Comment on this Interesting Diamond

[mdx]

Please comment on this diamond as you would if it was presented by a consumer looking for advise.

There is something very interesting about this diamond I would like to demonstrate after a few regulars have commented on the potential.
Consider if these dimensions could possibly display Hearts & Arrows.
How should it look with an Idealscope, (Diamcalc users)

Allow a bit of time for the reply for time difference between USA and Aus

Weight: 0.703
GIA
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Symmetry: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Diam avg. 5.67
Total Depth: 3.49 mm – 61.6%
Pavilion Depth: 2.42mm 42.6%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6 (40.5 – 40.7)
Crown Height 0.85mm 14.9%
Crown Angle: 34.3 (33.9 – 34.
Table Size: 56%
Culet 0.7% Very Small
Girdle Avg: Sl.Thick


Johan
Melbourne Diamond Exchange Ltd (Australia)

 

[Rank Amateur]

Very interesting!

It must not be as good as it looks on paper.

 

[oldminer]

I see a Sl. thick girdle...Not much else seem "off". I also suspect some issue not addressed by parameters. What is it? CURIOUS!

 

[aljdewey]

The numbers of the stone look amazing......so if I were a consumer, I'd definitely give it consideration.




To me, that means sending it to an independent appraiser to make sure it performs as well as the numbers suggest it should. Why? Because I realize that numbers are only part of the story......they are a tool to weed out poor performs, *not* a tool to conclusive identify strong performance. That has to be done by eye.

 

[Mara]

Is it just me or is the crown angle range quite wide?




Other than that, things look okay from #'s except for slightly thick girdle, but I would want more information (E.g. pictures, IS, Sarin, etc before buying).

 

[canadiangrrl]

The girdle average sends up a tiny red flag....

 

[Giangi]

Looks pretty thing. Why did you write sl thick instead of giving us the max/min%?

 

[caratgirl]

Looks fine to me...I am looking forward to hearing what the problem is with this stone. The girdle is a bit thicker than I would like, but still should be okay. The one thing that you did not post was the diameter numbers - just an average. If I had to guess at a problem, it might be a bit out of round?

 

[mdx]

Ok guys here is the Ideal scope Diamcalc image, Yes Giani the max girdle is pretty thick , but that’s not the problem,
The next post will show the reason this stone is such a dog.

Johan

 

[mdx]

Aljdewey is spot on. The numbers must be used to eliminate poor performers, Expert appraisal is critical and so is a return policy.

What I think happened here is the cutter was cutting for an AGS 0 and found he would not make 0.70ct. To retain the weight and fool the numbers he placed very small lower girdle facets polishing them to perfect symmetry and surface finish. Then to cap it all he hid the stone behind the credibility of a GIA cert.

Note the large main Pavilion facets and small lower girdle facets.

Visually the diamond has very strange and ugly twinkle if you rock it under a diamond light

Interesting ?

Johan

 

[Mara]

Interesting Johan.




From your experience, are stones like this that are meant to fool by numbers typical or are they more remote?




Good example to show that even more so than just extra numbers....an IdealScope image of the stone would come in very handy. You would see as similar to the DC image that this stone has the RING OF DEATH (do I get $5 CG?) and pass it up ASAP.

 

[mdx]

Mara

Luckily we don’t see it that often, most cutters looking for weight just blatantly cut heavy stones.
You are right about the Ideal-scope these stones look terrible through them, Unfortunately our dispatch dept returned the stone to the dealer before we had a chance to photograph it, We just have the Sarin file on record.

Johan

 

[caratgirl]

I believe that Al was handing those out, Mara, I was just heavily discounting.

 

[valeria101]

Great example... and greately appreciated down here

There are two more of these among GOG's "educational diamonds": of course, there isn't much one can say using the usual numbers to begin with - just as you ere saying. So there wasn't much for me to do than see that cup of cofee get empty and hope you will post the end of the story

. It seems to me that this stone involved a pretty strange cutting decission, since, in the end, neither light retention nor light return came up to the max. I would be happy to see more of these: I bet this can happen only if more H&As are cut in the first place.

 

[canadiangrrl]

Wow. That's one freaky lookin' stone.

Just goes to prove what often gets said around here - the numbers can only tell you so much, and even then, they don't tell the full story at times.

And no, Mara, you don't get a fiver, but you do get another free drink next summer/fall when you're in MD.

 

[Mara]

CG....so you're keeping tabs on this stuff right? I don't want you welching on my free drinks!!!




(caratg...hee hee my question was aimed towards the drunk Canadian over in the corner...)

 

[fire&ice]

Can I rest my case now?

Thanks MDX - interesting. I wonder where in circulation this diamond will end up?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 1/9/2004 3:48:32 PM mdx wrote:

What I think happened here is the cutter was cutting for an AGS 0 and found he would not make 0.70ct. To retain the weight and fool the numbers he placed very small lower girdle facets polishing them to perfect symmetry and surface finish. Then to cap it all he hid the stone behind the credibility of a GIA cert.

Interesting ?

Johan

----------------

Yes, Johan - very interesting. Would it be a leap of faith to say that hiding weight in the pavillion (cutting a stone deeper) is less benign that faceting the pavillion stones in such a matter? I guess what I am saying is that - a tad deeper cut stone to retain carat weight (though losing mm/appearance) is visually more pleasing than this carat weight retaining "trick"?

 

[Giangi]

This is an interesting stone.. Such beautiful numbers and such a dog!

 

[Rhino]

MDX

That is a PERFECT example why you can't rely on Sarin data alone, that is if a person is truly seeking the most beautiful rock they can get for the $$$. The #'s can look cherry and the minor facet cutting can screw the whole thing up (depending upon the look you're after). A 34.3/40.6 combo will not produce a ring of death although 40.6 is starting to get on the shallow side of my preferences. Those lower girdles look to be around the 72-73% zone?

If you have the Sarin DiaMension hardware with the DiaVision software I can upload a couple of files for ya that'll show ya min/max lower girdle angles & %, min/max upper girdle angles & % as well. I know you already get stars.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 1/9/2004 3:51:48 PM Mara wrote:







Interesting Johan.




From your experience, are stones like this that are meant to fool by numbers typical or are they more remote?




Good example to show that even more so than just extra numbers....an IdealScope image of the stone would come in very handy. You would see as similar to the DC image that this stone has the RING OF DEATH (do I get $5 CG?) and pass it up ASAP.

----------------

That depends on the factory Mara. There are certain factories that cut these kind of stones consistently while some can be a mixed bag.

Rhino

 

[mdx]

----------------
On 1/11/2004 4:35:03 PM Rhino wrote:

MDX


If you have the Sarin DiaMension hardware with the DiaVision software I can upload a couple of files for ya that'll show ya min/max lower girdle angles & %, min/max upper girdle angles & % as well. I know you already get stars.

Peace,
Rhino----------------

Hi Jonathan
Certainly would appreciate the files. Yes we do have Sarin hardware and software.

Kind Regards
Johan