Is these pair of diamonds ideal for earrings?

[mac-vision]

Here are the two diamonds.

1.50 H VVS2 Cut-Ex Polish- Ex Symmetry- VG. - Ideal cut round diamond”
1.52 H VVS2 Cut-Ex Polish – Ex Symmetry – Vg.

I have took the HCA analysis as well which I have attached.

My queries:
HCA shows the score of 5.4. And report give it a "ideal cut diamond". On what basis they are giving?

If this both diamond are to be stud in the earring. Will there be a major difference in the visual effect while wearing it? Garry normally suggests shallow diamonds in earrings to look bigger??

Is it advisable to buy it as a pair for the earring? Yes/No, Why?

Kind Regards,
Mahek

 

[mac-vision]

HCA of another diamond for the earring 1.52 H VVS2

Regards,
Mahek

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 6/23/2009 10:08:37 AM
Author:mac-vision
My queries:

HCA shows the score of 5.4. And report give it a 'ideal cut diamond'. On what basis they are giving?

If this both diamond are to be stud in the earring. Will there be a major difference in the visual effect while wearing it? Garry normally suggests shallow diamonds in earrings to look bigger??

Is it advisable to buy it as a pair for the earring? Yes/No, Why?

Kind Regards,

Mahek

Who gives what? I am guess you mean Garry for the cut adviser? Go through how Garry developes the adviser. Linked to methodology, http://www.diamond-cut.com.au/10_method.htm
Why do you want to settle on that pair of low scoring stone is a better question. Garry suggested shallower pavilion because it will more likely be graded VG/G in cut by the labs thus a better deal than just going by the EX grade, especially with steep/deep capable of earning EX grade.
What did the other diamond score? Saw the images. Probably not, one of them will look dead.

 

[Lorelei]

I would definitely pass on the first one, classic steep deep angles which will leak light. The second, the pavilion angle is too steep, you can do better than these. The second earring from the info given, I would speculate will look brighter and more brilliant than the other, the first diamond will probably be lifeless with dark patches.

As to the term Ideal Cut, this term can be used very loosely and in the vast majority of circumstances, no guarantee of a well cut diamond. Shallower proportioned diamonds are preferred by some for earrings as they can look very bright and brilliant when worn in the ears, obstruction which can be an issue with these in rings ( the viewer's head blocks the light to the stone) isn't a problem in earrings as they are viewed differently to ring stones.

Also unless you have to have VVS clarity, you could lower this to VS or SI, thus broadening the options. Cut quality is very important in earring stones so although you don't need perfection necessarily, well proportioned diamonds with a good finish at least are desirable.

Who is selling these diamonds and do you have any images such as Idealscope for them?

 

[mac-vision]

[/quote]

Who gives what? I am guess you mean Garry for the cut adviser? Go through how Garry developes the adviser.

Why do you want to settle on that pair of low scoring stone is a better question. Garry suggested shallower pavilion because it will more likely be graded VG/G in cut by the labs thus a better deal than just going by the EX grade, especially with steep/deep capable of earning EX grade.

What did the other diamond score? Saw the images.[/quote]

I just attached the certificate of the first diamond. Certificate says "Ideal cut diamond" where as HCA gives it a 5.4 score thats seems low.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/23/2009 10:22:22 AM
Author: mac-vision

Who gives what? I am guess you mean Garry for the cut adviser? Go through how Garry developes the adviser.

Why do you want to settle on that pair of low scoring stone is a better question. Garry suggested shallower pavilion because it will more likely be graded VG/G in cut by the labs thus a better deal than just going by the EX grade, especially with steep/deep capable of earning EX grade.

What did the other diamond score? Saw the images.[/quote]

I just attached the certificate of the first diamond. Certificate says 'Ideal cut diamond' where as HCA gives it a 5.4 score thats seems low.[/quote]
What type of grading report do these diamonds have, GIA? If so GIA do not use the term Ideal, their highest grade is excellent. I don't think the report attached to your post? I am just getting the screen capture of the HCA result.

 

[mac-vision]

Date: 6/23/2009 10:15:09 AM
Author: Lorelei
I would definitely pass on the first one, classic steep deep angles which will leak light. The second, the pavilion angle is too steep, you can do better than these. The second earring from the info given, I would speculate will look brighter and more brilliant than the other, the first diamond will probably be lifeless with dark patches.


