I bought this stone 1.75ct, what do you think
- Thread starter meak
- Start date
- Status
pricescope
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1999
- Messages
- 8,266
Meak, this stone is Very Good. If the price is good and you like it, there is nothing to worry about.
Below I put together simulations for your stone (left) and the same one with pavilion angle=40.7° (right).
Keep in mind that this is only a theory. You have to compare life stones to find out the difference.
Because of a bit deep pavilion, your stone has some partial leakage under the table (gray areas). It causes a bit less light to be reflected under the table.
evaluations for these two diamonds.
34.8°/41.1°
Light Return Stereo: 0.98 (average)
Static: 0.96 (whole crown), 0.9 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.97(whole crown), 0.97 (table only)
Light Leakage Stereo: 0.99 (average)
Static: 0.75 (whole crown), 0.66 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.87 (whole crown), 0.96 (table only)
Contrast: 0.91 (average)
Static: 0.88 (whole crown), 0.80 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.97 (whole crown), 0.98 (table only)
34.8°/40.7°
Light Return Stereo: 0.99(average)
Static: 0.99 (whole crown), 1.01 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.98(whole crown), 0.98(table only)
Light Leakage Stereo: 0.99 (average)
Static: 1.00 (whole crown), 1.00 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.94 (whole crown), 1.01(table only)
Contrast: 0.96(average)
Static: 0.96(whole crown), 0.94 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.96(whole crown), 0.98 (table only)
As you can see, the stone with 41.1° pavilion angle has lower result for static leakage and contrast. Again: this is only theoretical estimation. it doesn't take into account some factors that can affect the results such as real symmetry and minor facets.
It doesn’t mean that your stone is less beautiful at all![/u]
Below I put together simulations for your stone (left) and the same one with pavilion angle=40.7° (right).
Keep in mind that this is only a theory. You have to compare life stones to find out the difference.
Because of a bit deep pavilion, your stone has some partial leakage under the table (gray areas). It causes a bit less light to be reflected under the table.
evaluations for these two diamonds.
34.8°/41.1°
Light Return Stereo: 0.98 (average)
Static: 0.96 (whole crown), 0.9 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.97(whole crown), 0.97 (table only)
Light Leakage Stereo: 0.99 (average)
Static: 0.75 (whole crown), 0.66 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.87 (whole crown), 0.96 (table only)
Contrast: 0.91 (average)
Static: 0.88 (whole crown), 0.80 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.97 (whole crown), 0.98 (table only)
34.8°/40.7°
Light Return Stereo: 0.99(average)
Static: 0.99 (whole crown), 1.01 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.98(whole crown), 0.98(table only)
Light Leakage Stereo: 0.99 (average)
Static: 1.00 (whole crown), 1.00 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.94 (whole crown), 1.01(table only)
Contrast: 0.96(average)
Static: 0.96(whole crown), 0.94 (table only)
Dynamic: 0.96(whole crown), 0.98 (table only)
As you can see, the stone with 41.1° pavilion angle has lower result for static leakage and contrast. Again: this is only theoretical estimation. it doesn't take into account some factors that can affect the results such as real symmetry and minor facets.
It doesn’t mean that your stone is less beautiful at all![/u]
- Status
300x240.png)