i still dont get it.. CUT ADVISOR TOOL? - look at this

[juvehill]

I found this gia report on unioin diamond website.. the gia cut grade is EXCELLENT with very good polish and symetry and the pricescope cut advisor was above 5 .. why is that??? Union Diamond | Your Trusted Diamond Source

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If you do not know how to interpret this image of a diamond with those proportions visit ideal-scope.com

 

[strmrdr]

The hca is knocking it down for the 41.4 pavilion and the large table.
DiamCalc actualy rates those basic proportions as being as good as some ideal cuts for light return dispite some table leakage.
It is outside of what we usualy consider around here and Im not sure id call it exellent but the basic proportions (optical symmetry and rounding need to be taken into account) arent that bad either.
Overall Id disagree both with the GIA grade, VG at best, and the HCA.
On the AGS charts it would rate a 6 but im betting would score higher on the actual test.

An actual ideal-scope image would tell the story better than the info on the gia cert.

Overall I think there are better stones out there and I would pass on this one.
attached is a virtual best case rendering of the stone.
An actual ideal-scope image trumps this.

 

[strmrdr]

hey Garry is v3 DC using different IS image code?
Yours looks a lot worse than mine with 2.8 and Gemadvisor.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/14/2007 4:34:26 PM
Author: strmrdr
hey Garry is v3 DC using different IS image code?
Yours looks a lot worse than mine with 2.8 and Gemadvisor.

We found a bug Storm - it is why you may have noticed often making a pav or crown a little steeper from these proportions makes the stone appear 9wrongly) to have less leakage. I used an experimental new lighting format.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/14/2007 4:36:48 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/14/2007 4:34:26 PM
Author: strmrdr
hey Garry is v3 DC using different IS image code?
Yours looks a lot worse than mine with 2.8 and Gemadvisor.

We found a bug Storm - it is why you may have noticed often making a pav or crown a little steeper from these proportions makes the stone appear 9wrongly) to have less leakage. I used an experimental new lighting format.

In 2.8 it looks worse as I make it steeper.... *shrug*

Anyway.... We need an actual IS image to tell you much more about the stone but overall I would pass on it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/14/2007 4:44:17 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/14/2007 4:36:48 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/14/2007 4:34:26 PM
Author: strmrdr
hey Garry is v3 DC using different IS image code?
Yours looks a lot worse than mine with 2.8 and Gemadvisor.

We found a bug Storm - it is why you may have noticed often making a pav or crown a little steeper from these proportions makes the stone appear 9wrongly) to have less leakage. I used an experimental new lighting format.

In 2.8 it looks worse as I make it steeper.... *shrug*

Anyway.... We need an actual IS image to tell you much more about the stone but overall I would pass on it.

Storm try 41.9 to 42.1 on this stonea and you will see it

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/14/2007 5:23:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Storm try 41.9 to 42.1 on this stonea and you will see it

found it... once the pavilion hits 42 the results get goofy...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sergey is aware and it will get fixed in the next release.

Light from the pavilion leakage goes above +0 degrees and it hits the virtual red reflector.

juvehill look for a better diamond unless cost is a real issue. But the stone does have a great spread.