another EC to evaluate, please!

[shminbabe]

I posted this a few weeks ago and you guys said the table was too large. As I''ve looked at stones, and Idealscopes since, this one looks pretty to me. What am I missing? Is it just a good picture? The idealscope image seems pretty good, or not? Not too much "black". And the regular and magnified images look good to my untrained eye.

Tim at GoG commented at the time, "this is why I don''t look at the numbers, this is a beauty."

So the table IS big...and I don''t know the crown height either. Is it worth pursuing or should I wait for something better?

IS it pretty?

Duh.

Jeannie

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/em210gvs2/

 

[chrono]

Yup, the table is humongous. I can forgive this if the crown height is high but it isn''t. It is only 9.7% in the megascope report. If the crown height is 15% or something like that, then it makes up for the large table. The effect of a low crown height coupled with a large table will mean that the stone most likely look:
1. glassy
2. no fire, just white light
3. maybe a combination of #1 and #2

Idealscope just tracks light leakage. Some black in the right places is good, it shows the contrast, ie scintillation. What you don''t want is a lot of white. White represents light leakage.

I''d keep looking.

 

[shminbabe]

Got it. Now I understand better than I did a few weeks ago, too. Missed that crown height number, too. Thanks Chrono!!!

jeannie