Down to two diamonds (possibly, let''s see how this goes)

[mmja07]

I''ve narrowed some of this down to two, what do you guys think...(unfortunately no Ideal-Scope on either)

Diamond #1:
CCCC: Round, FVS1, 1.63
Measurements: 7.55 - 7.52 x 4.64 mm
Cut: Excellent

Depth: 61.6
Table: 57
Crown Angle: 34.5
Crown: 15%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Pavilion: 43%
Star: 55
Lower Girdle: 80
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted (3.5%)

Pol: Excellent
Sym: Excellent
Flu: None

Diamond #2:
CCCC: Round, FVS2, 1.56
Measurements: 7.44 - 7.48 x 4.59 mm

Depth: 61.5
Table: 57
Crown Angle: 35
Crown: 15%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion: 43%
Star: 50
Lower Girdle: 80
Girdle: Medium, Faceted (3.5%)

Pol: Excellent
Sym: Excellent
Flu: None

Thanks again to everyone! This site is an invaluable source of info.

M

 

[Lorelei]

Hi mmja,

They both have potential, I prefer the first due to the angle combo without Idealscope images at this stage. I take it these are both GIA graded? Is getting Idealscope images for these diamonds a possibility?

 

[mmja07]

Lorelei . . . you are a huge help, thanks a lot. Unfortunately the Idealscope''s are just not available unless I order the diamond(s) :/

Yes, they are both GIA graded. The numbers came off of the ReportCheck on GIA''s website.

Question - when both follow most of the guidance you guys have offered, and are rated highly by HCA, is there a doubt that either one wouldn''t be a nice stone, it''s just one may be slightly better than another?? And at that point you''d want to take the better Idealscope picture.

Thanks again!

M

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/15/2009 3:36:18 PM
Author: mmja07
Lorelei . . . you are a huge help, thanks a lot. Unfortunately the Idealscope's are just not available unless I order the diamond(s) :/

Yes, they are both GIA graded. The numbers came off of the ReportCheck on GIA's website.

Question - when both follow most of the guidance you guys have offered, and are rated highly by HCA, is there a doubt that either one wouldn't be a nice stone, it's just one may be slightly better than another?? And at that point you'd want to take the better Idealscope picture.

Thanks again!

M

Thank you, I try to help!!

The concern I have here is with the second diamond which has the 35/40.8 crown and pavilion angle combo. GIA round the numbers, and 35/40.8 is the beginning of what we call the steep deep zone. Basically this means that angle combos of this range and steeper may lead to light leakage in a diamond, this can cause the diamond to show dark, dead patches in some circumstances and it won't sparkle as well as it could. As GIA round the numbers, without Idealscope we have no way of knowing if the diamond in question will show leakage or not. If the numbers are actually rounded in a steeper direction, the diamond could show leakage as a result. If they are shallower then the diamond could be perfectly fine! But without Idealscope it is hard to say and one of these images is very useful in cases like this as it will reveal leakage if there is any, and if so to what extent, or it would tell us that the diamond is fine - really it could go either way.

 

[mmja07]

Date: 4/15/2009 3:43:52 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/15/2009 3:36:18 PM

Author: mmja07

Lorelei . . . you are a huge help, thanks a lot. Unfortunately the Idealscope''s are just not available unless I order the diamond(s) :/


Yes, they are both GIA graded. The numbers came off of the ReportCheck on GIA''s website.


Question - when both follow most of the guidance you guys have offered, and are rated highly by HCA, is there a doubt that either one wouldn''t be a nice stone, it''s just one may be slightly better than another?? And at that point you''d want to take the better Idealscope picture.


Thanks again!


M

Thank you, I try to help!!


The concern I have here is with the second diamond which has the 35/40.8 crown and pavilion angle combo. GIA round the numbers, and 35/40.8 is the beginning of what we call the steep deep zone. Basically this means that angle combos of this range and steeper may lead to light leakage in a diamond, this can cause the diamond to show dark, dead patches in some circumstances and it won''t sparkle as well as it could. As GIA round the numbers, without Idealscope we have no way of knowing if the diamond in question will show leakage or not. If the numbers are actually rounded in a steeper direction, the diamond could show leakage as a result. If they are shallower then the diamond could be perfectly fine! But without Idealscope it is hard to say and one of these images is very useful in cases like this as it will reveal leakage if there is any, and if so to what extent, or it would tell us that the diamond is fine - really it could go either way.

I see, so a 40.8 could actually be a 40.9 which would put it even farther into the "steep and deep" range.

 

[Lorelei]

Thats it exactly! If you would like further reading, check out this thread.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-ex-let-the-buyer-beware.41371/

 

[mmja07]

I'm catching on!

I can see how this applies. A new one with different rounding scheme applied available.

GIA HCA = 0.9, Ex, Ex, Ex, VG
Other HCA = 1.4, Ex, Ex, Ex, VG

GIA Report:
CCCC: Round, FVS1, 1.51
Measurements: 7.36 - 7.40 x 4.52 mm
Cut: Excellent
Pol: Excellent
Sym: Excellent
Flu: None

Depth: 61.2%
Table: 57%
Crown Angle: 35.0°
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6°
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Star length: 50%
Lower Half: 80%
Girdle: Medium, Faceted (3.0%)
Culet: None

Other rounding system:
Depth: 61.3% (0.1 higher)
Table: 57% (same)
Crown Angle: 35.1° (0.1 higher)
Crown Height: 15.4% (0.1 lower)
Pavilion Angle: 40.7° (0.1 higher, hmm)
Pavilion Depth: 43.0% (same)


And I thought the hard part was finding the girl . . . :-/