Beautiful stone, bad proportions

[Karl_K]

The (potential) issue with 34 crown and 40.6 pav angles is that they aren't "complementary".

Please dont be mad at me but...
Please check the hca for an actual angle(not gia numbers) 57t/34/40.6 cut properly with the right lowers(77+) it can be a kicken BIC.
With the wrong actual pavilion angles and lowers they can be a bit of a train wreck.

 

[lovedogs]

Please dont be mad at me but...
Please check the hca for an actual angle(not gia numbers) 57t/34/40.6 cut properly with the right lowers(77+) it can be a kicken BIC.
With the wrong actual pavilion angles and lowers they can be a bit of a train wreck.

Totally fair point, and why I said "potentially" can be an issue. But without more info, I don't have any way of putting anything else into the HCA (beyond the stones OP had all the info for).

 

[DiamondsAndDior]

The other week I compared an "ideal cut" unmentionable stone (not allowed to be discussed here) vs. a super ideal diamond. the crafted by infinity is on the left (in the halo), and the unmentionable is on the right. Another unmentionable is on top (unset). I was trying to show that the two "ideal" cuts had a "spot" in the middle that made them easy to spot vs. the less ideal cut. I personally prefer the CBI because it has the biggest "spot". I'm sure there's a technical term for this, but to me it gives the stone extra depth and this weird extra 3-d look. But there are some people who think it looks overly dark and oddly "contrasty", and therefore prefer stones with different proportions.

Oh I totally see the difference and what you mean by contrasty! Just curious...what do you mean by an ideal cut unmentionable stone? Why are certain stones not allowed to be discussed here?

 

[lovedogs]

Oh I totally see the difference and what you mean by contrasty! Just curious...what do you mean by an ideal cut unmentionable stone? Why are certain stones not allowed to be discussed here?

There's a section called "fabulous fashion jewelry" where we can discuss diamond alternatives, and another section called "lab diamonds" where we can discuss lab diamonds. But rocky talky is really for diamonds only. That's why I can't specifically name the stone itself here.

 

[kmoro]

The numbers are drivel.
65% for a mrb really? on what planet?
All of the numbers are opinion stated as fact without any logical justification for using those specific numbers.

I think it said the ideal range for depth is 59.5 to 62.9 ... and the range 56.5 to 65 was considered “good”. ... I mean, you’re the expert, I have no problem with that and value your opinion wayyyy above any article google spits out at me, I just don’t understand how this is the biggest pile of crap ever. I do agree that none of the numbers should be stated as fact without providing the logical justification; however, I thought the numbers looked reasonable based on what I know from specifications like those posted on the WF site. Well, thank goodness you’re in the trade and I’m not, lol, cuz I thought it was ok.
Thank you for explaining - I honestly can see where you’re coming from whereas before I was pretty confused.
Sorry for spreading crap, PSers! I meant well.

 

[lovedogs]

I think it said the ideal range for depth is 59.5 to 62.9 ... and the range 56.5 to 65 was considered “good”. ... I mean, you’re the expert, I have no problem with that and value your opinion wayyyy above any article google spits out at me, I just don’t understand how this is the biggest pile of crap ever. I do agree that none of the numbers should be stated as fact without providing the logical justification; however, I thought the numbers looked reasonable based on what I know from specifications like those posted on the WF site. Well, thank goodness you’re in the trade and I’m not, lol, cuz I thought it was ok.
Thank you for explaining - I honestly can see where you’re coming from whereas before I was pretty confused.
Sorry for spreading crap, PSers! I meant well.

My biggest issue with the article is that 56 depth would be insane, as would 65 depth. That would take it to "heck no" for most of us. But if they are talking about what gets a "good" cut grade from GIA, then sure. But we all know that "good" and "very good" from GIA mean that it's horrible.

 

[kmoro]

My biggest issue with the article is that 56 depth would be insane, as would 65 depth. That would take it to "heck no" for most of us. But if they are talking about what gets a "good" cut grade from GIA, then sure. But we all know that "good" and "very good" from GIA mean that it's horrible.

100% agreed. I was operating from the knowledge that GIA “good” isn’t very good, lol, so I thought the outrageous numbers were real.

 

[Karl_K]

I think it said the ideal range for depth is 59.5 to 62.9 ... and the range 56.5 to 65 was considered “good”. ... I mean, you’re the expert, I have no problem with that and value your opinion wayyyy above any article google spits out at me, I just don’t understand how this is the biggest pile of crap ever. I do agree that none of the numbers should be stated as fact without providing the logical justification; however, I thought the numbers looked reasonable based on what I know from specifications like those posted on the WF site. Well, thank goodness you’re in the trade and I’m not, lol, cuz I thought it was ok.
Thank you for explaining - I honestly can see where you’re coming from whereas before I was pretty confused.
Sorry for spreading crap, PSers! I meant well.

Im sorry.
Drivel annoys me and I may have let it show.
Not your fault at all.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The numbers are drivel.
65% for a mrb really? on what planet?
All of the numbers are opinion stated as fact without any logical justification for using those specific numbers.

...I draw the line at 62% depth. I don't care what anyone else say.