Cut Experts...help...seriously looking at these!

[Starry]

Thank you all in advance for your help. I''m really seriously looking and appreciate all your advice!

I have found 6 potential diamonds and am considering which ones to deserve a closer look. Please help me choose which I should pursue (get Sarin, Idealscope, etc.). Should any be eliminated based on the info I have?

All are round brilliants. All are GIA. #1 is the only one I don''t have add''l cut info on.

#1- 1.21 carat, I color, SI1, med blue, 60.6 depth, 58 table, VG polish, EX symm, 6.85*6.88*4.16

#2- 1.05, H, VS2, no flour, 62 depth, 54 table, 34.5, 41, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm 6.54*6.59*4.07, laser inscribed H & A

#3- 1.18, G, SI2, no flour, 62 depth, 55 table, 34.5, 40.8, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm, 6.77*6.80*4.21, inscribed H & A

#4- 1.16, H, SI1, no flour, 61.8 depth, 55 table, 35.5, 40.4, no culet, med-slight thick, VG polish, VG symm, 6.72*6.74*4.16

#5- 1.01, H, SI1, faint, 61.2 depth, 58 table, 34.5, 40.8, no culet, med-slight thick, VG polish, VG symm, 6.43*6.47*3.95

#6- 1.16, I, VS1, faint, 61.9 depth, 55 table, 34, 41, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm, 6.76*6.78*4.19, inscribed H & A

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/27/2006 2:27:28 PM
Author:Starry
Thank you all in advance for your help. I'm really seriously looking and appreciate all your advice!


I have found 6 potential diamonds and am considering which ones to deserve a closer look. Please help me choose which I should pursue (get Sarin, Idealscope, etc.). Should any be eliminated based on the info I have?


All are round brilliants. All are GIA. #1 is the only one I don't have add'l cut info on.


#1- 1.21 carat, I color, SI1, med blue, 60.6 depth, 58 table, VG polish, EX symm, 6.85*6.88*4.16


#2- 1.05, H, VS2, no flour, 62 depth, 54 table, 34.5, 41, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm 6.54*6.59*4.07, laser inscribed H & A


#3- 1.18, G, SI2, no flour, 62 depth, 55 table, 34.5, 40.8, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm, 6.77*6.80*4.21, inscribed H & A


#4- 1.16, H, SI1, no flour, 61.8 depth, 55 table, 35.5, 40.4, no culet, med-slight thick, VG polish, VG symm, 6.72*6.74*4.16


#5- 1.01, H, SI1, faint, 61.2 depth, 58 table, 34.5, 40.8, no culet, med-slight thick, VG polish, VG symm, 6.43*6.47*3.95


#6- 1.16, I, VS1, faint, 61.9 depth, 55 table, 34, 41, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm, 6.76*6.78*4.19, inscribed H & A

Well, I'm no expert, but I can try to help and tell you what I've learned.

1. Without angles, it's hard to say much.
2. Not sure if the 41 pav angle would be considered too deep and/or whether the crown angle is shallow enough to compensate. For me personally, the depth is a little high. I don't know that it would impact performance any, but it will impact how large the diamond appears. If you want to maximize spread, I would try for closer to 60-61.
3. The angles look nice, but same comment on depth.
4. Not sure about the crown angle, but, again, perhaps the shallow pav angle might be enough to compensate??
5. The angles look more mainstream "ideal" and the depth seems better.
6. Same concern about whether the shallow crown angle and steep pav angle balance out. Don't know the answer to that.

Please take everything I'm saying with a large grain of salt. Hopefully an expert will chime in soon. Good luck!

 

[JohnQuixote]

You may want to ask for Sarin and Ideal-Scope on all. GIA's reports give rounded crown and pavilion angles which allow limited comparative feedback at this level. Based on the rounded data, Demelza's comments are good ones.

 

[Starry]

Demelza & John- Thanks for the comments thus far. Is there any of the stones based on the rounded numbers that you would eliminate or do all of them have enough potential to get the add''l information? Thanks!

More opinions would be greatly appreciated!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/27/2006 5:34:42 PM
Author: Starry
Demelza & John- Thanks for the comments thus far. Is there any of the stones based on the rounded numbers that you would eliminate or do all of them have enough potential to get the add'l information? Thanks!

More opinions would be greatly appreciated!

From the skeletal info provided, I'd say #1 is a mystery and #4 is outside my conventional paradigms. Meanwhile, #3 and #5 seem most promising... But, I wouldn't dismiss any out of hand.

With the info given it's like playing 'Wheel Of Fortune,' where some of the letters are turned around and we can offer a guess that the puzzle is going to say a certain thing. It might well be as we suspect, but you never know until all of the letters are revealed.

Sarin data and Ideal-Scope images would put you a low of vowels and consonants ahead of where you are now.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/27/2006 5:34:42 PM
Author: Starry
Demelza & John- Thanks for the comments thus far. Is there any of the stones based on the rounded numbers that you would eliminate or do all of them have enough potential to get the add'l information? Thanks!


More opinions would be greatly appreciated!

nope wouldn't throw any of em out.
need more info on 1
Some are a little deep but not for bad reasons. they have small tables and great angles which makes then a little deep.

#4 has the makings of a nice fic which is kewl if fiery diamonds are what you like.
#6 is looking like a bic which is kewl if you like very bright diamonds.

 

[He Scores]

Date: 6/27/2006 2:27:28 PM
Author:Starry
Thank you all in advance for your help. I''m really seriously looking and appreciate all your advice!

I have found 6 potential diamonds and am considering which ones to deserve a closer look. Please help me choose which I should pursue (get Sarin, Idealscope, etc.). Should any be eliminated based on the info I have?

All are round brilliants. All are GIA. #1 is the only one I don''t have add''l cut info on.

#1- 1.21 carat, I color, SI1, med blue, 60.6 depth, 58 table, VG polish, EX symm, 6.85*6.88*4.16

#2- 1.05, H, VS2, no flour, 62 depth, 54 table, 34.5, 41, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm 6.54*6.59*4.07, laser inscribed H & A

#3- 1.18, G, SI2, no flour, 62 depth, 55 table, 34.5, 40.8, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm, 6.77*6.80*4.21, inscribed H & A

#4- 1.16, H, SI1, no flour, 61.8 depth, 55 table, 35.5, 40.4, no culet, med-slight thick, VG polish, VG symm, 6.72*6.74*4.16

#5- 1.01, H, SI1, faint, 61.2 depth, 58 table, 34.5, 40.8, no culet, med-slight thick, VG polish, VG symm, 6.43*6.47*3.95

#6- 1.16, I, VS1, faint, 61.9 depth, 55 table, 34, 41, no culet, thin-med, EX polish, EX symm, 6.76*6.78*4.19, inscribed H & A

#3 and #5 have to be nice stones with the critical angles so close to ideal. I''d watch once that bottom angle goes toward 41 or plus, you may end up with a darker center. Personally I''d stay away from #4...too flat on bottom and too high on top. It may be bright but I don''t like the way they look from the side....sort of top heavy.

I''d probably like #3 the best since it has the thinnest girdle, giving it slightly more spread,, although the girdle on #5 probably detracts from the color unless it''s faceted. I don''t facet girdles on stones H-I or below because they tend to face up darker than with the natural girdle.






Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter