Help, I''m very confused

[mygo21]

About two month ago, I inquired about a ring I brought in Brussels--did I pay too much. Well I love the ring and you only go around once in life--as far as I know. I have travel a graet deal since then. I came back to this site because it is most educational. So this evening I pulled out the certificate I got on the ring and put the information into the Hollaway(spelling might be wrong) it rated a 4.8. It seems My diamond is not a good diamond after all, even though two jewlers in DC said it was a beautiful stone and setting. The certificate is from IGI and is dated 4/1980.Below is what it says:

Description Natural Diamond
Shape and cut Round Brilliant
Measurements 6.56-6.6 x 3.65 mm
Total depth Percentage 55.5%
Total Diameter Percentage 62%
Crown Height percentage 9.5%
Pavillion dept percentage 43%
Cutlet size pointed
Girdle Thickness Thin to medium( faceted)
Finsh good
Clarity grade (10x) VVS1
Color Grade E
Fluorence none

On the diagram there is only one small mark for an internal inclusion.
So if the stone is bad why does it cause people to comment on how beautiful it is. I shoud mention the stone looks best in indirectlight and at night.
I may not be wise but I have an eye for fine things. To me the ring is great--is it only that beauty is in the eye of the beholder--me?

 

[optimized]

Hi Jerry,

In my opinion, the first three rules of rating a diamond's beauty are:

1) Look at it
2) Look at it again
3) What the heck, look some more

If you think the diamond is special and beautiful than that is all that really matters. No amount of math or others' opinions should sway you! The fact of the matter is, the personal emotional reaction to a diamond is really the most important thing. As you say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so if you like the diamond, for all intents and purposes it is a "perfect cut" (beyond mere "ideal cut") and should be thought of as such.

The specs for the stone show a truly unique cut that certainly isn't what we traditionally think of as an "ideal cut," but remember that the concept of the ideal cut is itself not an immutable law of science. Most of what we hear about ideal diamond cuts are based to some extent on Marcel Tolkowsky's efforts to define a cut standard, but even he readily admitted that there was more than one way to cut a stone to yield beauty. He devised his cut standards in an effort to add some sort of guidance to cutters who had up to that point done almost all of their work using knowledge gleaned through experience and intuition, but his intent was not to propose that his way was the only way. In fact, I would venture to say that the world's obsession with his work would probably disappoint him.

As has been discussed here before, the HCA is a great tool for helping folks screen diamonds, but in no way is it "the last word" in rating a diamond's beauty. That's not its purpose, and it shouldn't be thought of that way. No tool can replace a set of eyes when rating the beauty of a diamond. Technology is trying to change that situation but has thus far been woefully inadequate.

I know you've commented on several occasions that you think the stone is beautiful, others you are acquainted with have agreed, and there are even some professional opinions that jibe with that assessment, so why worry so much? Sounds like you have a beautiful diamond that you enjoy. I think the ultimate test has thus been passed spectacularly. Don't let any Internet tool change that!

-Tim

 

[mygo21]

Thanks for your comments. Like anyone else when you are not an expert in a subject- negative factors from technical types can be very intmadating. When the Holaway analysis stated the crown was to shallow and don't buy it, it made me question my own feelings/opinions.

 

[DiamondOptics]

Jerry,


Tim makes some very good points.

I'm sure that many in the cut geek community
have seen a diamond that does not conform to any set
guidelines, yet seems to excell in beauty.


kirk

 

[micromonkey]

I tried putting your stone in diamcalc.

It doesn't seem like your crown/table/pav add up right (from what I can tell.)

In any case it looks like your stone (a close version at least) comes in good v-good for contrast,v-good for light return and excellent for leakage stereo and mono (meaning it doesn't leak light). Fish eye is good.

What is the weight of your stone? (.94?) (that is what the software came up with--but it's only as good as the user/data)

If it looks good it looks good.

 

[jake88]

I am new to all this diamond stuff, could someone explain to what diamcalc and halloway is and where I can find it?

Thanks

 

[micromonkey]

https://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp

https://www.pricescope.com/MSU/diamcalc.asp

 

[jake88]

Thanks for the link! I guess the cut advisor only does round diamonds?

 

[mygo21]

Thanks!! The stone is .93. Sorry I left that out of my earlier post. My thoughts on the data was it must have been enter wrong. It was done 23 years ago in Beligum by IGA. The information is not as detail as the certs I have seen on the internet.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hi Jerry. What you've got there is referred to in the trade as a "spread" stone, that has a large table, low crown, shallow crown angles and shallow total depth.

A lot of these stones were cut in the 70's and early 80's, with many being sold in Europe. Europeans seemed to prefer the larger table and high white light return while Americans seemed to prefer smaller tables and dispersive light return.

The interesting thing about these stones is that they tend to be very brilliant, with a high white light return. The figures Monkey gave you are correct, and indicate a high light return (brilliance) profile with an incredibly high non-leakage profile.

These stones also have diameters larger than the norm for their carat weight. Your stone for example has the spread of a 1.03-1.05 carater.

The trade-off for these benefits is the diminishment of fire (rainbow flashes) because of the shorter "prism length" of the angled crown, and the diminishment of contrasting light-dark areas (they can't exist in the midst of that high white light brilliance), along with the greater likelihood of the girdle reflection showing up once in a while when the stone is angled.

