Are the hearts & arrows cut diamonds just a fad?

[JohnQuixote]

Off-topic, but for those interested in this application of DiamCalc.

Given:

1.71 ct
7.67 x 7.60 x 4.72

Garry estimated 61.3D 63.0T 38.8C 40.7P N/M
Iiro estimated 62.0D 63.5T 38.8C 40.9P N/ST (Iiro entered dimensions for a 9.02 mm diamond)

David - it will be neat when you get the .srn to see how these estimates compare.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/13/2005 2:40:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

John, here's one place we differ in opinion:
I don't feel that AGS was EVER, in any way, 'a pioneer for world cut grading'
As a matter of fact, it still seems to me that as they conform to standards most cutters agree are correct, their older proclamations about cut seem absurd.

That is not to say that Hearts and Arrows are a fad- clearly they are NOT a fad- but just as clearly, neither is 60/60.

Of course 60/60 is not a fad. And I know cutters David. Every day I learn more about diamonds from one in particular.

What ‘most cutters agree’ on has nothing to do with this. Most cutters agree on saving weight and making $. Most cutters agree on what will sell the fastest. When a cutting house gets $10 million in rough they don’t kick around whether to cut 55 or 62 tables over Starbucks and a bagel. What’s cut depends on each piece of rough, what’s practical out of it and what will sell quickly. Some goes to fancy-land, some goes to 60/60 country, some goes to fine-make and the castaways go to woof-island.

That’s the big picture. You’ll get your 60/60s. You’ll get the others. There’s rough enough.

Now, as for motivations regarding diamond beauty, I can tell you what’s in the mind of at least one cutter - considered fairly accomplished - when our rough reaches the fine-make floor of the factory: The key to diamond performance in a brilliant, over and above any particular set of proportions, is true patterning in the pavilion with minimal light leakage and no facet yaw. Period. It’s the alignment of all of the mirrors with no light escaping. Science geeks, old world trade pros and diamond connoisseurs alike embrace these diamonds when they ‘pop.’

When looking for consistency and maximum performance there are very limited combinations that result in good pavilion patterning with a 60% table.

It’s a matter of spread versus angles (and why Tolkowsky made the decisions he did). We cut H&A at Tolkowsky proportions for that reason.

Of course, there are many combos today making for a good stone. If you like a 60/60 go buy one. However, the option we've found to best serve our customers is a path that consistently guarantees maximized beauty in a diamond: True hearts patterning with maximized light return and no facet yaw.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

John, of course the decisions cutters make are based on one thing. Profit.
Cut for beauty exclusively and you're out of business pretty fast.

I should have added the term "Most cutters that we are associated with agree"

We are lucky to be in the center of one of the largest cutting centers in the world- which brings us in close proximity with quite a few cutters.
Like the folks here on PS, most of them think I'm a ROYAL P.I.A., but still talk to me...hehehehe


Seroiusly, there are cutting houses , as you describe, which use H&A paramters, because they have a clientele that wants H&A. So, in essence, they will accept more waste in the cutting process, in return for higher selling prices based on AGS0...although AGS is changing cut standards which could put such cutters in a tough spot.
Based on my experience, that's not the norm. Far more diamonds are cut to what would be considered a good compromise of yeild and brilliance- and this does NOT makle H&A diamonds


John wrote:

When looking for consistency and maximum performance there are very limited combinations that result in good pavilion patterning with a 60% table.

John- that statement is WAY off base.
It's far easier to produce a good looking diamond with a 60% table than with a 56%- maybe the cutter you know feels differently- many cutters that I know agree with my statement.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

For those looking to get in on the "Sarin Challenge"
How about I behave in a magnanomous manner and give everyone a second chance- even my friend Cut Nut.
IF the diamond had crown angles above 35% then we''d see something about that on the GIA report- and so far everyone''s guess has a crown angle above 35%- Want to go back to the drawing boards guys??????

 

[Lord Summerisle]

34.9° ?











i''ll get my coat

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Difinition of Expert=
ex: something that was
spurt: A drip

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/14/2005 4:41:33 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
For those looking to get in on the ''Sarin Challenge''
How about I behave in a magnanomous manner and give everyone a second chance- even my friend Cut Nut.
IF the diamond had crown angles above 35% then we''d see something about that on the GIA report- and so far everyone''s guess has a crown angle above 35%- Want to go back to the drawing boards guys??????

Actually, and I only know and noticed this from a previous discussion because my wife''s ring comes in at 35.8 on a GIA cert, and with no comment...I understand the protocol is for the comment to appear when it is in effect past 35, i.e., 36 and above.

Regards,

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Hi Ira!
Did you mean to say that you had a Sarin ( or some other) report drawn to show the crown angles?To this point GIA only lists crown angles on a round if they are over 35degrees, or over 40degrees, etc..( in 5 degree increments). GIA reports do not speciifcally state that the crown angles are 38degrees for example.
SO I must assume you had secondary report- possibly an AGS?

I will also point out that tools like the Sarin vary in their measurements.
The exact measurements for example, will likely NOT match the GIA numners exactly.
But they will lilkey not be far away.

 

[Regular Guy]

Sorry, to clarify, my GIA certed stone did not have the warning, showing over 35 degrees, and yet, it was measured with an OGI device to be 35.8 degrees. Certainly measurement error is possible. But my understanding is that the counting by GIA is such that they do only report when the crown angle actually passes 35.9 degrees.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Good point Ira- very cool- so GIA starts at 36.0 degrees.

Of course you also meant that you have a "Diamond with a GIA Report"- because ther is no such a thing as a "GIA certed" diamond- or any such thing as a "GIA Certificate"

Small yet crucial points.

By the way- how did the measurements compare- between the GIA and the other report you had drawn?

 

[Iiro]

We will see after Sarin

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Date: 7/14/2005 7:18:19 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Difinition of Expert=
ex: something that was
spurt: A drip

So someone DOES know that joke....

I aplogise if my poor attempt at humor is out of place in this thread... aleviating boreing times in the office.

 

[Rhino]

Just catching up on this thread and noticed a major blunder by those who are attempting to make a model.

John states...

Date: 7/14/2005 4:06:45 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Off-topic, but for those interested in this application of DiamCalc.

Given:

1.71 ct
7.67 x 7.60 x 4.72

Garry estimated 61.3D 63.0T 38.8C 40.7P N/M
Iiro estimated 62.0D 63.5T 38.8C 40.9P N/ST (Iiro entered dimensions for a 9.02 mm diamond)

David - it will be neat when you get the .srn to see how these estimates compare.

And Garry also has the measurements in his DiamCalc examples with a 7.60 x 7.67 x 4.72 measurments.

These are not the measurements.

The proper diameter measurements are 7.57 - 7.60 x 4.72 as posted on the GIA stats that Dave posted. Just trying the estimation thing and thought I would add this note since I''ve seen it brought up.

Peace,

 

[diamondsbylauren]

great point Rhino!
I noticed the crown angles, but not the measurements.

What say we begin now- all estimates made to this point were just "practice shots"

 

[Rhino]

Not sure how accurate this is since it''s my first attempt at estimating through DC. Garry?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 7/15/2005 1:41:02 PM
Author: Rhino
Not sure how accurate this ...

Wait a minute... the crown angle is still above 35. Is it possible to adjust proportions so that the average angle goes below the red line ?

Anyway, these three attempts this far make the kind of exercise (=reading random diamond pictures with the GA fitted moels) appear less than straightforward, unfortunately. Now I really want to see that Sarin !

I tried to find the stats for this stone and failed: is girdle width given anywhere ? Assuming it 'medium' or whatewer can still take a couple of % fromeither crown or pavilio, and since there is a tradeoff between thse two angles, perhaps the image fitting was generate using steeper crown and pavilion than actually is the case. Since the GA is not on this computer, there isn't anything I can say more than this (which I would try).

Just a question about GA use: are the RBC models fully specified or is it possible to generate the same top-down image with different sets of compensating parameters ? From what I understand, this could be the case with the single refraction wireframe models at least even though varying angles would vary under carefully selected lighting models for the rendered image. if this is true, than fitting pictures as it was attempte on this thread becomes allot more involved

Hope this makes sense an does not waste your time...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/14/2005 4:32:29 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

John, of course the decisions cutters make are based on one thing. Profit.
Cut for beauty exclusively and you''re out of business pretty fast.

I should have added the term ''Most cutters that we are associated with agree''

We are lucky to be in the center of one of the largest cutting centers in the world- which brings us in close proximity with quite a few cutters.
Like the folks here on PS, most of them think I''m a ROYAL P.I.A., but still talk to me...hehehehe

Seroiusly, there are cutting houses , as you describe, which use H&A paramters, because they have a clientele that wants H&A. So, in essence, they will accept more waste in the cutting process, in return for higher selling prices based on AGS0...although AGS is changing cut standards which could put such cutters in a tough spot.
Based on my experience, that''s not the norm. Far more diamonds are cut to what would be considered a good compromise of yeild and brilliance- and this does NOT make H&A diamonds

I have no problem with the revised statement. I also think you''re saying the same thing I am (farther below) about compromise and H&A patterning. To that end I expect you''ll have no problem with my statement about our cutters, who are in agreement with our approach and standards - even if they differ.

You are indeed in a world cut center for 60/60, but even in NY ideal makes are bringing strong premiums - that from Rapaport Tradewire as recently as this AM. Do I expect ideal makes to overwhelm the market? No. Do I expect them to go away? No chance.

Date: 7/14/2005 4:32:29 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

John wrote: When looking for consistency and maximum performance there are very limited combinations that result in good pavilion patterning with a 60% table.

John- that statement is WAY off base.
It''s far easier to produce a good looking diamond with a 60% table than with a 56%- maybe the cutter you know feels differently- many cutters that I know agree with my statement.

Au contraire, mon diamontaire

Yes, it may be easier to produce a diamond with 60% table that looks good, but in order to produce one with good H&A patterning along with maximized performance (read that as light return with negligible leakage under the table) there are more limited practical combinations at and around the 60% table mark than shooting for 53%-57%.

I know you hate virtual models, but I can show you examples of what I’m talking about if you druther seem (that is Texish for ''if you would rather see them'').

Another factor we can haggle over is dispersion. I recall a GIA study that illustrated how diamonds with Tolkowsky sized tables show more dispersion. That is in-line with our observations of ideal proportioned diamonds, especially when enhanced by good pavilion patterning.

I''m shooting from the hip on that one though. Rhino – do you recall the study I’m thinking of?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/15/2005 1:41:02 PM
Author: Rhino
Not sure how accurate this is since it's my first attempt at estimating through DC. Garry?

You might be right for one set of facets.
After 2 hours of wire framing it this is my conclusion:
The table varies from 62.3%-63.5% ish and the crown and pavilion angles vary by as much as 1.5 degrees.
The picture isnt good enough to get a good average because you cant do all the facets.
I gave up after fighting to do 3 sides of the diamond.
GIGO
Id be shocked if anyone gets close to the sarin average.

btw this is my 5th diamond I wire framed dont take that as factual LOL

 

[set2374]

I have been following this thread as a lurker and have been fascinated by the way it has morphed. Not to interupt the flow here, but I wanted to say a few words on the original topic... are H&A''s and other Uber Ideals a fad??? While there are others here who are clearly better versed than me to discuss the technical details involved with generating these little objects of beauty, I would like to offer a slightly different perspective on this issue. I am a typical consumer that was wise enough to research on this and other sites. I am also a corporate attorney by trade and I have an finance and economic background. I am basing my theory on the following assumptions: (1) internet vendors benefit from operating with less overhead and can, therefore, generate the same or better profits working on lower margins; (2) consumers today are more knowledgeable than their counterparts 20 years ago, have more access to pricing information (like Rapaport); and (3) sites like PS will continue to grow and prosper, further increasing consumer awareness

If I were to make a prediction, I think we are going to see the continued growth of Uber Ideals like H&A or uniquely faceted cuts like Eightyniters, Lucern etc. As margins grow tighter in the diamond industry with the increasing proliferation of online sales and increasing knoweldge baseBecause patented cuts with different facet numbers allow vendors to offer a "premium" product that can be distinguished from the mass market for which they can justify a premium price. Design patents have a shorter lifespan (6 years) than patents in general (18 years). As these patents expire, new designs will rise to take their place to provide a continuing degree of exclusivity. DeBeers (whether you like them or not) created the modern diamond market with savy marketing. Marketing for Uber Ideals is the next wave in an industry that is growing increasing competitive. H&A''s are here to stay. Whether they are better than 60:60''s will make no difference. They will be perceived as better and more exclusve as the ad agencies and marketing people continue to brand them, as will the even more "exciting" patented cuts. I think women want something that will be different (if not better) than what their friends have and these Uber Ideals appeal to that quality. If her friends have H&A''s she can have modified brilliant that will make her friends say "darn, why didn''t i think of getting that". It''s human nature. Well, that''s my food for thought.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/15/2005 3:17:43 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/14/2005 4:32:29 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

John wrote: When looking for consistency and maximum performance there are very limited combinations that result in good pavilion patterning with a 60% table.

John- that statement is WAY off base.
It''s far easier to produce a good looking diamond with a 60% table than with a 56%- maybe the cutter you know feels differently- many cutters that I know agree with my statement.

Au contraire, mon diamontaire

Yes, it may be easier to produce a diamond with 60% table that looks good, but in order to produce one with good H&A patterning along with maximized performance (read that as light return with negligible leakage under the table) there are more limited practical combinations at and around the 60% table mark than shooting for 53%-57%.

I know you hate virtual models, but I can show you examples of what I’m talking about if you druther seem (that is Texish for ''if you would rather see them'').

Another factor we can haggle over is dispersion. I recall a GIA study that illustrated how diamonds with Tolkowsky sized tables show more dispersion. That is in-line with our observations of ideal proportioned diamonds, especially when enhanced by good pavilion patterning.

I''m shooting from the hip on that one though. Rhino – do you recall the study I’m thinking of?

John- surely we WOULD piclk a lot of the same diamonds if we were lookking thru parcels- and likely you might even choose some 60/60''s

I certainly LOVE computers- So why would I " Hate virtual Models"
I do not hate them- but as this thread unfolds we can see how innacurate thry truly are.
After all- here we are starting with a REAL diamond and it seems the models can''t "wrap themselves around it"

Remember "Max Headroom"?- there''s a "virtual model" of a human.
I did not hate him ( well maybe I did...heheh) but I do find that any computer model of a natual thing- like an animal, person, or diamond- is not a good way to gauge the actual appearance of that thing.

Yes, it may be easier to produce a diamond with 60% table that looks good, but in order to produce one with good H&A patterning along with maximized performance (read that as light return with negligible leakage under the table) there are more limited practical combinations at and around the 60% table mark than shooting for 53%-57%.

If I can somehow untangle this sentance, it would seem that you''re saying this:
If you want H&A- you need the 53-57% table- but if you DON''T care about the patterns, then a 60% is more likely to produce an attractive diamond.
"Light Leakage" around the table???...hmmmm. Call Roto Rooter

I agree- if a cutter is going for 60/60 with strong H&A pattern, they will not be succseful.

Of course this does nothing to contradict MY statement: When cutters use 60% tables they are more likely to produce a great looking stone- even with merely "good" symmetry, and no patterns. When cutters go for "Ideal", H&A, etc...if they are succesful the resultant stone will have a lot of fire, and a distinct H&A pattern.
Many would argue that these "Ideals" are as beautiful as a well cut 60/60 ( of course many here are trying to argue "Ideals" are better)
But if the cutters does NOT acheive the H&A pattern there''s a good chance the "near miss" stones will not look nearly as good as a typical ( no H&A) 60/60.
SO- It''s easier for cutters to produce good looking stones with 60% tables.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/15/2005 5:48:45 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

John- surely we WOULD piclk a lot of the same diamonds if we were lookking thru parcels- and likely you might even choose some 60/60's

I certainly LOVE computers- So why would I ' Hate virtual Models'
I do not hate them- but as this thread unfolds we can see how innacurate thry truly are.
After all- here we are starting with a REAL diamond and it seems the models can't 'wrap themselves around it'

Remember 'Max Headroom'?- there's a 'virtual model' of a human.
I did not hate him ( well maybe I did...heheh) but I do find that any computer model of a natual thing- like an animal, person, or diamond- is not a good way to gauge the actual appearance of that thing.

DiamCalc is useful for a number of things, but there’s a big difference between computing light return from known proportions and trying to hand-wrap a wireframe around a photo to extrapolate a 3D model, like our friends in this thread are doing.

Three thoughts on virtual modeling/ray tracing: (1) Though not flawless, DiamCalc is very helpful for modeling existing cuts and could be especially helpful in the development of new cuts. (2) It is much farther along now than it was 5 years ago. (3) It will be much farther along 5 years from now.

Max Headroom? Naw, David - I was too young (ducking).

Actually yes, my little brother was fascinated with him. We shared a room so I dealt with ‘The Max Headroom’ show ad nauseum. It still gives me the-the-the-the-the heebie jeebies.

If I can somehow untangle this sentance, it would seem that you're saying this:
If you want H&A- you need the 53-57% table- but if you DON'T care about the patterns, then a 60% is more likely to produce an attractive diamond.
'Light Leakage' around the table???...hmmmm. Call Roto Rooter

I agree- if a cutter is going for 60/60 with strong H&A pattern, they will not be succseful.

Of course this does nothing to contradict MY statement: When cutters use 60% tables they are more likely to produce a great looking stone- even with merely 'good' symmetry, and no patterns. When cutters go for 'Ideal', H&A, etc...if they are succesful the resultant stone will have a lot of fire, and a distinct H&A pattern.
Many would argue that these 'Ideals' are as beautiful as a well cut 60/60 ( of course many here are trying to argue 'Ideals' are better)
But if the cutters does NOT acheive the H&A pattern there's a good chance the 'near miss' stones will not look nearly as good as a typical ( no H&A) 60/60.
SO- It's easier for cutters to produce good looking stones with 60% tables.

We're saying the same thing from different angles here.

I have been using the term patterning rather than H&A because it’s a better technical description of the goal for the diamond: Good patterning optimizes performance, whereas H&A are considered ‘cute.’

No argument on the rest. Beauty has many different faces.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sorry Guys
Time poor
did Peter Yantzers presentation in Mumbai yesterday
Sergey and I are on stage in 5 hours

the sym is so bad on this stone, and the pic - its a real hard one for crown angle - but without a steep angle - the weight does not make it to the given # - but then I never had the girdle thickness - which is pretty thick too i think

please get an srn David as then we can check every angle and also the scan accuracy

 

[Iiro]

I had no idea of the actual measurements or weight, I just draw by the facets.

I will wait how close I got with angles, girdle and table size.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Garry- I'd love to get my hands on your frequent flyer miles....hehehe

I was on stage last night too........ a bunchofdrunkinNewyawkas ...... Of course the drunker you are the better I sound. ( conversly, the drunker I get the better I think you probably think I sound)

How did your show go???


Iiro- we already know what GIA celled the table- 62%.
Of course table measurements are estimations, unlike w x l measurements.

 

[Iiro]

Did we know that? Then I can say GIA had it close to right this time

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/15/2005 1:49:39 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 7/15/2005 1:41:02 PM
Author: Rhino
Not sure how accurate this ...

Just a question about GA use: are the RBC models fully specified or is it possible to generate the same top-down image with different sets of compensating parameters ? From what I understand, this could be the case with the single refraction wireframe models at least even though varying angles would vary under carefully selected lighting models for the rendered image. if this is true, than fitting pictures as it was attempte on this thread becomes allot more involved

Hope this makes sense an does not waste your time...

Hi Val,

I think this may be the case since there are many possible combinations. I''m going to test it out on stones whose proportions i already know nad see what happens.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/15/2005 3:17:43 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


I''m shooting from the hip on that one though. Rhino – do you recall the study I’m thinking of?

Yep. Here''s Professional Jeweler''s summary at this link.

http://www.professionaljeweler.com/archives/articles/2002/jan02/0102dg.html

In brief... (btw DCLR is short for dispersed colored light return or GIA''s future metric for dispersion or fire).

DCLR in general increases as crown angle increases.

DCLR in general decreases as the pavilion angle increases.

DCLR in general decreases as table percentages increase.

DCLR is highest for a 34&Mac251; crown angle combined with a star facet length of 64%-65%.

DCLR showed dramatic increases as lower girdle facets increased in length 45%-85%.

DCLR showed few changes as girdle thickness or culet sizes were changed.

(emphasis mine).

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/15/2005 3:19:32 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/15/2005 1:41:02 PM
Author: Rhino
Not sure how accurate this is since it''s my first attempt at estimating through DC. Garry?

You might be right for one set of facets.
After 2 hours of wire framing it this is my conclusion:
The table varies from 62.3%-63.5% ish and the crown and pavilion angles vary by as much as 1.5 degrees.
The picture isnt good enough to get a good average because you cant do all the facets.
I gave up after fighting to do 3 sides of the diamond.
GIGO
Id be shocked if anyone gets close to the sarin average.

btw this is my 5th diamond I wire framed dont take that as factual LOL

Haha... wazzup man. Now we''ve got reason to play more. In any case whenever i do an analysis its always on a loose stone and not a mounted one and of course after working with virtual models generated from the actual stone I suppose I''m a little spoiled.

I can see how this can be a really helpful tool for appraisers if indeed it is doable.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/15/2005 4:42:56 PM
Author: set2374
I have been following this thread as a lurker and have been fascinated by the way it has morphed. Not to interupt the flow here, but I wanted to say a few words on the original topic... are H&A''s and other Uber Ideals a fad??? While there are others here who are clearly better versed than me to discuss the technical details involved with generating these little objects of beauty, I would like to offer a slightly different perspective on this issue. I am a typical consumer that was wise enough to research on this and other sites. I am also a corporate attorney by trade and I have an finance and economic background. I am basing my theory on the following assumptions: (1) internet vendors benefit from operating with less overhead and can, therefore, generate the same or better profits working on lower margins; (2) consumers today are more knowledgeable than their counterparts 20 years ago, have more access to pricing information (like Rapaport); and (3) sites like PS will continue to grow and prosper, further increasing consumer awareness

If I were to make a prediction, I think we are going to see the continued growth of Uber Ideals like H&A or uniquely faceted cuts like Eightyniters, Lucern etc. As margins grow tighter in the diamond industry with the increasing proliferation of online sales and increasing knoweldge baseBecause patented cuts with different facet numbers allow vendors to offer a ''premium'' product that can be distinguished from the mass market for which they can justify a premium price. Design patents have a shorter lifespan (6 years) than patents in general (18 years). As these patents expire, new designs will rise to take their place to provide a continuing degree of exclusivity. DeBeers (whether you like them or not) created the modern diamond market with savy marketing. Marketing for Uber Ideals is the next wave in an industry that is growing increasing competitive. H&A''s are here to stay. Whether they are better than 60:60''s will make no difference. They will be perceived as better and more exclusve as the ad agencies and marketing people continue to brand them, as will the even more ''exciting'' patented cuts. I think women want something that will be different (if not better) than what their friends have and these Uber Ideals appeal to that quality. If her friends have H&A''s she can have modified brilliant that will make her friends say ''darn, why didn''t i think of getting that''. It''s human nature. Well, that''s my food for thought.

Good input SET. It''s exactly what we''re seeing happen with the Eighternity and Solasfera lines. People who are looking for an alternative to the 57 facet round are really taking to each of these 2 other patented cuts as each are also cut to maximize optical properties or certain optical characteristics. Whether people like them better or not its always interesting to hear their reaction when comparing these with top 57 facet cuts.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/15/2005 9:15:59 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Sorry Guys
Time poor
did Peter Yantzers presentation in Mumbai yesterday
Sergey and I are on stage in 5 hours

the sym is so bad on this stone, and the pic - its a real hard one for crown angle - but without a steep angle - the weight does not make it to the given # - but then I never had the girdle thickness - which is pretty thick too i think

please get an srn David as then we can check every angle and also the scan accuracy

Hi Garry- Just noticed you knocked the sym on this stone. You can''t be referrig to the "symmetry" which GIA graded as "Very Good"? Right? IUf you look back a few pages, I posted the GIA report.

Once I remove the stone from the setting I''ll take some side phtos for you guys- before we do the sarin