TimPhilly
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 16
It''s been mentioned at least once on this board before, but I think it''s worth having it pointed out again; beware when comparing the depth of HOF Dreams to other squares.
The AGS--who as far as I know certifies all Dreams, computes the depth of Dreams by using the diagonal measurement of the Dream. This makes the diamond appear on paper to have less depth (more spread) than other similar diamonds'' listed depth %.
For example, I have an AGS cert for a 1.434 cts F SI2 Dream that I looked at this spring. It lists the measurements as 7.40 x 6.26 x 4.57, and a depth of 61.8% (which is equal to 4.57 divided by 7.40). However, the Dream is a square diamond; the 7.40 is the diagonal measurement.
It''s my understanding that the depth of most (perhaps all?) other square or rectangular diamonds is calculated by dividing the depth measurment by the length of the shortest side, which, for the diamond referenced above, would yield a true depth of 73.0%. This is certainly how the depth is calculated for the Jubilee''s and radiants listed on Good Old Gold''s site.
I''m told that the AGS meausures the Dream this way due to the fact that the Sarin machine calculates the dimensions of a square with the diagonal measurement. I suppose one could argue (although I wouldn''t) that it''s the potential depth of the diamond were the corners not cut off and it was a cut as a round stone. I''m really curious to know if AGS does this for all square diamonds, or just the Dream, but I have no way of knowing.
A B&M jeweler tried to claim that Dreams had a lower depth percentage than the Jubilee''s that I''m considering. He seemed genuinely surprised when I explained that, when calculated in the same way, the Dream in many cases has a higher depth percentage. I had to first have him measure a Dream to show him that they were using the diagonal to calculate the depth.
So always be sure you verify that you''re comparing apples to apples, and not just trusting the depth listed on your Dream''s AGS cert!
Cheers,
Tim
The AGS--who as far as I know certifies all Dreams, computes the depth of Dreams by using the diagonal measurement of the Dream. This makes the diamond appear on paper to have less depth (more spread) than other similar diamonds'' listed depth %.
For example, I have an AGS cert for a 1.434 cts F SI2 Dream that I looked at this spring. It lists the measurements as 7.40 x 6.26 x 4.57, and a depth of 61.8% (which is equal to 4.57 divided by 7.40). However, the Dream is a square diamond; the 7.40 is the diagonal measurement.
It''s my understanding that the depth of most (perhaps all?) other square or rectangular diamonds is calculated by dividing the depth measurment by the length of the shortest side, which, for the diamond referenced above, would yield a true depth of 73.0%. This is certainly how the depth is calculated for the Jubilee''s and radiants listed on Good Old Gold''s site.
I''m told that the AGS meausures the Dream this way due to the fact that the Sarin machine calculates the dimensions of a square with the diagonal measurement. I suppose one could argue (although I wouldn''t) that it''s the potential depth of the diamond were the corners not cut off and it was a cut as a round stone. I''m really curious to know if AGS does this for all square diamonds, or just the Dream, but I have no way of knowing.
A B&M jeweler tried to claim that Dreams had a lower depth percentage than the Jubilee''s that I''m considering. He seemed genuinely surprised when I explained that, when calculated in the same way, the Dream in many cases has a higher depth percentage. I had to first have him measure a Dream to show him that they were using the diagonal to calculate the depth.
So always be sure you verify that you''re comparing apples to apples, and not just trusting the depth listed on your Dream''s AGS cert!
Cheers,
Tim
300x240.png)