Help! Making Sense of Diamond Specs

[labbielove]

Hello all,
wonderful site, I''ve been a lurker for a few weeks now and am up late at night drooling over all the gorgeous rings out there! I really appreciate the knowledge base out there.
anyway, would appreciate a professional opinion on the specs of my new ring- when we purchased it, we had done our research on the 4C''s but as far as cut went, just went with the one that sparkled and "spoke" to me.

and from what i see on the cut advisor, and the old ags cut standards on the knowledge tool, my beauty doesn''t fit in any category- i''ve read a little about the depth being compensated for by some angles/proportions but i cant make head or tails of the specs. I appreciate the input- and help deciphering.


GIA cert.
round brilliant
6.05-6.23 x 3.85mm
carat- 0.91
color- F
Clarity- VS2
Cut- Good
Total Depth- 62.7%
Table Size- 64%
Crown Angle- 29.5 deg.
Crown Height- 10.5%
Pavilion Angle- 43.0 deg
Pavilion Depth- 46.5%
Star Length- 60%
Lower Half- 85%
Girdle- Medium to Very Thick
Faceted (5.8%)
Culet- Small
Polish- Good
Symmetry- fair
Fluorescence- none

Comments- Clouds are not shown,surface graining is not shown,

 

[C Smith]

I''d grade the stone a class 3 cut all things considered. Others may disagree and perhaps they''ll chime in.

 

[strmrdr]

What do you want to know?

its about a new scale AGS-7 on a 1 to 10 scale.
On the old AGS scale its a 10
Pretty much low commercial quality cut for weight.

 

[strmrdr]

Whats interesting is that if it has any kind of optical symmetry that it could be a bright diamond with little fire that might apeal to some people in some light conditions.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/28/2006 7:59:39 PM
Author: C Smith
I''d grade the stone a class 3 cut all things considered. Others may disagree and perhaps they''ll chime in.

class 3 on what scale?

 

[pinkflamingo]

it is very small for the carat weight- I have a .91 and it is 6.33 mm diameter. Is this diamond round? it seems like it would be out of round with that kind of diameter difference!

 

[strmrdr]

I cant duplicate the girdle variation and symmetry defects which is why the weight is a little off.
But the angles are based on what you posted.
This one might even look better in more light condiotions with less optical symmetry to mix up the blue in the aset image a little.


The light return scores are high mainly because of the return from the table but the contrast score is down which means there wont be a lot of fire. there is also a lot of light leakage.
A high setting would help this diamond.

 

[aljdewey]

Good Lord......I seriously hope this is a troll.

I hope this is isn't for real.

But if it's not a put-on........well, the stone spoke to you, so congrats!

 

[C Smith]

Date: 6/28/2006 8:08:45 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/28/2006 7:59:39 PM
Author: C Smith
I'd grade the stone a class 3 cut all things considered. Others may disagree and perhaps they'll chime in.

class 3 on what scale?

The GIA scale.

*Update, after reviewing the stats again, I'm revising to class 4. I mis-read the pavilion % the first time.

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 6/28/2006 7:13:03 PM
Author:labbielove
Hello all,
wonderful site, I've been a lurker for a few weeks now and am up late at night drooling over all the gorgeous rings out there! I really appreciate the knowledge base out there.
anyway, would appreciate a professional opinion on the specs of my new ring- when we purchased it, we had done our research on the 4C's but as far as cut went, just went with the one that sparkled and 'spoke' to me.

Are you sure you understood what it was saying to you?

 

[aljdewey]

Gypsy.....I liked the first version better. LOL

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/28/2006 8:21:56 PM
Author: strmrdr
I cant duplicate the girdle variation and symmetry defects which is why the weight is a little off.
But the angles are based on what you posted.
This one might even look better in more light condiotions with less optical symmetry to mix up the blue in the aset image a little.


The light return scores are high mainly because of the return from the table but the contrast score is down which means there wont be a lot of fire. there is also a lot of light leakage.
A high setting would help this diamond.

I don''t know if that''s possible. How high did you have in mind?

 

[Mara]

wow.

if you found this stone before PS then i could see how you may have gotten suckered in at some local store. it happens to the best of us at times.

i don''t really know what this stone could have been saying to you. that table, that depth, those angles, that culet, that girdle...it''s all one big yikes! fair symmetry??

you also say that you did alot of research on the 4c''s but that you just went with your eyes on cut. the 4c''s DO include cut...so not sure how that got overlooked but it is the MOST IMPORTANT C that there is. cut quality is what makes the diamond look good or bad. period.

i''m sorry that your stone doesn''t seem to be a typical beauty, but i guess if you love it, that is all that matters right?!

 

[labbielove]

Date: 6/28/2006 8:21:56 PM
Author: strmrdr
I cant duplicate the girdle variation and symmetry defects which is why the weight is a little off.

But the angles are based on what you posted.

This one might even look better in more light condiotions with less optical symmetry to mix up the blue in the aset image a little.



The light return scores are high mainly because of the return from the table but the contrast score is down which means there wont be a lot of fire. there is also a lot of light leakage.

A high setting would help this diamond.

thank you for running the scope specs for me, and setting suggestions!

 

[labbielove]

Date: 6/28/2006 8:41:25 PM
Author: Mara
wow.



if you found this stone before PS then i could see how you may have gotten suckered in at some local store. it happens to the best of us at times.


i don''t really know what this stone could have been saying to you. that table, that depth, those angles, that culet, that girdle...it''s all one big yikes! fair symmetry??


you also say that you did alot of research on the 4c''s but that you just went with your eyes on cut. the 4c''s DO include cut...so not sure how that got overlooked but it is the MOST IMPORTANT C that there is. cut quality is what makes the diamond look good or bad. period.


i''m sorry that your stone doesn''t seem to be a typical beauty, but i guess if you love it, that is all that matters right?!

Yeah, was before ps. And you''re right, as long as i love it- and besides I myself am no typical beauty, but i must look good to my df so it seems fitting! LOL

 

[Dancing Fire]

better keep my big mouth shut.

if i give you my honest opinion on this stone,i''ll be in BIG trouble

 

[labbielove]

Date: 6/28/2006 8:46:29 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

better keep my big mouth shut.

if i give you my honest opinion on this stone,i''ll be in BIG trouble

No trouble to get into here! i posted the question-

but you could probably save your breath (or typing fingers in this case)

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 6/28/2006 8:29:05 PM
Author: aljdewey
Gypsy.....I liked the first version better. LOL

LMAO. Me too. But well... they own it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/28/2006 8:46:15 PM
Author: labbielove

Yeah, was before ps. And you''re right, as long as i love it- and besides I myself am no typical beauty, but i must look good to my df so it seems fitting! LOL

hmmm....have we met in the pass?