Another thread by a guy who wants some advice from PS forum goers

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Hey Fannibal, what does AGS put as the Star and LGF lengths on the GOG diamond?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/1/2007 12:18:44 AM
Author: fannibal
Heh ok sure thing, I''ll reserve it.

I just have some last minute hesitations about the diamond. I see a big blob in the idealscope image, but Good old gold reassured me that it is eye clean. Am I just being paranoid here? any last minute thoughts?

-Fan

Probably.

It''s a big expenditure though, so understandable.

Also, remember, these pics are maginified BIG time, everything is going to look huge, that doesn''t mean it is in real life. If GOG says it''s eyeclean, you can trust them. If your definition of eyeclean is not seeing anything from any angle at any distance, make sure you are both on the same page.

It''s going to be a stunning stone.

 

[Julianna]

Date: 8/1/2007 1:36:57 AM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

I am sorry Ira, I do not understand what you just said: 're the IS image...weren't they only reliably with their 'signature' selection. '


And I am def. not seeing the IS image on this page...and yes it has changed, it used to be badge right? and a much prettier hearts/butterfly, much like the JA reps use as their avatar, and it seemed to be better organized before, for me at least.

Also, it is classifed as one of their Hearts and Arrows ideal which means it is in stock and I believe that is the highest classification or 'signature' series that they have anymore.

I did find the IS image but I had to run an actual search and see it in the inventory list. I don't see it clickable from that page I linked? am i blind??

Hey WorkingHard,

You're not blind.

We just relaunched the site on Friday and are experiencing some technical difficulties, especially with the Hearts and Arrows search function and IS images. We're working to get the problems resolved, hopefully within a week or so. You're right about being able to click on IS images from the search page, but not from within the actual page with the individual diamond.

Also, thanks very much for the feedback.

 

[fannibal]

*ahem* ... off topic?

 

[fannibal]

star and LGF lengths? what are those?

 

[Julianna]

Sorry for the threadjack!

Star facet = the eight facets around the table, LGF = lower girdle facets, which are the 16 pavilion facets, located, of course, "below the girdle".

 

[Rhino]

Forgive me for chiming in but to answer the question WHFSR, 61.7% star length and lower girdle facet length is 76.8% while the lower girdle facet depth is 78.5%. GIA uses the length measurement while AGS uses the depth measurement.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

For your referrence fannibal here is a graphic depicting all the facets sets of a round brilliant cut. The stars extend off the table facet and the lower halves (also called lower girdles) are between the pavilion main facets. Hope that helps.

Regards,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/1/2007 4:32:07 PM
Author: Rhino
Forgive me for chiming in but to answer the question WHFSR, 61.7% star length and lower girdle facet length is 76.8% while the lower girdle facet depth is 78.5%. GIA uses the length measurement while AGS uses the depth measurement.

Peace,

Gentle correction Rhino. AGS reports length on their grading reports too.

They still use height in research because it's easier to use in STLs, but GIA had already begun reporting length as of 1/2006 (rounded) so AGS went that way as well, to avoid confusion.

 

[fannibal]

Ok guys, I see 2 diamonds and I was wondering which one has a better cut. Also, the 1.015 seems to have a bigger inclusion that I can see with the microscope image. Howoever, I don''t know if I am right, but the 1.015 seems to have a better idealscope image. I looked at the GemAdvisor images, and it reported that the 1.015 diamond has a better cut quality. Any thoughts?

1.007 G SI1

or

1.015 G SI1

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/2/2007 10:16:12 AM
Author: fannibal
Ok guys, I see 2 diamonds and I was wondering which one has a better cut. Also, the 1.015 seems to have a bigger inclusion that I can see with the microscope image. Howoever, I don''t know if I am right, but the 1.015 seems to have a better idealscope image. I looked at the GemAdvisor images, and it reported that the 1.015 diamond has a better cut quality. Any thoughts?

1.007 G SI1

or

1.015 G SI1

My first thought is, you are overanalyzing and splitting hairs on cut.

If you want to do that, the 1.015 is cut a bit tighter than the other. But BOTH would be stunning.

As for the inclusions, you need to ask GOG. They have the stones in hand, we don''t. As I said before, give them your definition of what eyeclean is, and then pick accordingly.

 

[fannibal]

Date: 8/2/2007 10:39:11 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/2/2007 10:16:12 AM

Author: fannibal

Ok guys, I see 2 diamonds and I was wondering which one has a better cut. Also, the 1.015 seems to have a bigger inclusion that I can see with the microscope image. Howoever, I don''t know if I am right, but the 1.015 seems to have a better idealscope image. I looked at the GemAdvisor images, and it reported that the 1.015 diamond has a better cut quality. Any thoughts?


1.007 G SI1


or


1.015 G SI1

My first thought is, you are overanalyzing and splitting hairs on cut.

If you want to do that, the 1.015 is cut a bit tighter than the other. But BOTH would be stunning.


As for the inclusions, you need to ask GOG. They have the stones in hand, we don''t. As I said before, give them your definition of what eyeclean is, and then pick accordingly.

Yes I probably am overanalyzing. I went to a local jewler 2 days ago and I could barely tell the difference between a G colored and a H colored, and I couldn''t see any inclusions in any SI1 diamonds... but its always good knowing I got the *best* diamond I could get