Anything sinister about this set of proportions?

[FB.]

Before I proceed further with what appears to be a very promising princess, I wonder if anyone can shed some light (excuse the pun!) on any theoretical issues or proportion mis-matches with this stone.
No images available for posting.

Shape: Princess cut
GIA-certificate plus scan results.
Weight: 1.02ct
Clarity: VS
Measurements: 5.64 x 5.65 x 4.01 mm
Table: 68.0%
Crown height: 10.0%
Girdle: medium – slightly thick (1.9%)
Pavilion depth: 59.4%
Total depth: 71.4%
Polish & symmetry: very good
Chevrons: 4
Culet: none

Thanks,
FB

 

[stone-cold11]

From the numbers, looks promising, now depends on how it is really cut, will need ASET.

 

[FB.]

The pavilion seems to be not far from a straight-line from the girdle to the culet, compared to many Princess that I''ve encountered.
I was generally under the impression that princess cuts usually have a 30-40 degree change of pavilion angle, halfway towards the culet.
This one has about a 10-20 degree change of pavilion angle.

What are the reasons for cutting the pavilion in such a way?

 

[jstarfireb]

Can't answer your question except to say that there's a lot of variation in princess cutting style. It may or may not have a visual effect. Paul Slegers of Infinity Diamonds posts here often and has spoken about the pavilion bulge in princesses (particularly with respect to depth and spread). He may be able to help if he sees this!

ETA: Agreed that there are no red flags with the numbers, but need images to tell more.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

FB,

May I first congratulate you with your attention to detail in observing diamonds. Not many consumers note the number of chevrons, and your question about the difference in pavilion-angles show that you have paid a lot of attention.

It is difficult to answer your question in direct relation to your stone, since we have insufficient factual information about the stone. A full Sarin-scan would be useful, so that I can comment about the factual differences in pavilion-angles.

The following is thus a general answer to your question. Most commercial princess-cuts are cut for weight, and a cutter will try to follow the outline of the rough crystal as much as possible. A ''bulgey'' (is this a correct word) rough stone thus allows for pavilion bulge in the resulting princess-cut, and thus will hide a lot of extra weight in the pavilion. With a somewhat ''leaner'' rough stone, there is less room for pavilion bulge, and the difference between the two main pavilion angles will be less.

Do note also that it is not uncommon to find stones with bulge only on some of the four pavilion-sides. It also happens that a princess has a different number of chevrons on one side. All this of course does not contribute to the optical symmetry of the stone and as a result to the light performance. For this reason, it is elementary to assess the ASET-view of a princess-cut.

Live long,

 

[Lorelei]

Can you get photos and an ASET FB?

 

[FB.]

Right. I''ve had a chance to view the diamond and I wasn''t completely happy, so I walked away.
The problem seems to be that the chevrons start unusually low down the pavilion sides (i.e. only the lower half of the pavilion has chevrons and they''re very close together), which seems to make a very strange appearance to the diamond''s scintillation.

But I found one that looks pretty good. I''ll try to post up a photo (but, sadly no fancy imaging ability).

The stats are:

1.01ct
5.57 x 5.44 x 3.85
VS clarity
Polish & Symmetry: very good.
Total depth: 71%
Pavilion depth: 54%
Table: 70%
Crown height: 13%
Girdle: 4%
Culet: none