Help, concerned with depth over 62%

[username]

I''m looking at this stone that is from a B&M

Shape: Round Brilliant
Cut: AGS000 H&A
Color: H
Clarity: VS1 (all inclusions on very outer edges in two places)
Weight: .816
Flourescence: Negligible

Table: 54.3%
Depth: 62.1%
Crown %: 15.0% or 15.8% (can''t quite read it)
Crown Angle: 34.4
Pavillion %: 42.9% (the only one i can read clearly on that side)
Pavillion Angle: 40.7
Girdle: 1.5%-3.0% (I think, again I can''t quite read anything but the 1)

Measurements: 5.97 x 6.00 x 3.71

Gemex report came out at (Is this even reliable?):
White light: Halfway between high and very high
Color light: Very High (although the blue bar is almost off the end of the graph...)
Scintillation: Very High

I suppose this was mostly validated by the HCA giving it a 1.1

Two things concern me about this stone. One is the total depth at 62.1, should this be a concern performance wise? Second is the H&A designation. Do these dimensions fall within a true H&A pattern? I''m no expert, I can see the pattern and it looks good, but it is hard to really judge it when looking through those viewers.

As for how it looks, of course it looked great under the halogens

Will it knock her socks off in "normal" light though?

Also, anyone have an idea for a price for this rock, I''m thinking 4K is reasonable?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This stone must have a slightly thick to thickish girdle which makes it more durable. You are paying for about .015ct of extra weight - hardly a train smash.

 

[JulieN]

Garry, what is it about this stone that it must have a slightly thick to thickish girdle? (Hmm, aren''t slightly thick and thickish the same?) I thought thicker girdles were for CA<30 (or was it 33?)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/7/2006 10:09:37 PM
Author: JulieN
Garry, what is it about this stone that it must have a slightly thick to thickish girdle? (Hmm, aren''t slightly thick and thickish the same?) I thought thicker girdles were for CA<30 (or was it 33?)

Different topic - yes JulieN - if the crown angle is very low then I insist on thicker girdles. But in this case the crown angle is great and i was just pointing out:
A thicker girdle does not harm the stones optical performance - it does make the spread / weight less favourable - but in this case by very very little - and a thicker girdle makes a stone less vunerable - so it could be set in a high 4 prong or tension setting quite safely etc etc

 

[username]

Date: 7/7/2006 10:17:09 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Different topic - yes JulieN - if the crown angle is very low then I insist on thicker girdles. But in this case the crown angle is great and i was just pointing out:
A thicker girdle does not harm the stones optical performance - it does make the spread / weight less favourable - but in this case by very very little - and a thicker girdle makes a stone less vunerable - so it could be set in a high 4 prong or tension setting quite safely etc etc

Well that''s an interesting point that had not occured to me... So does that depth not hurt the stone''s optical performance either? I thought I remembered seeing that a depth over 62% was not good.

 

[JulieN]

A depth of 62.1 is fine, in terms of both spread and light performance.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/8/2006 5:02:12 PM
Author: username

Date: 7/7/2006 10:17:09 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Different topic - yes JulieN - if the crown angle is very low then I insist on thicker girdles. But in this case the crown angle is great and i was just pointing out:
A thicker girdle does not harm the stones optical performance - it does make the spread / weight less favourable - but in this case by very very little - and a thicker girdle makes a stone less vunerable - so it could be set in a high 4 prong or tension setting quite safely etc etc

Well that''s an interesting point that had not occured to me... So does that depth not hurt the stone''s optical performance either? I thought I remembered seeing that a depth over 62% was not good.

If the stone was 62.1% and had a thin girdle then we would be worried - because the crown and pavilion angles would be too deep / steep

 

[Jensia]

My H&A has a 62 depth and is just beutiful

Jensia

 

[gemmy1]

style="WIDTH: 98.11%; HEIGHT: 81px">
As for how it looks, of course it looked great under the halogens

Will it knock her socks off in ''normal'' light though?

An AGS 0 with nice color and clarity and minimal flourescence will knock her socks off in any light.

If it is very low lighting, she might not be able to find her socks, but she will still be able see the rock.

 

[username]

Date: 7/9/2006 2:18:21 PM
Author: gemmy1

An AGS 0 with nice color and clarity and minimal flourescence will knock her socks off in any light.

If it is very low lighting, she might not be able to find her socks, but she will still be able see the rock.

LOL, I think I'll try that experiment...

