1.4 - HCA but 62.2% Depth?

[sunset522]

Hello all:

I really really appreciate all your help so far on my search for earrings..

Here is a stone that I''m looking at from one of the online vendors from pricescope.. and here are the specs for the stone:

Ct.: 0.668
> Color: G
> Clarity: SI1
> Measurements: 5.59-5.62x3.49mm
> Depth: 62.2%
> Table: 54%
> Crown Angle: 33.9
> Pavilion Angle: 41.0
> Culet: Pointed
> Girdle: Faceted 0.7% to 1.8%
> Fluorescence: Negligible
> Polish: Ideal
> Symmetry: Ideal
> Approximate price: $1,782.22

This stone scored 1.4 on HCA which means it''s excellent.. however what do you think about the Depth? I know 62.2% is not considered great.. so please give me your expert input. Will the stone look smaller?

Thanks!!
Sandhya.

 

[niceice]

We'd pass on it... The total depth of 62.2% causes the outside diameter of the diamond to be less than it would be if the total depth were kept beneath 61.8% in other words, the diamond will "face up" smaller than comparable ideal cut diamonds of the same weight cut to a better total depth... That combined with the steeper pavilion angle would cause us to leave it by the side of the road...

 

[Mara]

Sandya...per my emails I would definitely wait to see what other inventory vendors get in. If there is no rush, just hang tight.




BTW on that same note, was speaking with WhiteFlash today re: Greg's ACA and asked about their lack of inventory, they should have some new stones up soon but more in the carat weight. Seems that rough is more pricey and they have not been buying as much as usual. Also demand has been high, seemingly for most of the online vendors...possibly why all inventory levels on alot of Pscope vendors are low.

 

[skibum]

Hi Robin and Todd Gray
I've been lurking around here for a few months and after exhaustive research have made my purchase through one the vendors here on PS. I am a little surprised by your comment on the 62.2% depth. I have seen stones with this depth in your own inventory.
I've noticed that you tend to criticize data and pictures that get posted here but I have not seen anybody post any of your pictures or even comment on their purchasing experience with you. You commented in a previous thread about the absence of decent h&a patterns, and were given an opportunity to show all of us what h&a are supposed to look like, and yet you did not rise to the challenge. I am still curious.

Cheers,
David

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I see nothing wrong with this stone.

It has a small table and therefore when set you will see more diamond sticking out the top of the setting (vertical spread is greater).

The width is 2% smaller than for a normal 57% Tolkowsky - not a train smash.

As for the 41 degree pavilion it is perfectly compensated for by the lower crown angle.

For every extra degree of pavilion depth you should subtract 5 degrees from the crown angle (5:1 ratio)

 

[sunset522]

Cutnut, mara: Thanks for your advice.. I'll keep your suggestions in mind when I see the stone next week..

Sandhya.

 

[mdx]

----------------
On 1/16/2004 5:47:29 PM Cut Nut wrote:

I see nothing wrong with this stone.


For every extra degree of pavilion depth you should subtract 5 degrees from the crown angle (5:1 ratio)----------------

Gary I am glad you have brought this up again, Recently there have been a number of comments stating “ this angle is toooo steep and that angle is toooo shallow” without taking into consideration the possibility of compensating angles.

Johan
Melbourne Diamond Exchange Ltd

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 1/17/2004 4:06:35 PM mdx wrote:

----------------
On 1/16/2004 5:47:29 PM Cut Nut wrote:

I see nothing wrong with this stone.


For every extra degree of pavilion depth you should subtract 5 degrees from the crown angle (5:1 ratio)----------------

Gary I am glad you have brought this up again, Recently there have been a number of comments stating “ this angle is toooo steep and that angle is toooo shallow” without taking into consideration the possibility of compensating angles.

Johan
Melbourne Diamond Exchange Ltd
----------------

Just a novice here - but this is sane. I can not help but think it isn't one aspect of a stone that can make or break it - it's a combination of *lots* of stuff & the relationship between each.