As to the term Ideal Cut, this term can be used very loosely and in the vast majority of circumstances, no guarantee of a well cut diamond. Shallower proportioned diamonds are preferred by some for earrings as they can look very bright and brilliant when worn in the ears, obstruction which can be an issue with these in rings ( the viewer''s head blocks the light to the stone) isn''t a problem in earrings as they are viewed differently to ring stones.


Also unless you have to have VVS clarity, you could lower this to VS or SI, thus broadening the options. Cut quality is very important in earring stones so although you don''t need perfection necessarily, well proportioned diamonds with a good finish at least are desirable.


Who is selling these diamonds and do you have any images such as Idealscope for them?

Its a personal seller. I do not have IS for them. I tried but he is not able to provide.


What kind of proportion would you recommend in this kind of stone.

I would want to go for VVS and H colour.




Mahek

 

[mac-vision]

Date: 6/23/2009 10:23:57 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/23/2009 10:22:22 AM

Author: mac-vision



Who gives what? I am guess you mean Garry for the cut adviser? Go through how Garry developes the adviser.


Why do you want to settle on that pair of low scoring stone is a better question. Garry suggested shallower pavilion because it will more likely be graded VG/G in cut by the labs thus a better deal than just going by the EX grade, especially with steep/deep capable of earning EX grade.


What did the other diamond score? Saw the images.


I just attached the certificate of the first diamond. Certificate says ''Ideal cut diamond'' where as HCA gives it a 5.4 score thats seems low.

What type of grading report do these diamonds have, GIA? If so GIA do not use the term Ideal, their highest grade is excellent. I don''t think the report attached to your post? I am just getting the screen capture of the HCA result.

I will put it again. Its IGI.

 

[Lorelei]

Ok thanks Mahek. IGI are considered to grade more leniently than GIA or AGS in some circumstances, you can read more here below. Personally I wouldn't bother with the diamonds you posted, particularly the first is not well cut.

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/

Here are some numbers you can use as a guide to find some well cut diamonds, these are normally used for a ring but can also be suitable for earrings.

depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4%
table - 54- 57%
crown angle - 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees
girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc
polish and symmetry - very good and above


note - with crown and pavilion angles at the shallower ends ( CA 34- PA 40.6) and steeper ( CA 35- PA 41) check to make sure these angles complement in that particular diamond - eyeballs, Idealscope, trusted vendor input - check as appropriate!

From expert John Pollard.

As the above implies, configurations depend on each other. A little give here can still work with a little take there.

With that said, here's a "Cliff's Notes" for staying near Tolkowsky/ideal angles with GIA reports (their numbers are rounded): A crown angle of 34.0, 34.5 or 35.0 is usually safe with a 40.8 pavilion angle. If pavilion angle = 40.6 lean toward a 34.5-35.0 crown. If pavilion angle = 41 lean toward a 34.0-34.5 crown.

GIA "EX" in cut is great at its heart, but it ranges a bit wider than some people prefer, particularly in deep combinations (pavilion > 41 with crown > 35).

Also you can use the HCA to find diamonds which score below 2, also sometimes the shallower stones which score below 1 can be suitable for earrings, these are usually the shallower proportioned diamonds as mentioned earlier.

Just report back with anything you find or if you want to buy online we might be able to suggest some suitable diamonds if you give us an idea of budget.

 

[stone-cold11]

I would buy a Idealscope and check the stones physically, not trusting IGI on the parameters if they can give that stone an ID in cut. They are just $25 USD + shipping.

 

[mac-vision]

Sorry, some problem with uploading the certificate. I am not able to upload. I will put in the information.

Round Brilliant
1.50ct H VVS2
Cut - ex
Polish - ex
Symmetry - vg

measurement 7.29 - 7.34 x 4.58mm
Table 55.5%
Crown height - angle - 16% - 36`
Pavilion Depth - Angle - 43.5% - 41`
Girdle Thickness - Medium to sl. thick (fac)
Culet Pointed
Total Depht - 62.6%
Fluro - none
Comments - "Ideal Cut round Brilliant"

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/23/2009 10:46:24 AM
Author: mac-vision
Sorry, some problem with uploading the certificate. I am not able to upload. I will put in the information.

