A humble request for gem analyzer

[The Gipper]

Greetings

This one is site unseen:

1.2 K
H,VS2
Cut 5
Depth 58.2
Table 64.3
Crown Angle 30.9
Pav Angle 40.7
Culet 0.4

HCA - 2 (VG,VG,G,E)

Also site unseen:

1.02K
H, VS2
H&A
Depth 60.9
Table 56
Crown Angle 34.3
Pav Angle 40.8
Culet 0.2

HCA 0.9 (E,E,E,VG)

Both are same price, both unseen. #1 is a bit larger, and large table size. I've read Mara's posts about her large table size that spoke to her. SHe did talk about a dark center as well.

Any comments, analysis would be greatly appreciated

 

[Mara]

Wow I bet the spread on the first stone will be enormous. Maybe Leo or Rhino will see this post and be so kind as to post GemAdvisor files for you to view or DiamCalc screenshots. I'm interested to see the first stone as well.

 

[Rhino]

Here's stone #1. As close as I can get using the measurements.

 

[Rhino]

And here's stone #2. The animated movies are a kick. Before you do the movie, view the stone in either disco light or Light Return (special) then hit the play button.

 

[Mara]

Rhino--what is the spread according to DiamCalc? When Leo posted a screen shot for me a while ago, it had it in the bottom right hand corner of the light return screen?

Very cool pictures! Second one looks better on cut quality than the first..esp with the fish eye.

 

[JayTee]

From a pricing perspective, this makes sense.
Although the second stone is smaller, it is within ideal cut range, whereas the first stone is not considered a "true" ideal cut -- although HCA allows for this and weights accordingly for spread.

I would also take into account the "Good" rating for scintillation for the first stone (as opposed to the Excellent rating for the second one) Scintillation is what is most noticeable in normal lighting -- the sparkle of the stone.

I was also looking at a large tabled stone as one of my possible choices, it had a 60% table. In a side by side comparison with an ideal cut stone, I noticed that the table was darker & less sparkly, but again, that was only in a direct compare situation. It depends on how important the spread of the stone is to you.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Mara

Spread says +.04ct

JayTee hit the nail on the head. Stone #1 is a whopper in size and has very good overall reflectivity. If she's a "size" gal, stone #1 would be the recommendation.
If you weigh heavily on JT's comment concerning scintillation and cut quality then the choice is #2.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Mara]

Only .04? Wow! Ours is .13 and our table is smaller! Plus ours gets better cut quality ratings on the Gem Advisor file.

Interesting stuff. The second stone definitely looks better on the GA file, esp in disco lighting, and the arrows are very visible, is it an H&A?

Thanks for posting those Rhino, very helpful I am sure.

I would go for the second stone, definitely.