I would appreciate input on these 4 stones...

[andrewk]

If folks could give me some comments, I would greatly appreciate them. Please look at #4. It looked really good under the ideal scope, even though it looks a little "spready".

#1
0.70 ct, G, SI1, AGS 0-0-0
size: 5.82 x 5.79 x 3.53
depth: 60.9
table: 56
crown angle: 34.5
pavillion angle: 41.1
girdle: 0.7-1.4 %
fluorescence: none
culet: pt
symmetry: ideal
polish: ideal
HCA: 2.4 vg/vg/vg/vg

#2
0.75 ct, H, SI1, AGS1
size: 5.91 x 5.89 x 3.61
depth: 61.2
table: 56
crown angle: 34.5
pavillion angle: 41.2
girdle: 0.7-1.2 %
fluorescence: none
culet: pt
symmetry: ideal
polish: excellent
HCA: 3.1 vg/g/g/vg

#3
0.76 ct, G, SI2, AGS 0-0-0
size: 5.85 x 5.82 x 3.65
depth: 62.5
table: 56
crown angle: 35.5
pavillion angle: 40.9
girdle: medium 1.7 %
fluorescence: none
symmetry: ideal
polish: ideal
HCA: 3.2 vg/vg/vg/vg

#4
0.70 ct, G, VVS2,
size: 5.81 x 5.76 x 3.38
depth: 58.4
table: 64
crown angle: 34.7
pavillion angle: 40.3
girdle: medium 1.6 %
fluorescence: neg
HCA: 2.9 vg/vg/vg/ex