It's the old see-saw effect. When you have a couple extraordinarily high parameters in one area of a stone's cut performance, it will be counterbalanced by lower parameters in another area.

That's what you're seeing in the HCA scoring of the diamond. A stiff penalty assessment for the counterbalancing lower parameters.

In everyday life though, these stones often bring high praise from many observers. They have a "headlight type" of brilliance with a quick "flash" that is often blinding.

The following simulated IdealScope image illustrates this. An extremely minimal amount of light leakage (minimal whites), coupled with a rich area of high light return dark pinks. A very interesting profile.

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated. The computer generates an image with “perfect” symmetry, which is rare. Also, the star/lower girdle facet lengths may be different from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or Sarin info is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in considering the major light performance aspects..
-----------

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Nice to see you got a DiamCalc there, Micro. We can definitely use some help keeping up with all the requests for profiles and images.

I saw your post requesting tips on how best to enter the data, and there definitely are some tricks and order of data entry which makes arriving at the final product more accurate.

There's also some cautions regarding what you have to watch out for regarding "minor facet" statistics, which can sometimes make a "major difference" in how the image portrays a stone. Rhino from Good Old Gold has pointed this out graphically in some of his posts which you might find doing a search under DiamCalc, and/or his name.

When I get some time, I'll post on your DiamCalc request topic about how data entry seems to work best for me.

Have fun!

 

[Mara]

Don't let the HCA score get you down. My stone is similar to yours in that it is a large spread, shallow stone...though not quite so shallow as to get a warning on the HCA. As Rich noted, the shallower depth stones such as ours tend to be more white light stones rather than deep color rainbows. My stone in indirect light looks like a clear beacon of light. It's very interesting. I'm sure compared to a TIC or similar in the same lighting, theirs would have more color flashes, but mine just looks very clear with sparkles of white. It is a preference thing in my opinion. I prefer the white light...I may get a new stone later on down the line and maybe that is when I will want to get something more TIC related and have something different. But I really like the white look of the stone, and I get tons of compliments on my ring all the time. Plus you have the 'spread' as Rich noted..my stone is a 1.23c but has the diameter of a 1.35c stone..so to people looking at it, it looks like a 1.35c stone. The tradeoff is that the depth is more shallow than a TIC 1.35c stone would be. Your stone is a .93c but as Rich noted it looks more like a 1.02c. That's great! You can just tell people it's a 1c..because in a way it is.

When I first bought it, HCA scored it 1.5 BIC (brilliant ideal cut--typical of large spread/shallow depth stones), but now that Garry has made some changes, my stone now scores a 2.8..BOO!

But funny, it still looks the same to me. Chances are about 4 months ago your stone would have scored around a 3.0 or similar on the HCA...not bad! But with the changes, stones like ours don't rate as highly. I say take it with a grain of salt. For stones such as the SuperIdeals or the TIC dimensionsed stones, the HCA works really well. But for stones such as the BIC and possibly even FIC, it is harder to gauge what will be considered a beautiful stone to one's eyes vs. the paperwork. In my eyes..that our stones are harder to quantify beauty just makes them all the more fun.

The one thing I wanted to mention is that you may want to get the ring insured due to the shallow crown warning. Our crown is very shallow as well (29.9 angle) and combined with my thin-med girdle, our stone may be at a higher risk for chipping. If you got a warning on the HCA, that means your crown is MORE shallow than mine, combine that with your thin-med girdle like mine, and your risk of chipping may be even higher. I would not worry about this, just get it insured right away. That way if something does happen, your policy will cover it. Be sure to get a policy that covers chipping, most of the better ones do in their 'accidental damage' portion of the policy. Then you are all set.

Enjoy your stone, it sounds as though you love it and the compliments you get on it.

 

[Giangi]

Hey, I live in Europe and I see stones like that every day... Well, let me say that I love the way they look... Very white and bright face up!! Also, it looks much, much larger --about 1.03 to 1.10ct-- and that's a good thing... Sometimes it's all about size

!!!
Color and clarity are great, so don't worry about anything... Sounds like a nice, brilliant stone! Enjoy it in good health!

 

[mygo21]

I'm so impressed by the information and effort people on this site are willing to give in responding to posts. I cannot express my appreciation for the information I have received. Now so I don't get into any future confusion, I plan to buy a diamond here in the USA. Your guidance and help would be greatly appreciated. I will probably next get a 1.5 to 2 caret stone. My question is, should it be another round brilliant, emerald or another shape? Yes from here I have learned that I will get more for my money by buying an emerald cut--which I really like but...? Next point, I like excellent diamonds, hence the E VVS1, but is there really that much of a difference between a VVS1 compared to a VVS2? Or should I consider a VS1/VS2 stone? Likewise should I really be concerned if the stone is in the D to H range where a particular stone falls? I have a .42 H VVS1 princess cut--that is great, but I admit it was more the setting than the stone that influenced that purchase. Everyone assumes it is a Cartier piece because it is 18Kt white and yellow gold and the setting, hand made Italian, is most unusual. I will, after being educated here, buy on the internet. Most likely from a well respected site that in the past didn't appear to have any or many VVS1 or VVS2 stones. Again, Thanks

P.S. Like Tim I'm not known for being brief.