IS image, please review!

[Steve6716]

Since it got buried in the other thread, here are the specs of the stone I''m considering. Would you guys take a look and let me know what you think? I now have the IS, verified it is eye clean and ran the angles through the HCA (scored 1.1). Is there anything else I should consider before pulling the trigger? Thanks all

1.16 ct
Color I
Clarity SI1
Depth 61.7
Table 58
Girdle Slt. Thk to Thk
Culet - none
flourescence - none

Crown/Pav (in degrees) 35 / 40.6

 

[Stephan]

It looks very good!

 

[Ellen]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/19/2009 10:54:57 AM
Author: Ellen
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Ditto!!!

 

[strmrdr]

It is not the best of the best but should be a beautiful diamond.

 

[Steve6716]

Date: 8/19/2009 11:44:41 AM
Author: strmrdr
It is not the best of the best but should be a beautiful diamond.

Do you care to elaborate? What will be the difference between this stone and one with a better IS? What characteristics or flaws will be noticable to the naked eye?

 

[strmrdr]

sure:
Bit of weight hiding in the girdle reducing diameter but the depth isn''t unreasonable.

The variations in the upper girdles also disqualify it from the best category.

Eye visible things other than spread, not really anything to most people.

 

[Lula]

Date: 8/19/2009 5:30:53 PM
Author: strmrdr
sure:

Bit of weight hiding in the girdle reducing diameter but the depth isn''t unreasonable.


The variations in the upper girdles also disqualify it from the best category.


Eye visible things other than spread, not really anything to most people.

Karl, can you please write one of your haiku-style posts and explain how you know from the IS image that this stone has variations in the upper girdles?
Thanks!

 

[Lula]

Steve -- I think the IS looks great. No light leakage, nice pattern. Let us know what you decide!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/19/2009 5:35:47 PM
Author: sarap333

Karl, can you please write one of your haiku-style posts and explain how you know from the IS image that this stone has variations in the upper girdles?

Thanks!

circles on an IS image explain it better.
The top are unpainted/undug the bottom have some

 

[Lula]

Thanks, Karl. I see it now.

And, Steve, I trust Karl/Storm when he says these variations won''t be noticeable (unless you''re an expert -- and I know I''m not!).