Help--faceted girdle, internal symmetry...

[Jason.]

Hi,
I''ve been doing my homework and trying to learn as much as possible about judging diamond performance with tools like the Ideal Scope and HCA. I think I have a good understanding, but I''m still not 100% sure of what to look for in an Ideal Scope besides "eight arrows and lots of red and black."
For example, the attached Ideal Scope image seems to have a "stubby" quality to the top three arrows. Is this something to worry about? Which is more important, having arrows which are all exactly consistent, having balanced arrows that line up (head and shaft) or having no "white spots" on the scope?

 

[Maxine]

Since you have the idealscope picture, do you also have the sarin????? What are the measurements of the stone....just curious???

 

[Jason.]

This is an example of a "more balanced" stone, but it has white spots throughout. Both stones score 1.5 on the HCA, and both are similar clarity and color.
My other question has to do with faceted girdles. What is this process, and why is it done? Does it increase/decrease any of the visual aspects of a stone? Does it affect the interpretation of HCA scores, and if so, how?
Thanks for the help!

 

[Jason.]

Stone number 1:
.575 carat
5.33 mm diameter
61.9% total depth
55% table size
34.7 Crown Angle
40.8 Pavillion Angle
Medium to slightly thick faceted girdle

Stone number 2:
.505 Carat
5.10 mm diameter
62% Total Depth
54% table size
34.7 Crown Angle
40.8 Pavilion Angle
Thin to slightly thick faceted girdle

 

[belle]

so, do you have a sarin report?

 

[Jason.]

Yeah, I''ll attach it. It''s different from the info on the AGS cert, which seems a bit peculiar to me. Just a side question, but why?

 

[Jason.]

Here''s the sarin for the second stone.

 

[belle]

Date: 6/7/2005 10:50:27 PM
Author: Jason.
Yeah, I''ll attach it. It''s different from the info on the AGS cert, which seems a bit peculiar to me. Just a side question, but why?

just like all machinery, individual calibrations can be slightly off.
if the numbers were way off, there would be reason to question...but they are not.

 

[belle]

Stone number 1:
.575 carat
5.33 mm diameter
61.9% total depth
55% table size
34.7 Crown Angle
40.8 Pavillion Angle
Medium to slightly thick faceted girdle

 

[belle]

Stone number 2:
.505 Carat
5.10 mm diameter
62% Total Depth
54% table size
34.7 Crown Angle
40.8 Pavilion Angle
Thin to slightly thick faceted girdle

 

[belle]

jason,
to answer your questions about patterning in the idealscope view, you may find it helpful to read this.

 

[Jason.]

Just to restate the original questions:

1.What should one look for in an IdealScope besides "eight arrows and lots of red and black"?
2. Is the "stubby" quality of the top three arrows in stone number one something to worry about?
3. Which is more important, having arrows which are all exactly consistent, having balanced arrows that line up (head and shaft) or having no "white spots" on the scope?
4. What/Why are faceted girdles, and is this practice positive or negative regarding the visual performance of a stone?
5. Does a faceted girdle affect HCA score interpretation?

I''m asking these questions in principle and in practice. The two Ideal Scopes I posted are the two stones I''m considering at the moment, but I also want to be able to take what I learn from these questions and apply it elsewhere.

Thanks again!

 

[Maxine]

The faceted girdle may give the stone some sparkle from the side...don''t think it has anything to do with the look of the stone as you look down on it and/or view it through IS...has nothing to do w/HCA, although thickness of girdle could affect the look of the stone if it is too thick (or a too thin girdle could more easily chip)....

 

[Dancing Fire]

jason
these looks like WF stones,give them a call.i think #1 will give you bigger flashes (fat arrows).#2 will give you more flashes but,smaller (skinny arrows) i like white spots along the edge for more contrast. JMO.

 

[Jason.]

Thanks for the tip, DF.
I am currently traveling overseas, so calling them isn''t exactly feasible. I have been in contact via email, but I haven''t been successful in getting any information about visual performance.

I wrote:
The three stones I''m currently considering are: Xxx-xxxxxxx, Xxx-xxxxxxx, and Xxx-xxxxxxx. Are these three eyeclean? Which is the most brilliant? the most firey? the most "WOW"?

They responded:
I have sent in a request to our processing center to look @ all three diamonds to see which one is eye clean. I will have feedback by tomorrow afternoon. As far as performance...they are all the same.

All the same? ‹sigh.›

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/8/2005 4:58:42 AM
Author: Jason.


Thanks for the tip, DF.

I am currently traveling overseas, so calling them isn''t exactly feasible. I have been in contact via email, but I haven''t been successful in getting any information about visual performance.

I wrote:

The three stones I''m currently considering are: Xxx-xxxxxxx, Xxx-xxxxxxx, and Xxx-xxxxxxx. Are these three eyeclean? Which is the most brilliant? the most firey? the most ''WOW''?

They responded:

I have sent in a request to our processing center to look @ all three diamonds to see which one is eye clean. I will have feedback by tomorrow afternoon. As far as performance...they are all the same.

All the same? ‹sigh.›

Yea very close.
The differences are in personality not performance.
2 diamonds can perform exceptionally well and not look like each other due to have different personalities.

 

[strmrdr]

The stuby arrows are due to the diamond being at a slight angle more than anything else.

 

[Michael_E]

You folks also need to be aware that you are loking at an image that is slightly over twelve times larger than the actual stones in question. That means that the actual stone is just about the size of the lighter colored spot in the center of the Idealscope image. If you were to put those stones right next to each other, I doubt if you would be able to see any difference...even in personality. I think that they''d make great earrings !