Round Brilliant
1.50ct H VVS2
Cut - ex
Polish - ex
Symmetry - vg

measurement 7.29 - 7.34 x 4.58mm
Table 55.5%
Crown height - angle - 16% - 36`
Pavilion Depth - Angle - 43.5% - 41`
Girdle Thickness - Medium to sl. thick (fac)
Culet Pointed
Total Depht - 62.6%
Fluro - none
Comments - 'Ideal Cut round Brilliant'

Thanks for taking the trouble to do that Mahrek!

Ok the comment Ideal Cut Round Brilliant doesn't mean anything really, like I say some use this term regularly but it doesn't guarantee you a well cut stone regrettably. The diamond is a bit deep and is facing up a bit small for the weight also.

 

[mac-vision]

Date: 6/23/2009 10:48:40 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/23/2009 10:46:24 AM

Author: mac-vision

Sorry, some problem with uploading the certificate. I am not able to upload. I will put in the information.


Round Brilliant

1.50ct H VVS2

Cut - ex

Polish - ex

Symmetry - vg


measurement 7.29 - 7.34 x 4.58mm

Table 55.5%

Crown height - angle - 16% - 36`

Pavilion Depth - Angle - 43.5% - 41`

Girdle Thickness - Medium to sl. thick (fac)

Culet Pointed

Total Depht - 62.6%

Fluro - none

Comments - ''Ideal Cut round Brilliant''

Thanks for taking the trouble to do that Mahrek!


Ok the comment Ideal Cut Round Brilliant doesn''t mean anything really, like I say some use this term regularly but it doesn''t guarantee you a well cut stone regrettably. The diamond is a bit deep and is facing up a bit small for the weight also.

Thanks a lot for you input. I will do some more research and get back!!!

 

[Lorelei]

Most welcome Mahrek, just shout if you need any more help

 

[mac-vision]

Date: 6/23/2009 10:15:09 AM
Author: Lorelei
I would definitely pass on the first one, classic steep deep angles which will leak light. The second, the pavilion angle is too steep, you can do better than these. The second earring from the info given, I would speculate will look brighter and more brilliant than the other, the first diamond will probably be lifeless with dark patches.

Also unless you have to have VVS clarity, you could lower this to VS or SI, thus broadening the options. Cut quality is very important in earring stones so although you don''t need perfection necessarily, well proportioned diamonds with a good finish at least are desirable.


Who is selling these diamonds and do you have any images such as Idealscope for them?

Lorelei, could you please share some more observation on the two diamonds that I have selected. Some numbers as well to understand what you basically meant in First para. I didn''t understood you completely on the first part.


Mahek Mehta

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 6/23/2009 11:47:17 AM
Author: mac-vision

Date: 6/23/2009 10:15:09 AM

Author: Lorelei

I would definitely pass on the first one, classic steep deep angles which will leak light. The second, the pavilion angle is too steep, you can do better than these. The second earring from the info given, I would speculate will look brighter and more brilliant than the other, the first diamond will probably be lifeless with dark patches.

Lorelei, could you please share some more observation on the two diamonds that I have selected. Some numbers as well to understand what you basically meant in First para. I didn''t understood you completely on the first part.

Mahek Mehta

Angles in a prism. Angle too wide or too narrow, light leakage happens.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/23/2009 11:47:17 AM
Author: mac-vision

Date: 6/23/2009 10:15:09 AM
Author: Lorelei
I would definitely pass on the first one, classic steep deep angles which will leak light. The second, the pavilion angle is too steep, you can do better than these. The second earring from the info given, I would speculate will look brighter and more brilliant than the other, the first diamond will probably be lifeless with dark patches.

Also unless you have to have VVS clarity, you could lower this to VS or SI, thus broadening the options. Cut quality is very important in earring stones so although you don''t need perfection necessarily, well proportioned diamonds with a good finish at least are desirable.


Who is selling these diamonds and do you have any images such as Idealscope for them?

Lorelei, could you please share some more observation on the two diamonds that I have selected. Some numbers as well to understand what you basically meant in First para. I didn''t understood you completely on the first part.


Mahek Mehta

Of course!

