33 crown angle + 41Pavillion angle

[G6ET]

Hi, I''m looking a 1.5ct stone with the following parameters:

Table: 57%
Depth: 60.2%
Crown Angle: 33
Pavillion angle: 41

Is the crown a bit shallow then ideal? HCA score is 0.6, but i thought ideal stone should be within 34-35 degree...

The stone does look quite bright compare to the deeper stone which I''m comparing with, is that normal for a stone with shallower stone with depth around 60%?

It also seems to have reasonable fire, but it seems to be a little bit less interesting to look at when rocking back and forth, is it because it is brighter all round and therefore produce less contrast?

Cheers~~

 

[stone-cold11]

numbers look promising. Nothing wrong with 33 degree crown angle. What is the lower half number?

 

[Dancing Fire]

how high is the crown? like 14.2% ?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/6/2010 6:15:04 AM
Author:G6ET
Hi, I''m looking a 1.5ct stone with the following parameters:

Table: 57%
Depth: 60.2%
Crown Angle: 33
Pavillion angle: 41

Is the crown a bit shallow then ideal? HCA score is 0.6, but i thought ideal stone should be within 34-35 degree...

The stone does look quite bright compare to the deeper stone which I''m comparing with, is that normal for a stone with shallower stone with depth around 60%?

It also seems to have reasonable fire, but it seems to be a little bit less interesting to look at when rocking back and forth, is it because it is brighter all round and therefore produce less contrast?

Cheers~~

The crown angle is fine, in Pricescope terms its only slightly shallow and in the real world, not shallow at all.

 

[G6ET]

Thanks for the feedback, so it seems promising!

I left the cert copy behind, will provide other lower half and crown height numbers later.

so does the number support my - more brightness, less contrast/pattern observation?

cheers~

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/6/2010 9:03:25 AM
Author: G6ET
Thanks for the feedback, so it seems promising!

I left the cert copy behind, will provide other lower half and crown height numbers later.

so does the number support my - more brightness, less contrast/pattern observation?

cheers~

The lower half info isn''t essential with those proportions, an Idealscope image would be better if you can get it. Theoretically the stone might show a little extra brightness but this is really speculation as we have no way to tell even if we had static images, a trusted vendor that can see the diamond in person is the best one to advise you on any performance nuances.

 

[FB.]

Yes, 33/41 tends to produce brighter stones but with less flashes of fire.
However, the (fewer) flashes of fire that the stone does emit, are often larger, visible at longer distances and of greater duration than a Tolkowsky. Kind of like a Tolkowsky being a machinegun (lots of small flashes) and a 33/41 being a bazooka (a few large flashes). Both impressive, but in very different ways.

I have a 33/41 59/60.5 that is an exceptional stone that is as good as a Tolkowsky, but in a different way.
GIA 2115300886 1.02ct if you want to access the whole cert from GIA website.
http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=2115300886&weight=1.02

 

[soontomarry2]

Would a stone with these proportions be considered an example of BIC, rather than TIC or FIC?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/6/2010 6:35:11 PM
Author: soontomarry2
Would a stone with these proportions be considered an example of BIC, rather than TIC or FIC?

Its hovering around BIC range, normally the crown angle needs to be 32.5 deg or less.

 

[FB.]

33/41 60/60 types are probably best described as sitting on the borderline of Brilliant (BIC) and Tolkowsky (TIC).