gettin close.. pls help with these two stones

[nashalmaz]

I just got the IS images so let me know what you think.
Here is the 1st stone (both are round brilliant)

GIA I color, VS2 .91 carat
VG cut, polish and symmetry
here is the gia cert GIA cert
here is the image (may or may not be there)
image
table 56 depth 63, crown 35.5, pavilion 40.4
measurements 6.07*6.15*3.85
girdle slightly thick to thick

The IS should be attached.

 

[nashalmaz]

Here is the 2nd stone

GIA I color, SI1 .95 carat
VG cut and symmetry, EX polish
here is the gia cert GIA cert
here is the image (may or may not be there)
image
table 59 depth 59.5, crown 33.5, pavilion 41
measurements 6.42*6.45*3.83
girdle very thin to medium (this is my area of concern)

The IS should be attached.

This is the one that I was asking about earlier, I just got the IS, but still haven''t heard a reply from JA about girdle related questions.

The 1st stone is about 200 less than the 2nd, a slight difference, but not major.
I''m also considering a 3rd stone, but I don''t have the IS for it yet.

Thank you

 

[Ellen]

Hi nash,

Of the two, the second is much preferable to me. However, are you aware that these are cut towards more brilliance, less fire? There are other cuts that can give a nice mix of both, but if this is your preference, I''d pick 2.

 

[Lula]

Do you have stars and lower girdle percentages? They are on the AGS report. See this article on how to find stars and lower girdle numbers on GIA and AGS reports.

 

[Lula]

Whoops, sorry, the stars and lower girdle numbers are in the live links you provided.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 4/30/2009 8:57:05 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi nash,

Of the two, the second is much preferable to me. However, are you aware that these are cut towards more brilliance, less fire? There are other cuts that can give a nice mix of both, but if this is your preference, I''d pick 2.

Huh? #1 is almost FIC cut, why do you say it is cut more for brilliance?

I would prefer #2 too, bigger face-up.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/30/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/30/2009 8:57:05 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi nash,

Of the two, the second is much preferable to me. However, are you aware that these are cut towards more brilliance, less fire? There are other cuts that can give a nice mix of both, but if this is your preference, I'd pick 2.

Huh? #1 is almost FIC cut, why do you say it is cut more for brilliance?

I would prefer #2 too, bigger face-up.

I believe Ellen is referring to the second diamond being cut for brilliance, not the first one.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 4/30/2009 9:21:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/30/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/30/2009 8:57:05 AM
Author: Ellen

Hi nash,

Of the two, the second is much preferable to me. However, are you aware that these are cut towards more brilliance, less fire? There are other cuts that can give a nice mix of both, but if this is your preference, I''d pick 2.

Huh? #1 is almost FIC cut, why do you say it is cut more for brilliance?
I would prefer #2 too, bigger face-up.

I believe Ellen is referring to the second diamond being cut for brilliance, not the first one.

She said ''these'' which would imply both of the stones instead of ''this'' which would imply #2 stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/30/2009 9:24:08 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/30/2009 9:21:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/30/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/30/2009 8:57:05 AM
Author: Ellen

Hi nash,

Of the two, the second is much preferable to me. However, are you aware that these are cut towards more brilliance, less fire? There are other cuts that can give a nice mix of both, but if this is your preference, I'd pick 2.

Huh? #1 is almost FIC cut, why do you say it is cut more for brilliance?
I would prefer #2 too, bigger face-up.

I believe Ellen is referring to the second diamond being cut for brilliance, not the first one.

She said 'these' which would imply both of the stones instead of 'this' which would imply #2 stone.

I read it to mean when she said ' these', that she meant these as in those particular types of diamonds such as the BIC type are cut more towards brilliance than fire. It is just a writing style and she wasn't referring to the first one which she would well know is more of a FIC type.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/30/2009 9:28:54 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/30/2009 9:24:08 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/30/2009 9:21:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/30/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/30/2009 8:57:05 AM
Author: Ellen

Hi nash,

Of the two, the second is much preferable to me. However, are you aware that these are cut towards more brilliance, less fire? There are other cuts that can give a nice mix of both, but if this is your preference, I''d pick 2.

Huh? #1 is almost FIC cut, why do you say it is cut more for brilliance?
I would prefer #2 too, bigger face-up.

I believe Ellen is referring to the second diamond being cut for brilliance, not the first one.

She said ''these'' which would imply both of the stones instead of ''this'' which would imply #2 stone.

I read it to mean when she said '' these'', that she meant these as in those particular types of diamonds such as the BIC type are cut more towards brilliance than fire. It is just a writing style and she wasn''t referring to the first one which she would well know is more of a FIC type.

Lorelei is correct, I was referring to stones cut like the second one, which is the one I preferred over the first. But the way it was worded could be misconstrued. So solly.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/30/2009 9:53:36 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/30/2009 9:28:54 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/30/2009 9:24:08 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/30/2009 9:21:36 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 4/30/2009 9:19:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/30/2009 8:57:05 AM
Author: Ellen

Hi nash,

Of the two, the second is much preferable to me. However, are you aware that these are cut towards more brilliance, less fire? There are other cuts that can give a nice mix of both, but if this is your preference, I''d pick 2.

Huh? #1 is almost FIC cut, why do you say it is cut more for brilliance?
I would prefer #2 too, bigger face-up.

I believe Ellen is referring to the second diamond being cut for brilliance, not the first one.

She said ''these'' which would imply both of the stones instead of ''this'' which would imply #2 stone.

I read it to mean when she said '' these'', that she meant these as in those particular types of diamonds such as the BIC type are cut more towards brilliance than fire. It is just a writing style and she wasn''t referring to the first one which she would well know is more of a FIC type.

Lorelei is correct, I was referring to stones cut like the second one, which is the one I preferred over the first. But the way it was worded could be misconstrued. So solly.

LOL!!!

 

[nashalmaz]

Thank you all for your replies.
I think I prefer the 2nd stone, talking to JA resolved a lot of my questions (girdle and cloud related) but I guess I wasn''t as aware that its cut much more towards brilliance.

This is the 3rd stone, (no IS yet, will have soon).
GIA VS2 I color .91
61.4% depth, 58% table, 34.5° crown angle, 40.8° pavilion angle
size 6.23*6.18*3.81
EX cut and EX symmetry, VG polish
thin to slightly thick faceted girdle
here is the
GIA cert
here is the picture
diamond image
For some reason the image doesn''t look as nice to me, I''m not sure whats bothering me since its a cleaner stone with better symmetry. Maybe it could be that the better symmetry is creating more of a contrast, or maybe just not as good of a picture.

Any thoughts on this one?

 

[stone-cold11]

It just has a shorter lower girdle facet, at 70%, which is what you see as fatter arrow shafts. On most diamonds the variation are in the 75-85% range from what I see. Some like it some don't. The light flashes should be chunkier for this stone.

 

[Lorelei]

Obviously shorter lower girdle facets give a different look to this diamond, it is very well cut but it is a matter of personal preference. If this one appeals to you then ask for an Idealscope image from James Allen, that would be helpful.

 

[nashalmaz]

Thanks for pointing it out, I should have realized it by now.
I had to re-watch the lower facet video at GOG, which by the way is very informative.
Video on Lower Facets

That helped me understand lower half facets a lot more, but has left me with another question.

In the video he mentions that only 75-85%(rounded to nearest 5%) would get a GIA grade of EX.

Is he wrong in the video, or is there something off with the certificate?
Because this one is 70%(rounded) and it is rated Excellent?

 

[stone-cold11]

Try running the numbers through GIA facetware and see what is the result?

 

[nashalmaz]

The cut estimator at
http://www2.gia.edu/facetware/
seems to be down, or errors out for me (tried 3 browsers)

Is there another copy of something similar online?

 

[stone-cold11]

Hmm.. works for me.

Anyway, ran the numbers and got an Ex cut for it, LGF=65% is where the grade change for the facetware. So maybe GOG got it wrong.