The first diamond has crown and pavilion angles which are not a good fit for each other, what we call a steep deep. This means the crown and pavilion angles will not work well together to direct light through the diamond and back to your eye as sparkle. Steep deep diamonds let light escape, so they won''t be as sparkly as they could be and you can see light leakage in the diamond as dark areas when you look at the diamond, or a dark ring around the table, which is the largest facet of a diamond. Look at the numbers I provided above to see good ranges for crown and pavilion.

With the second diamond, the pavilion angle is steep. This is undesirable as it can also lead to light leakage and some other issues. The second diamond might look better than the first one due to the proportions but you could still find better cut stones.

I hope this helps, if you need further explanations just let me know!

 

[mac-vision]

Date: 6/23/2009 10:40:01 AM
Author: Lorelei

Here are some numbers you can use as a guide to find some well cut diamonds, these are normally used for a ring but can also be suitable for earrings.


depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4%

table - 54- 57%

crown angle - 34- 35 degrees

pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees

girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc

polish and symmetry - very good and above


note - with crown and pavilion angles at the shallower ends ( CA 34- PA 40.6) and steeper ( CA 35- PA 41) check to make sure these angles complement in that particular diamond - eyeballs, Idealscope, trusted vendor input - check as appropriate!


From expert John Pollard.

As the above implies, configurations depend on each other. A little give here can still work with a little take there.

With that said, here''s a ''Cliff''s Notes'' for staying near Tolkowsky/ideal angles with GIA reports (their numbers are rounded): A crown angle of 34.0, 34.5 or 35.0 is usually safe with a 40.8 pavilion angle. If pavilion angle = 40.6 lean toward a 34.5-35.0 crown. If pavilion angle = 41 lean toward a 34.0-34.5 crown.

GIA ''EX'' in cut is great at its heart, but it ranges a bit wider than some people prefer, particularly in deep combinations (pavilion > 41 with crown > 35).

Also you can use the HCA to find diamonds which score below 2, also sometimes the shallower stones which score below 1 can be suitable for earrings, these are usually the shallower proportioned diamonds as mentioned earlier.


Just report back with anything you find or if you want to buy online we might be able to suggest some suitable diamonds if you give us an idea of budget.

Do you think the range, you suggested will fall in GIA excellent cut?
I am confused with the Symmetry and Cut. Which of them defines, "proportions" in IGI?

You said previously that first diamond is classic steep deep?
first diamond is 36` CA and 41` PA. In this case, Crown is steep but is pavilion deep? You recommended that PA till 41.4 is fine.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 6/23/2009 11:44:46 PM
Author: mac-vision

Date: 6/23/2009 10:40:01 AM

Author: Lorelei

note - with crown and pavilion angles at the shallower ends ( CA 34- PA 40.6) and steeper ( CA 35- PA 41) check to make sure these angles complement in that particular diamond - eyeballs, Idealscope, trusted vendor input - check as appropriate!

From expert John Pollard.

As the above implies, configurations depend on each other. A little give here can still work with a little take there.

With that said, here''s a ''Cliff''s Notes'' for staying near Tolkowsky/ideal angles with GIA reports (their numbers are rounded): A crown angle of 34.0, 34.5 or 35.0 is usually safe with a 40.8 pavilion angle. If pavilion angle = 40.6 lean toward a 34.5-35.0 crown. If pavilion angle = 41 lean toward a 34.0-34.5 crown.

Do you think the range, you suggested will fall in GIA excellent cut?

I am confused with the Symmetry and Cut. Which of them defines, ''proportions'' in IGI?

You said previously that first diamond is classic steep deep?

first diamond is 36` CA and 41` PA. In this case, Crown is steep but is pavilion deep? You recommended that PA till 41.4 is fine.

This is the portion you should read again carefully. The crown and pav angle has an inverse relationship, a higher crown needs a shallower pav to complement it.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/23/2009 11:44:46 PM
Author: mac-vision

Date: 6/23/2009 10:40:01 AM
Author: Lorelei

Here are some numbers you can use as a guide to find some well cut diamonds, these are normally used for a ring but can also be suitable for earrings.


depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4%

table - 54- 57%

crown angle - 34- 35 degrees

pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees

girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc

polish and symmetry - very good and above










note - with crown and pavilion angles at the shallower ends ( CA 34- PA 40.6) and steeper ( CA 35- PA 41) check to make sure these angles complement in that particular diamond - eyeballs, Idealscope, trusted vendor input - check as appropriate!


