shape
carat
color
clarity

Depth issues

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

honey22

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
4,458
I have recently found a few really nice AGS000 stones, but they have slightly higher depths than recommended by you guys here. ie. 62 and another one 62.2 (all the other angles are nice, 55 table). Are these bad stones? Should I really stick to under 62 or are these still classified as ''ideal cut''. Also, does anyone have a link that shows the actual AGS cut grades with measurements, I can''t find them on the net anywhere! Thanks in advance (again!).
 
No, they aren''t ''bad'' stones.......

People who prefer under 62 (I''m one of them) generally prefer it because they want the maximum possible spread....and that helps to get them there.

It doesn''t mean all diamonds 62 and over are bad.
 
62% is simply an arbitrary line in the sand when it comes to the complete package of decision making. A slightly less deep stone will have a larger diameter, but 1% or 2% less depth is not going to be an enormous visible difference. Antwerp Paul has often proved that depth percentage in fancy shapes is especially a doubtful tool. With round diamonds, it has some merit.

Take as an example a hypothetical 1.038 carat diamond measuring 6.5 x 4.03mm @62% depth.
The same weight diamond with a 60% depth and cut with the same girdle thickness, culet size and table % would be about 6.6mm in diameter.
Little things like table, culet and girdle can throw this theoretical comparison off. The size variation could be a bit more or a bit less, maybe even reversed, on occasion.

In diamonds, we worry over some very small things many of which are pretty much invisble.
 
Thanks for the reply. So, they will still sparkle like crazy and look fantastic? I think I would rather go for a stone with this kind of depth that have to drop two colour grades (which is what''s available to me at the moment, with everything else equal besides depth). What would you suggest?
33.gif
 
I would suggest that you have made a wise decision.
 
Date: 12/6/2007 2:54:59 PM
Author: oldminer
62% is simply an arbitrary line in the sand when it comes to the complete package of decision making. A slightly less deep stone will have a larger diameter, but 1% or 2% less depth is not going to be an enormous visible difference. Antwerp Paul has often proved that depth percentage in fancy shapes is especially a doubtful tool. With round diamonds, it has some merit.

Take as an example a hypothetical 1.038 carat diamond measuring 6.5 x 4.03mm @62% depth.
The same weight diamond with a 60% depth and cut with the same girdle thickness, culet size and table % would be about 6.6mm in diameter.
Little things like table, culet and girdle can throw this theoretical comparison off. The size variation could be a bit more or a bit less, maybe even reversed, on occasion.

In diamonds, we worry over some very small things many of which are pretty much invisble.
I am very sorry to rain on anyone''s parade, but in round brilliants, depth does have a meaning, and I strongly resent that it is being dismissed as of little importance using my words on a totally different subject.

Live long,
 
Hi Paul, In you opinion, should I be avoiding those stones? Your thoughts would be appreciated too.

Thanks oldminer for your reassurance.
 
It is not up to me to tell you to avoid something or not. That is up to your comfort level.

If you are happy with the stone being AGS-0, nothing is wrong with this stone. But within AGS-0, there are still different levels of cut-quality. In princess-cuts, this difference is bigger than in rounds, but it might be important to you.

Maybe, if you post the complete info of the stone, you would not get the reassurance that other posters are giving you now. On the other hand, maybe not.

To summarize: if the stones have a new-style AGS-0 (with a grade on light performance), these are not bad stones. Could you do better? Most probably. Is this quality sufficient? Only you can decide.

Live long,
 
Paul;

I''m sorry to have upset you. No harm was meant by my post. I believed I was being complimentary and you took my message in a way that was not intended.

Of course, depth percent is pertinent to rounds, but it is my belief that you have said that depth percent is not reliable for fancy shapes. This is what I was said, but something didn''t make sense to you in the way I phrased it. Again, I don''t wish to mislead anyone or make you feel abused. I have no agenda to criticize, but only to provide help to those who ask for it.

Within EVERY grade on a diamond, whether color, clarity or cut is a RANGE. Depending on the portion being graded or on the system the lab happens to use, the range is narrow, moderate or wide. Inside every grade are diamonds which differ somewhat from one another and we can debate if they are mid grade, borderline higher or borderline lower types all day long without any real agreement. The wider the range of the system being used, the more stones readily fit safely within the borderlines, but the less defining of quality the grade actually becomes. The narrower the grade, the more defined and alike each stone is, but there will be many arguments over borderline calls due to the narrowness of the system.

It isn''t a perfect thing to look at the natural world and create a classification system which everyone basically can agree upon and use. Its done to create communication, but it is never 100% accurate. No matter what system is employed, there will be borderline calls requiring judgment. That''s why judging a diamond, screening for diamonds, or selecting one, only by depth is not a "best'' method. It is helpful, but not a defining way to go.
 
Date: 12/7/2007 7:53:24 AM
Author: oldminer
Paul;

I''m sorry to have upset you. No harm was meant by my post. I believed I was being complimentary and you took my message in a way that was not intended.
That is how I read it.
 
It is OK, David, and I apologize for reacting so fervently. May I blame it on a bad day from my side?

Live long,
 
Sure thing. I definitely don''t want to sit next to you at dinner this summer when you are holding a sharp implement!!!!

Have a better evening, a cool beer, a long quiet smoke and a much better tomorrow. My day is just beginning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top