Are these two considered fish eye in RB?

[Icy Melona]

I think the diamonds have fish eye because the centre on both appear alittle dark facing directly down, especially the one that is already set.

I've done some search on the forum and I can't find many pictures to compare. I've done the HCA calculator and the ring already set comes up as "Crown too Steep" is this an indicator for fish eye?

What does fish eye resemble or what are the red flags for fish eye?

Thank you!

 

[Icy Melona]

Another picture

 

[Icy Melona]

The specs for the diamond already set being:

62% depth, 63.4% table, 16.6% crown, 42.6% pavilion, 3% Girdle Thickness
8.44mm*8.59mm*5.28
Symmetry Good
Polish Good
Cut Medium

Unfortunately, I don't have the crown angle.

The specs for the loose stone, I don't have on my person right now.

 

[John P]

The specs for the diamond already set being:

62% depth, 63.4% table, 16.6% crown, 42.6% pavilion, 3% Girdle Thickness
8.44mm*8.59mm*5.28
Symmetry Good
Polish Good
Cut Medium

Unfortunately, I don't have the crown angle.

The specs for the loose stone, I don't have on my person right now.

What lab gave it a "medium" in cut?

Based on the data you gave (can you check table size again?) the average PA is 40.4 degrees and CA is > 42 degrees. This is extremely uncommon and a pairing of that table % and crown % is going to drastically reduce performance. Not in a fisheye sense but in the relationships of the primary angles. In fact those measurements are literally "off the chart" for both GIA and AGSL, meaning such a diamond would be considered GIA Fair-Poor in proportions and AGS 9-10 in performance.

On a positive note: If those are in fact the measurements, it's a pretty good candidate for re-cutting as a 2ct+ diamond with great performance, depending on some internal structural & clarity specifics.

 

[Amys Bling]

Difficult to tell from the pictures. But if the stone is truly considered "too deep" then performance will definitely be compromised.