From expert John Pollard.

As the above implies, configurations depend on each other. A little give here can still work with a little take there.

With that said, here's a 'Cliff's Notes' for staying near Tolkowsky/ideal angles with GIA reports (their numbers are rounded): A crown angle of 34.0, 34.5 or 35.0 is usually safe with a 40.8 pavilion angle. If pavilion angle = 40.6 lean toward a 34.5-35.0 crown. If pavilion angle = 41 lean toward a 34.0-34.5 crown.

GIA 'EX' in cut is great at its heart, but it ranges a bit wider than some people prefer, particularly in deep combinations (pavilion > 41 with crown > 35).

Also you can use the HCA to find diamonds which score below 2, also sometimes the shallower stones which score below 1 can be suitable for earrings, these are usually the shallower proportioned diamonds as mentioned earlier.


Just report back with anything you find or if you want to buy online we might be able to suggest some suitable diamonds if you give us an idea of budget.

Do you think the range, you suggested will fall in GIA excellent cut?
I am confused with the Symmetry and Cut. Which of them defines, 'proportions' in IGI?

You said previously that first diamond is classic steep deep?
first diamond is 36` CA and 41` PA. In this case, Crown is steep but is pavilion deep? You recommended that PA till 41.4 is fine.

No, I would not recommend a 41.4 PA, much too steep, I think you misread or misunderstood there. The crown angle is steep in the first diamond as well as the pavilion angle, together these angles are not a good fit for each other. Generally the steeper you go with the pavilion angle, the crown angle needs to be shallower to balance it, however once you start getting well past 41 degrees with a pavilion angle, leakage and other issues can become a problem even with a shallower crown angle.

It is possible the numbers I gave above will fall within GIA Excellent cut grade in some cases yes.

The second diamond, the pavilion angle alone is too steep.

Symmetry, is the judgement of how well the facets, culet, table etc meet on the diamond, read more here

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/symm.asp

Symmetry and polish are details of finish, proportions refers to depth, table, angles and so on.

 

[mac-vision]

No, I would not recommend a 41.4 PA, much too steep, I think you misread or misunderstood there. The crown angle is steep in the first diamond as well as the pavilion angle, together these angles are not a good fit for each other. Generally the steeper you go with the pavilion angle, the crown angle needs to be shallower to balance it, however once you start getting well past 41 degrees with a pavilion angle, leakage and other issues can become a problem even with a shallower crown angle.


It is possible the numbers I gave above will fall within GIA Excellent cut grade in some cases yes.


The second diamond, the pavilion angle alone is too steep.


Symmetry, is the judgement of how well the facets, culet, table etc meet on the diamond, read more here


http://diamonds.pricescope.com/symm.asp


Symmetry and polish are details of finish, proportions refers to depth, table, angles and so on.

Yes, I misread it. My mistake .

The second diamond has CA 32.5 & PA 41.3. In this case, it seems Crown is too slant? Pavilion is steep true. But isn''t it proportioned to Crown?


And how about this stone, it seems it has good cut?
1.60 H VVS2, Table - 57%, CA - 35`, PA - 40.7`, Medium (fac), Total Depth - 61.8
7.45 - 7.50 x 4.62 mm

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/24/2009 9:02:17 AM
Author: mac-vision

No, I would not recommend a 41.4 PA, much too steep, I think you misread or misunderstood there. The crown angle is steep in the first diamond as well as the pavilion angle, together these angles are not a good fit for each other. Generally the steeper you go with the pavilion angle, the crown angle needs to be shallower to balance it, however once you start getting well past 41 degrees with a pavilion angle, leakage and other issues can become a problem even with a shallower crown angle.


It is possible the numbers I gave above will fall within GIA Excellent cut grade in some cases yes.


The second diamond, the pavilion angle alone is too steep.


Symmetry, is the judgement of how well the facets, culet, table etc meet on the diamond, read more here


http://diamonds.pricescope.com/symm.asp


Symmetry and polish are details of finish, proportions refers to depth, table, angles and so on.

