Final Thoughts?

[freaknyea]

Hello... I thought I might post this and get some feedback. Chances are I am going to buy this I just wanted to know what everyone thought? I actually have the stone and took some pictures out in the yard and such...
Thank You...
Chris Roblee
I will post images...

 

[freaknyea]

Ideal Scope

 

[freaknyea]

Somewhat of an ASET image

 

[freaknyea]

Brilliancescope

 

[freaknyea]

I have to change the quality to get the rest of the images up...I will try to get them up ASAP

 

[freaknyea]

Cert

 

[freaknyea]

Image

 

[freaknyea]

These pics are in a stone holder on my hairy finger

 

[freaknyea]

another pic

 

[freaknyea]

Number 4222
Shape Princess - Crafted by Infinity - Canadamark
Weight 1.042
Colour F
Clarity VS2
Fluorescence Negligible
Report A.G.S. - Ideal 0
Total Depth 76.8%
Table % 60.1
Crown Angle 32.2°
Crown Height % 11.1%
Pavilion Angle 42.7°
Pavilion Depth % 62.6
Girdle 2.6% to 3.5%
Culet Pointed
Measurements 5.51 x 5.51 x 4.23 mm.


Since the cert pic turned out bad

 

[decodelighted]

Hey Chris,
Could you review the specs for us ...I can't read the AGS report (bad eyes or bad scan??)

Without the specs : looks great! Does it have medium blue flor by any chance?

ETA: I see you were adding specs!! Jumped the gun. I like it, but I'm no princess expert. (your finger's not too hairy)

 

[freaknyea]

pic

 

[freaknyea]

At 10x

http://www.winkjones.com/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=16375&cat=274&page=1

 

[valeria101]

Just some 0.2 worth thought...

#1. Can't believe the symetry of that thing! Even the Aset pic is ... perfect: it looks like a well made precious mosaic or something. Yay!

#2. 5.5mm for 1 carat... that's not bad either.

#3. Perhaps no cut grading 'tool' is perfect, but this bit of diamond manages to tip the scale of alomost all I know of (Iscope, Asset, Bscope...) Nothing left to say there. Btw, as much as I can tell from trying to get a systematic view of many Bscope results, smaller diamonds (relative to whatever the range allowed by this) get hit on the 'scintillation' score. I would not be surprised if this was trully a slight bias of the device although I have not had any serious discussion about this with any bScope user - it is just a hunch of mine. This, if you ever wondered if the Bscope scores indicate that the top notch bit of diamond still leaves room for some illusive improvement in that score.

#4. This surely looks properly square even under such close up view - some of these optimized princess cuts have tables so small they end up roudish (the tables) and have less of the geometric look at least I came to expect from this cut. On a 5mm 'object' this is probably overkill to mention though.

#5. 'Bet the above mentioned detailed did not come for free, but as long as it is worth having a diamond crystal cut as well as they come, why on Earth not. Besides, I don't even know if the price wasn't attractive overall too.

Good for you!

 

[freaknyea]

another

 

[freaknyea]

another

 

[koko]

Hello, Chris.....looks like a lovely stone, I have a 1.15 c. emerald cut, and when I researched fancy shapes, I found that the table & depth should both be under 65%. Isn''t this stone a bit deep? I tried to stay in the 60''s for both table & depth with the table being the lesser. My ec ended up being 69% depth, and I thought that was too deep.

 

[freaknyea]

I am almost done

 

[freaknyea]

I believe I can be done now... I can get more pictures if you would like tommorow though .... Again these pics are in a stone holder not the actual ring...

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/2/2005 4:48:04 PM
Author: koko

... when I researched fancy shapes, I found that the table & depth should both be under 65%.

Yeah... you are right. I didn''t mention that, but perhaps should have, so I am trying to compensate now for what that matters.

With depth between 60-65 and still a reasonably sized table (not very large, that is) perhaps the cut would still eb as brilliant etc. and the stone larger. As much as I can tell, you might find one close to 6mm - but that is theory because I have yet to find an example. Same as happened with your EC, I guess.

Since the relation between total depth and diameter is not as clean cut for fancies as it is for rounds... I just looked at the size and that still ranks high among 1 carat princess cuts.

Just IMO, as usual.

There''s allot better to read about this in a piece written by Paul Sledgers in the ''Journal'' about the size of princess cuts.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/2/2005 4:52:43 PM
Author: freaknyea

I can get more pictures if you would like tommorow though ....

Wow! This damond trully does have a photo album ''Pricescope Style''. Thanks for posting all these!

 

[freaknyea]

Ok here is the 10x pic

 

[Kaleigh]

My final thought is, that is one gorgeous stone!!! Good job and the pics are awesome!!!!!

 

[AndyRosse]

I think it is absolutely GORGEOUS!!

 

[ame]

I think it''s gorgeous. Don''t concentrate too much on those numbers. Seeing is the final decisionmaker. And I think that''s PERFECT.

 

[freaknyea]

I do have a short video of the stone with me now. If you would like to see... Private message me with your email address

 

[decodelighted]

You are TOO MUCH! If you set that to music in Final Cut Pro I am going to worry about you. BTW: I recommend the James Bond theme "Diamonds Are Forever", or that old chestnut "Diamonds Are A Girl''s Best Friend".

 

[freaknyea]

I prefer Alan Parsons...

 

[Hamster]

OOOH...another AGS 0 Princess cut! So pretty and sparkly!

We just bought an AGS 0 too and I absolutely love it. Your GF will be so happy - what a lucky girl

 

[Hamster]

Another thought - I posted a thread yesterday about my AGS 0 princess cut and how I was enamored with the bottom view because you see the chevrons and the perfect "X". Did you happen to take pictures of this view? I didn''t get a chance to get good photos of the loose stone before I brought it to the jewelry store, but I think its the coolest thing ever. Any chance you can post some bottoms up pictures?