The jeweler is letting me take the diamond out of the store for a day, so I guess I'll get to see first hand what it looks like in the real world before taking the plunge. I think I'll stop by Tiff's and see if it really is all lights and mirrors in there...

I also took another look at the hearts on this diamond and they just popped out in a nice crisp, clear pattern when I held my head about six inches above the viewer, that was wierd, but the stone gave out some sweet looking hearts, so I guess I feel better about that now.

Signed, Nervous as Hell

 

[idealseeker]

Hi all, been lurking for quite a bit, first post b/c I''m at the stage of narrowing down stones based on certs. Anyway, been reading up on depth % of >=62. Out of 5 stones that were selected for me, I chose 2 based on HCA scores of 1.5 ex/ex/vg/vg each. The other 3 were 1.8, 2.3, 3.2. Anyways my question is would another 1.5 stone with greater spread (ie lower depth), would it necessarily mean that the lower depth/higher spread stone would be say more brilliant (laymen''s term, more bling)? Or would it just be personal preference? Here are the specs (ct/color/clarity/depth%/table%/crown angle/pavillion angle) for 2 GIA ex/ex rounds:
1) 0.81 F/VS2/62.1/53/34/41 thin-med girdle, no culet, 5.98x6.03x3.73
2) 0.85 G/VS1/62.2/54/34/41 med girdle, no culet, 6.04x6.08x3.77

Unfortunately, I am unable to view these in person, so I''d like to narrow down the search to one which I could buy and have sent out to an appraiser out here. I definitely trust the eyes of the dealer (one of the PS dealers, but name withheld for now), but I was curious as to whether he/she just prefers round stones with >62% depth (4/5 selected for me were >62%).

Thanks!

 

[aljdewey]

As Garry mentioned, it''s not a train smash.......but, on the other hand, if I could find a stone with all "sweet-spot" parameters, I''d personally pick that over a 62%+ depth stone.

I''m not a fan of depth/weight that doesn''t add to presence.

 

[oldminer]

Its close to ten years now that I decided to arbitrarily break off depth on the best of round diamonds at 61.99%. There had to be a place that some very slight degradation of quality, appearance or visual size began the process of lowering an overall grade. 62.1% is no big deal and might even reflect in the asking price for the .02ct or .01ct difference it made. I''d say don''t be overly concerned about it, but there may be a slightly better stone still out there if you are a stubborn shopper.

 

[strmrdr]

I like to see them under 62 but will go higher for the righ stone at the right price. over 63 is my absolute no go point because over that the angles are either going to be off or the girdle way too fat.
In this case 62.1 its close enough for government work :}

Unlike Alj id trade a little spread for my sweet spot angles or depending on the setting a slightly more durable diamond with a fatter girdle.. Her view isn't wrong just different than mine.

 

[Rod]

Date: 8/1/2006 12:34:26 PM
Author: idealseeker
Hi all, been lurking for quite a bit, first post b/c I''m at the stage of narrowing down stones based on certs. Anyway, been reading up on depth % of >=62. Out of 5 stones that were selected for me, I chose 2 based on HCA scores of 1.5 ex/ex/vg/vg each. The other 3 were 1.8, 2.3, 3.2. Anyways my question is would another 1.5 stone with greater spread (ie lower depth), would it necessarily mean that the lower depth/higher spread stone would be say more brilliant (laymen''s term, more bling)? Or would it just be personal preference? Here are the specs (ct/color/clarity/depth%/table%/crown angle/pavillion angle) for 2 GIA ex/ex rounds:
1) 0.81 F/VS2/62.1/53/34/41 thin-med girdle, no culet, 5.98x6.03x3.73
2) 0.85 G/VS1/62.2/54/34/41 med girdle, no culet, 6.04x6.08x3.77

Unfortunately, I am unable to view these in person, so I''d like to narrow down the search to one which I could buy and have sent out to an appraiser out here. I definitely trust the eyes of the dealer (one of the PS dealers, but name withheld for now), but I was curious as to whether he/she just prefers round stones with >62% depth (4/5 selected for me were >62%).

Thanks!

Out of consideration for the original thread poster, you should start your own thread on your question about the above stones. People will be more inclinded to answer you..........

 

[idealseeker]

Date: 8/1/2006 2:16:17 PM
Author: Rod

Date: 8/1/2006 12:34:26 PM
Author: idealseeker
Hi all, been lurking for quite a bit, first post b/c I''m at the stage of narrowing down stones based on certs. Anyway, been reading up on depth % of >=62. Out of 5 stones that were selected for me, I chose 2 based on HCA scores of 1.5 ex/ex/vg/vg each. The other 3 were 1.8, 2.3, 3.2. Anyways my question is would another 1.5 stone with greater spread (ie lower depth), would it necessarily mean that the lower depth/higher spread stone would be say more brilliant (laymen''s term, more bling)? Or would it just be personal preference? Here are the specs (ct/color/clarity/depth%/table%/crown angle/pavillion angle) for 2 GIA ex/ex rounds:
1) 0.81 F/VS2/62.1/53/34/41 thin-med girdle, no culet, 5.98x6.03x3.73
2) 0.85 G/VS1/62.2/54/34/41 med girdle, no culet, 6.04x6.08x3.77

Unfortunately, I am unable to view these in person, so I''d like to narrow down the search to one which I could buy and have sent out to an appraiser out here. I definitely trust the eyes of the dealer (one of the PS dealers, but name withheld for now), but I was curious as to whether he/she just prefers round stones with >62% depth (4/5 selected for me were >62%).

Thanks!

Out of consideration for the original thread poster, you should start your own thread on your question about the above stones. People will be more inclinded to answer you..........

Sorry, I guess forums to forums, there are different etiquettes. I''m used to not generating a new thread if there''s an existing thread regarding the same topic.

 

[Rod]

Date: 8/1/2006 2:25:09 PM
Author: idealseeker

Date: 8/1/2006 2:16:17 PM
Author: Rod

Date: 8/1/2006 12:34:26 PM
Author: idealseeker
Hi all, been lurking for quite a bit, first post b/c I''m at the stage of narrowing down stones based on certs. Anyway, been reading up on depth % of >=62. Out of 5 stones that were selected for me, I chose 2 based on HCA scores of 1.5 ex/ex/vg/vg each. The other 3 were 1.8, 2.3, 3.2. Anyways my question is would another 1.5 stone with greater spread (ie lower depth), would it necessarily mean that the lower depth/higher spread stone would be say more brilliant (laymen''s term, more bling)? Or would it just be personal preference? Here are the specs (ct/color/clarity/depth%/table%/crown angle/pavillion angle) for 2 GIA ex/ex rounds:
1) 0.81 F/VS2/62.1/53/34/41 thin-med girdle, no culet, 5.98x6.03x3.73
2) 0.85 G/VS1/62.2/54/34/41 med girdle, no culet, 6.04x6.08x3.77

Unfortunately, I am unable to view these in person, so I''d like to narrow down the search to one which I could buy and have sent out to an appraiser out here. I definitely trust the eyes of the dealer (one of the PS dealers, but name withheld for now), but I was curious as to whether he/she just prefers round stones with >62% depth (4/5 selected for me were >62%).

Thanks!

Out of consideration for the original thread poster, you should start your own thread on your question about the above stones. People will be more inclinded to answer you..........

Sorry, I guess forums to forums, there are different etiquettes. I''m used to not generating a new thread if there''s an existing thread regarding the same topic.

Just trying to help you. And you''re right, different tranditions, forum to forum. Even though it''s the same topic, you''re asking about different stones. You''ll be surprised at the amount of help you''ll get if you start your own thread.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/1/2006 1:29:33 PM
Author: strmrdr


Unlike Alj id trade a little spread for my sweet spot angles or depending on the setting a slightly more durable diamond with a fatter girdle.. Her view isn''t wrong just different than mine.

Actually, you''re misrepresenting my view, Storm.

What I said is precisely what I meant: If I could find a stone with ALL sweet spot parameters, I''d pick that over a stone with 62%+ depth. Nothing more and nothing less...it''s pretty straightforward. Because I know there are stones that do offer exceptional numbers all around (with no compromise), I''d rather not compromise.....personally.

That is what "my view" is.

I never said that I''d choose shallower depth *over* sweet spot angles. If one stone was 62% but had killer angles, and the other was shallow but less favorable angle relationships, I''d take the one with the better angles and a little more depth.

Nor did I say that I''d prefer a less durable diamond to a slightly deeper diamond......again, not the case. Diamonds with less depth (60-61.9) aren''t necessarily durability challenged, either, btw.

 

[CareBear]

I have a H&A stone that''s 62% due to a medium-sl thick girdle. Performance isn''t affected by it since my angles are in the ideal range. You do however pay for a bit of extra weight.

Question for the experts: I always wondered, do you lose spread with a bigger table as well? In this case, the table is 54.3%. Are you actually gaining some spread back than say if the table was 57%?