Rock Total Posts: 7,150 Last Post: 11/25/2009 Member Since: 7/25/2005 |
IS is monovision (one eye.) When you have two eyes (stereo) the apparent leakage is not as bad as under the Ideal Scope. Plus, it got 1.4 on HCA...so probably the leakage wasn't severe. Based on the proportions, I wouldn't consider it to be a stone that would probably have a darkness problem.
|
| Posted: 9/12/2008 4:55:11 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 4:56:37 PM | |
Upgradable Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,447 Last Post: 11/23/2009 Member Since: 8/15/2004 |
I'm a sucker for an FIC! Even so far as (gasp) preferring slightly deeper stones since these usually are. Your eyes know what pleases you, so reward them by going for the stone they've picked for you! Congratulations on finding "the one"!!!!
|
| Posted: 9/12/2008 4:56:37 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 5:24:27 PM | |
Garry H (Cut Nut) Ideal Rock Total Posts: 11,587 Last Post: 11/25/2009 Member Since: 8/16/2000 |
:-)
Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT |
| Posted: 9/12/2008 5:24:27 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 5:54:54 PM | |
Regular Guy Ideal Rock Total Posts: 5,327 Last Post: 11/24/2009 Member Since: 7/7/2004 |
More...
Ira (Ruffles have Ridges) Z. |
| Posted: 9/12/2008 5:54:54 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 6:30:40 PM | |
|
Upgradable Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,447 Last Post: 11/23/2009 Member Since: 8/15/2004 |
Date: 9/12/2008 5:24:27 PM I know Garry cringes when someone admits to liking slightly deep stones. Author: Garry H (Cut Nut) :-)  I've heard him talk about shallower (within the constraints of ideal cut, of course) being brighter and sparklier, and staying that way even when getting slightly dirty from wear. It's not that I disagree on principle, but the eye likes what the eye likes!
|
| Posted: 9/12/2008 6:30:40 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 6:54:57 PM | |
|
Garry H (Cut Nut) Ideal Rock Total Posts: 11,587 Last Post: 11/25/2009 Member Since: 8/16/2000 |
Date: 9/12/2008 6:30:40 PM Author: Upgradable Date: 9/12/2008 5:24:27 PM I know Garry cringes when someone admits to liking slightly deep stones. Author: Garry H (Cut Nut) :-) I've heard him talk about shallower (within the constraints of ideal cut, of course) being brighter and sparklier, and staying that way even when getting slightly dirty from wear. It's not that I disagree on principle, but the eye likes what the eye likes!Upgrade i love FIC's in rings. I do not mind if they have 50% tables and 37 degree crowns, as long as the pavilion angle is compensatingly lower and lower gridles are very long. Such stones can be over 63% depth. The additional 'D' cup side on effect more than makes up for the reduction in top down spread. Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT |
| Posted: 9/12/2008 6:54:57 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 6:57:51 PM | |
|
Upgradable Ideal Rock Total Posts: 2,447 Last Post: 11/23/2009 Member Since: 8/15/2004 |
That's a surprisingly male response, Garry! And it explains quite a bit about my appreciation for them (diamonds, I mean) too!
|
| Posted: 9/12/2008 6:57:51 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 7:05:02 PM | |
|
nyc08 Rough Rock Total Posts: 23 Last Post: 10/1/2008 Member Since: 9/8/2008 |
Thanks for your responses. So, if I was looking at the stone I liked (stone 1) and one with precisely the same specs EXCEPT for an 80% lgf% instead of 75%, what would I notice when comparing the two stones side by side? In all lighting conditions?
|
| Posted: 9/12/2008 7:05:02 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 7:20:24 PM | |
|
Regular Guy Ideal Rock Total Posts: 5,327 Last Post: 11/24/2009 Member Since: 7/7/2004 |
Date: 9/12/2008 7:05:02 PM Author: nyc08 Thanks for your responses. So, if I was looking at the stone I liked (stone 1) and one with precisely the same specs EXCEPT for an 80% lgf% instead of 75%, what would I notice when comparing the two stones side by side? In all lighting conditions? Like this? Ira (Ruffles have Ridges) Z. |
| Posted: 9/12/2008 7:20:24 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 9:28:34 PM | |
|
nyc08 Rough Rock Total Posts: 23 Last Post: 10/1/2008 Member Since: 9/8/2008 |
Very funny regular... Date: 9/12/2008 6:54:57 PM Author: Garry H (Cut Nut) Upgrade i love FIC's in rings. I do not mind if they have 50% tables and 37 degree crowns, as long as the pavilion angle is compensatingly lower and lower gridles are very long. Such stones can be over 63% depth. I guess what I was getting at is whether the preference for longer girdles (80+) over shorter girdles is merely a characteristic of preference, or if at 35.5/40.6 there is some objective flaw with a shorter girdle?
|
| Posted: 9/12/2008 9:28:34 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 9:44:57 PM | |
|
Garry H (Cut Nut) Ideal Rock Total Posts: 11,587 Last Post: 11/25/2009 Member Since: 8/16/2000 |
Ira'a response was tongue in cheek ;-) Mine is, you are getting anal now NYC. But you should not have very short lgf's on a stone asthe crown angle gets steeper. 75% is OK with a 57% table and that crown angle , but if the table was 54% - then you would want 80% plus Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT |
| Posted: 9/12/2008 9:44:57 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 9:49:34 PM | |
|
nyc08 Rough Rock Total Posts: 23 Last Post: 10/1/2008 Member Since: 9/8/2008 |
Date: 9/12/2008 9:44:57 PM Author: Garry H (Cut Nut) Mine is, you are getting anal now NYC. Thank you - that's actually exactly what I wanted to hear. PS has been so much help in this whole process, but it has also made me slightly neurotic. As they say: ignorance is bliss.
|
| Posted: 9/12/2008 9:49:34 PM | |
| P: 9/12/2008 10:05:50 PM | |
strmrdr Ideal Rock Total Posts: 23,296 Last Post: 10/9/2009 Member Since: 11/1/2003 |
If that is a gia report 75% it could actually be ~77 which is just fine in that combo. ........... Karl has joined the diamond trade and is now posting as Karl_K |
| Posted: 9/12/2008 10:05:50 PM | |
 Previous Page
|
Next Page 
|
| « Is this the right stone with the right price? « | » Question about GoG » |
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 |
| |
Pricescope -
Knowledge -
Diamond Prices -
Tools -
Resources -
About
© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives
