Hello all,
The other day I posted specs on a borderline FIC (35.5c/40.6p) diamond and requested some of your input. Well, since then, I have had the opportunity to view against two other HCA<2 TIC diamonds. Below are the #s and my own thoughts:
(1)
1.72 SI1 - GIA EX (HCA 1.4 xxxvg TIC, but soooo close to FIC)COMPLETELY eye clean
Depth: 61.9 % Table: 57 %
Crown Angle: 35.5° Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.6° Pavilion Depth: 43 %
Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Polish: Very Good Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Faint
(2)
1.56 G SI2 - GIA EX (HCA 1.1 xxxvg)- not completely eye clean, but not so bad for an SI2
Depth: 61.9 % Table: 55 %
Crown Angle: 33.5° Crown Height: 14.5 %
Pavilion Angle: 41° Pavilion Depth: 43.5 %
Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Polish: Very Good Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None
(3)
1.71 H SI1 - GIA EX (HCA 1.7 xxxvg - TIC)- not eyeclean
Depth: 62.1 % Table: 57 %
Crown Angle: 35° Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.8° Pavilion Depth: 43 %
Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Polish: Excellent Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Faint
In viewing the three stones and paying attention only to performance (ignoring clarity and color), to me the clear winner was the near-FIC G 1.72 (stone 1). I had the chance to look at the stone inside (diffused light and spotlight)as well as outside. Under direct spotlight, stone 1 was the clear winner (interestingly, while it appeared to display noticeably more fire than the others at any viewing angle and in larger flashes, it absolutely killed the other ones when viewed from larger angles (relative to a perpendicular view straight at the table). Stone 2 came in second, and it seemed to display smaller bursts of fire. I repeatedly asked for the 1.71 and 1.72 to be mixed up so I didn''t know which was which - without exception I picked out stone 1.
When it came to looking at the stones under diffused lighting, outside(though I did not compare to stone 3 outside), or under my cupped hand, there did not appear to be a discernible difference. I spent a long time comparing them to each other, but could not make out any differences. For that reason, I was somewhat surprised by what I saw using an idealscope. Stones 2 and 3 both appeared GREAT under the IS. However, stone 1 had some noticeable leakage under the table. There was a very noticeable difference between stone 1 and stones 2/3. Not quite believing my eyes, I again asked for stones 1 and 3 to be mixed up without me knowing which is which, and I picked out stone 1 as the better stone very again and again. I compared the stones with tweezers, by laying them in a line between my fingers, while lying face up on a black surface, and while placed on sample rings - and every single time, I preferred stone 1 (despite what the IS suggested, and despite the 35.5c/40.6p combo being combined with an lgf% of 75 instead of the recommended 80%). I simply noticed no comparable darkness in the diamond no matter how hard I tried.
Given the dissonance between what my eyes told me and the IS, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts...
------------
BTW - Working with Yekutiel and Tami at ID Jewelry was a fantastic experience. They were patient, knowledgeable, and a pleasure to work with. Before I ever mentioned even pricecsope, Yekutiel got on his computer and went straight to the HCA to weed out HCA 2+ diamonds and helped me find exactly what I was looking for.
The other day I posted specs on a borderline FIC (35.5c/40.6p) diamond and requested some of your input. Well, since then, I have had the opportunity to view against two other HCA<2 TIC diamonds. Below are the #s and my own thoughts:
(1)
1.72 SI1 - GIA EX (HCA 1.4 xxxvg TIC, but soooo close to FIC)COMPLETELY eye clean
Depth: 61.9 % Table: 57 %
Crown Angle: 35.5° Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.6° Pavilion Depth: 43 %
Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Polish: Very Good Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Faint
(2)
1.56 G SI2 - GIA EX (HCA 1.1 xxxvg)- not completely eye clean, but not so bad for an SI2
Depth: 61.9 % Table: 55 %
Crown Angle: 33.5° Crown Height: 14.5 %
Pavilion Angle: 41° Pavilion Depth: 43.5 %
Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Polish: Very Good Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None
(3)
1.71 H SI1 - GIA EX (HCA 1.7 xxxvg - TIC)- not eyeclean
Depth: 62.1 % Table: 57 %
Crown Angle: 35° Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.8° Pavilion Depth: 43 %
Star length: 50 % Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Polish: Excellent Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Faint
In viewing the three stones and paying attention only to performance (ignoring clarity and color), to me the clear winner was the near-FIC G 1.72 (stone 1). I had the chance to look at the stone inside (diffused light and spotlight)as well as outside. Under direct spotlight, stone 1 was the clear winner (interestingly, while it appeared to display noticeably more fire than the others at any viewing angle and in larger flashes, it absolutely killed the other ones when viewed from larger angles (relative to a perpendicular view straight at the table). Stone 2 came in second, and it seemed to display smaller bursts of fire. I repeatedly asked for the 1.71 and 1.72 to be mixed up so I didn''t know which was which - without exception I picked out stone 1.
When it came to looking at the stones under diffused lighting, outside(though I did not compare to stone 3 outside), or under my cupped hand, there did not appear to be a discernible difference. I spent a long time comparing them to each other, but could not make out any differences. For that reason, I was somewhat surprised by what I saw using an idealscope. Stones 2 and 3 both appeared GREAT under the IS. However, stone 1 had some noticeable leakage under the table. There was a very noticeable difference between stone 1 and stones 2/3. Not quite believing my eyes, I again asked for stones 1 and 3 to be mixed up without me knowing which is which, and I picked out stone 1 as the better stone very again and again. I compared the stones with tweezers, by laying them in a line between my fingers, while lying face up on a black surface, and while placed on sample rings - and every single time, I preferred stone 1 (despite what the IS suggested, and despite the 35.5c/40.6p combo being combined with an lgf% of 75 instead of the recommended 80%). I simply noticed no comparable darkness in the diamond no matter how hard I tried.
Given the dissonance between what my eyes told me and the IS, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts...
------------
BTW - Working with Yekutiel and Tami at ID Jewelry was a fantastic experience. They were patient, knowledgeable, and a pleasure to work with. Before I ever mentioned even pricecsope, Yekutiel got on his computer and went straight to the HCA to weed out HCA 2+ diamonds and helped me find exactly what I was looking for.
300x240.png)