depth question- shallow cut???

[susiQ]

I just purchased a diamond that is GIA cert and already set. I do not know the crown and pavillion #''s, which I now understand are very important in determining cut quality. I was wondering if there is a way to determine whether my diamond is a shallower cut or not based on its measurements. Also, is it assumed that if you are buying an ideal cut that it will not be shallow/deep?

here''s the info

.84 ct VS1 H Ideal round, 6.09 x 6.14 x 3.69 mm, 57% table 60.3% depth, EX/EX, no fluor. thin to med. girdle culet-none
I''ve tried comparing it to other .84 ct with about the same diameter on the web and thier depth measurements are closer to 3.75-3.85 mm. What difference will +/- 1 mm do to a diamond''s appearance? can I run any tests on an already set diamond (for light return, cut quality, etc) or would I have to have it removed from its setting???

I''d appreciate anyone''s input!!!!!

 

[susiQ]

also, wondering if the price sounds right... $3967

 

[alexah]

Who said the stone is ideal? -Not to scare you, but that term is used far too loosely... Assuming tho that it is an ideal H&A diamond, that price seems about right (what kind of setting came with it?).

Don''t worry about it being too shallow - as you can see from the AGA cut chart (LINK), you''ve nothing to worry about.

 

[susiQ]

I probably worded that wrong. Before I found this forum, my BF and I built this ring on bluenile, so it is already set in a white gold cathedral setting (so too late to ask for sarin etc...) We have 30 days to return it, so I just want to get some opinions. It was listed as an ideal cut by bluenile....and we can see the arrows with our naked eye, however it seems to look a little dark when I look at it closely... is that normal? I was thinking maybe it was on the shallow side and that is what caused the darkness.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/17/2004 5:14:21 PM
Author: susiQ

I was thinking maybe it was on the shallow side and that is what caused the darkness.

(CONFUSED POST REMOVED: why did I think this was 57% deep ?)

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Hi Ana,

I am not sure what you mean by saying that her stone is shallow. It was my impression that (and I say this without knowing crown and pav angles) that a 60.3% total depth and a 57% table were quite fine and fell within the AGS0 zone (at least for total depth and table). So I guess I am a little confused as to why you would think that the stone is shallow?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/17/2004 7:44:36 PM
Author: fortheloveofdiamonds
Hi Ana,

I am not sure what you mean by saying that her stone is shallow

Why... beacuse I thought (no idea why, the truth reads black on white) that depth was 57 and table 60!

 

[susiQ]

I am a little confused too. Is it possible to have a table % Depth % combination within the AGS0 zone that results in a shallow(er) stone?

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Date: 11/17/2004 8:23:24 PM
Author: valeria101

Why... beacuse I thought (no idea why, the truth reads black on white) that depth was 57 and table 60!

Hiya Ana,

hihi! I do that sometimes myself! LOL! Thanks for clarifying!