GIA report doesn’t show angle measurements?

[PreRaphaelite]

GIA is shipping my the stone back tonight and I’ll have it tomorrow. But I don’t see the angle information that Pricescope has taught me is important.

Anyone have thoughts on this? Also, am I allowed to show the report number?

 

[david b]

Old Cut diamonds are cut by free hand, the angles are different in each facet, maybe this is the reason they do not mention other measurements like pavilions and crown

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Thanks David. Perhaps that is the case. I am disappointed at not being able to use the PS cut analyser tools, I’ve really been looking forward to that. Oh well. At least I’ll have it back soon.

 

[bmfang]

The PS cut analyser tools are to be used with modern round brilliants, not specialty cuts like your gorgeous old European brilliant stone.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Thanks bmfang. I know the OEC wouldn’t be expected to meet modern cut performance but it would still be nice to have the angles so I could learn. I understood that they would be included for the particular report level (and price) and I even if I couldn’t learn much, it would still be useful in identifying the stone, no?

 

[bmfang]

@InsecureSweetGirl , I would love it if GIA were to include such info on non-MRB cuts. Seems like AGS is the only PS preferred lab that would do so. Short of a vendor who sells stones or an appraiser having their own Sarine scanner and who would be able to provide you with such info easily.

 

[MarionC]

I just looked up all three my old cuts and the recent GIA reports do not include any angles.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

That helps.
Do you know if GIA had previously included them before they changed to accommodate old cuts?

 

[rockysalamander]

Even if you had the angles, the tool would not work. The tool assumes a specific 3-D geometry, facets number and arrangement to provide a light return model...I would assume that it assumes a Tolkowski model for the physical geometry. Both old cuts and modern round brilliants have 58 facets (57 if no culet), but the actual shape and placement of those facets differ. So, the fundamental assumptions of the Tolkowski model that work for a Modern Rond Brilliant will never work for an Old European or any other cut.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Thank you. I’ve enjoyed the illustration of stones in a side view of “Too Shallow” - “Too Deep” - and just wanted to find mine for the fun of learning. I love the stone so this was just me feeling left out of the number-crunching fun, I guess. I will let it go, now.

Anyway thanks for responding. I’m just sitting here waiting for the fedex van that’s bringing her back to me.

 

[leukolenos]

Thank you. I’ve enjoyed the illustration of stones in a side view of “Too Shallow” - “Too Deep” - and just wanted to find mine for the fun of learning. I love the stone so this was just me feeling left out of the number-crunching fun, I guess. I will let it go, now.

Anyway thanks for responding. I’m just sitting here waiting for the fedex van that’s bringing her back to me.

More pics when you get it! Nothing quite like waiting on the FedEx truck!

 

[PreRaphaelite]

And I’m still waiting for fedex, since 8:33am when it got put on the truck.
Sheesh!

 

[EvaEvans]

GIA does not describe the angles and other cut parameters in OLD CUT diamonds, but AGS and EGL do. So if you are willing to spend more money, I would recommend sending it to AGS.
However, the GIA report shows the most important parameters: table size and depth. With Fair symmetry all cut dimensions will be extremely rounded and approximate.
About the lab report number, it's totally up to you if you want to share it with us, there is no forum's restrictions.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Thanks Eva. I’ll make a new thread sharing her report number, once I have her in my greedy fingers. I’m still waiting. Gosh fedex has had her on the truck ‘out for delivery’ for twelve hours and the supervisor I talked to hasn’t got a clue.