Most will likely tell you the 1st stone has safer parameters. But since they are averaged and rounded measurements, you really don't know enough about actual light performance to make meaningful distinctions. ASET, IdealScope, Hearts and Arrows images will reveal much more.help me choose please, both have 80% lower , 1st stone fall in ags 1, second fall in ags 0, I would have thought the the other way around as many of you people suggest the lower 35 crown angle. help
Most will likely tell you the 1st stone has safer parameters. But since they are averaged and rounded measurements, you really don't know enough about actual light performance to make meaningful distinctions. ASET, IdealScope, Hearts and Arrows images will reveal much more.
thank you , I don’t have these available and will have to pick one, confused why 2nd stone with 36% crown that members don’t recommend fits in ags o ideal parameters,is it because of the 57% table and 1st stone is 58% table and is only a 1 in ags , of course both Gia excellent rating, all I have are the magnified photoshelp me choose please, both have 80% lower , 1st stone fall in ags 1, second fall in ags 0, I would have thought the the other way around as many of you people suggest the lower 35 crown angle. help
From a table/crown angle/pavilion angle perspective they could both make AGS0. It will depend on how precise the cutting is (how close to those rounded averages the measurements actually are), as well as the actual measurements of the other facets not included in that data.thank you , I don’t have these available and will have to pick one, confused why 2nd stone with 36% crown that members don’t recommend fits in ags o ideal parameters,is it because of the 57% table and 1st stone is 58% table and is only a 1 in ags , of course both Gia excellent rating, all I have are the magnified photos
I can see why you are confused. I believe the issue is that the chart above pre-dates the AGS light performance grading system. Note the watermark 2004. I believe they updated the charts to include more candidates after the LP system demonstrated that certain combinations have potential to result in Ideal performance if certain conditions are met.Thank you Bryan, my confusion continues as the file on ags' website I get is a bit different,
A slight correction, Bryan. The cut-guidelines @dfilipcic liked, with the 2004 watermark, do correspond to the current Light Performance metric, released in 2005. Those charts are stipulated as guidelines because the final grade can only be determined with a full 3D scan. Depending on cut-consistency, minor-facet choices, indexing and other details combos on the borderlines may go one way or the other. Since that's frequently downward AGSL kept the guidelines purposefully conservative. The diamond must be sent to the lab or measured in PGS software to know the actual grade. It's a diamond-specific system.I can see why you are confused. I believe the issue is that the chart above pre-dates the AGS light performance grading system. Note the watermark 2004. I believe they updated the charts to include more candidates after the LP system demonstrated that certain combinations have potential to result in Ideal performance if certain conditions are met.
If you will not be able to get additional LP information, cut quality differences are a guessing game. And because they are dossiers there is no plot info so clarity distinctions cannot be reliably assessed remotely. So I would focus on other tangibles such as the color difference and price.So back to the beginning hahaha, stone 2 with 36% crown is still rated ags 0 ideal on both charts but is stone 1 still a better cut? and safer buy even if it is only ideal on the 2008 chart, I understand their is more to it and but as I said I can't afford the premium price and have been forced to do as much as I can. Thanks again for the help.