Yes, I misread it. My mistake . No problem!

The second diamond has CA 32.5 & PA 41.3. In this case, it seems Crown is too slant? Pavilion is steep true. But isn't it proportioned to Crown? A shallower crown can compensate for a steeper pavilion however once you start getting much past 41 degrees especially with a diamond from an unknown vendor, it can be on the edge of a cliff so to speak. Really an Idealscope image is needed in order to properly judge the diamond, without all that can be said is it might be decent diamond but chances are it might not be, very well cut diamonds do not have such steep pavilion angles.


And how about this stone, it seems it has good cut?
1.60 H VVS2, Table - 57%, CA - 35`, PA - 40.7`, Medium (fac), Total Depth - 61.8
7.45 - 7.50 x 4.62 mm This one looks promising.

 

[mac-vision]

Yes, I misread it. My mistake . No problem!



The second diamond has CA 32.5 & PA 41.3. In this case, it seems Crown is too slant? Pavilion is steep true. But isn''t it proportioned to Crown? A shallower crown can compensate for a steeper pavilion however once you start getting much past 41 degrees especially with a diamond from an unknown vendor, it can be on the edge of a cliff so to speak. Really an Idealscope image is needed in order to properly judge the diamond, without all that can be said is it might be decent diamond but chances are it might not be, very well cut diamonds do not have such steep pavilion angles.



And how about this stone, it seems it has good cut?

1.60 H VVS2, Table - 57%, CA - 35`, PA - 40.7`, Medium (fac), Total Depth - 61.8

7.45 - 7.50 x 4.62 mm This one looks promising.

I understand. I will try to get the Ideal scope images for you, if possible.

Thanks for your help though

 

[Lorelei]

More than welcome! If you can get images that would be a big help but if not we will do what we can without to help you.

 

[mac-vision]

Hi, I am back.

Check this out.

Lorelei: "You recommended to have table 53-57%"

This diamonds has a table of 61% and still has 1.9 Excellent score in HCA.

Table - 61%
CA - 32.5
PA - 41
Total Depth - 60

Measurement: 6.74mm - 6.78mm x 4.09mm

Please share you view on this.

 

[stone-cold11]

That is recommend. The stats recommended is for a near tolk proportion, there can be other proportion combination that is just as good but has a different appearance.

The proportion you found is a 60/60 proportion and cut for light return, near tolk is more of a balance between light return and fire.

Some reading if you want to know more.

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/72/1/Laboratory-Cut-Grades-What-the-report-doesn%E2%80%99t-show.aspx

 

[mac-vision]

Date: 6/27/2009 9:05:06 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
That is recommend. The stats recommended is for a near tolk proportion, there can be other proportion combination that is just as good but has a different appearance.


The proportion you found is a 60/60 proportion and cut for light return, near tolk is more of a balance between light return and fire.


Some reading if you want to know more.


http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/72/1/Laboratory-Cut-Grades-What-the-report-doesn%E2%80%99t-show.aspx

Thanks. Yes, i have read the article from John Pollard. Its very helping.
In which situation 54% - 57% table is better.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/27/2009 8:58:58 AM
Author: mac-vision
Hi, I am back.

Check this out.

Lorelei: ''You recommended to have table 53-57%''

This diamonds has a table of 61% and still has 1.9 Excellent score in HCA.

Table - 61%
CA - 32.5
PA - 41
Total Depth - 60

Measurement: 6.74mm - 6.78mm x 4.09mm

Please share you view on this.

The table size is not a problem, what you want is for the tables and diameters of each diamond to be a close match to each other. The proportions look fine.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/27/2009 9:11:12 AM
Author: mac-vision


Thanks. Yes, i have read the article from John Pollard. Its very helping.
In which situation 54% - 57% table is better.

Generally for a well balanced ring stone 54- 57% is preferable in a diamond of top cut quality, however there are various proportion configurations which work well together such as a larger table in some cases, as long as the critical angles are within good range.

 

[stone-cold11]

I think generally 60/60 are cut with a shallower crown and deeper pav angle, Brilliant Ideal cut, as that will get the most return for the rough.

54-57% table is just more likely to be a balance near tolk cut.