Is this a WF New Line or Classic stone? Is it good?

[Jeanne61]

I''ve been looking at some virtual stones for a upgrade but have chickened out because I''m not sure how they''ll actually look ''in person''.

I''ve recently found this WF ACA stone. Is this a NL or Classic cut stone?

The IS image looks more like a cross between the 2 cut styles.

The AGS specs for the diamond are - what are your thoughts on this stone?


depth: 60.3
table: 55.3
crown <: 34.3 (Sarin shows 34.1-34.6 <--- is this variation OK?)
pav <: 40.6 (Sarin shows 40.6 - 40.9 <---- is this variation OK?)
crown height: 15.2
pav depth: 42.7
star / upper girdle: 51:48
HCA: .5 EEEE in TIC (<----- is .5 ''too'' good? I read most people prefer stones in the 1.5 range...)

The HCA puts it a bit OUTSIDE of the AGS IDEAL box. I thought all the WF ACA''s will land inside the box?

BTW - Running the Sarin numbers, I get .8 EEEV in TIC and it lands JUST on the very edge of the AGS IDEAL box - does that count?

Thanks!

 

[Lorelei]

It might be the lighting on the IS, it looks more like a classic to me, have you a link to the diamond?

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Part of the variation you are seeing is down to the tolerances fo the mesuring machine - put the same diamond into the same machine several times or into different machines and it will produce minor different results each time... only very slight.

to be an ACA - i believe it will have to be graded an AGS 0 for cut - so check the AGS cert thats listed on the page - and run those angles and see what it says on the HCA - but the Ideal scope image looks ok.

 

[belle]

Date: 2/6/2008 10:13:26 AM
Author:Jeanne61

I've been looking at some virtual stones for a upgrade but have chickened out because I'm not sure how they'll actually look 'in person'.

if you want to be 'safe' this is definitely the way to go.

I've recently found this WF ACA stone. Is this a NL or Classic cut stone?

The IS image looks more like a cross between the 2 cut styles.

does it matter? do you have a strong preference? i have both and really....i don't think just anyone can see the differences. especially depending on the size.

The AGS specs for the diamond are - what are your thoughts on this stone?


depth: 60.3
table: 55.3
crown <: 34.3 (Sarin shows 34.1-34.6 <--- is this variation OK?)
pav <: 40.6 (Sarin shows 40.6 - 40.9 <---- is this variation OK?)
crown height: 15.2
pav depth: 42.7
star / upper girdle: 51:48

yes, it looks good. of course those variations are okay. there isn't really any reason to talk 'variation' when you have a good looking image and a top of the line grading report.

The HCA puts it a bit OUTSIDE of the AGS IDEAL box. I thought all the WF ACA's will land inside the box?

BTW - Running the Sarin numbers, I get .8 EEEV in TIC and it lands JUST on the very edge of the AGS IDEAL box - does that count?

Thanks!

at this point it really doesn't matter where it hits in the hca box (unless the results were totally erroneous)
hca gives results based on numbers entered into the calculator. it relies on the accuracy of the basic numbers entered and takes no consideration of the actual attributes of the diamond.
the only thing that matters is that it was graded and evaluated by one of the most respected labs in the industry and it earned the top grade.

i thought you wanted to make this easy!?

 

[Jeanne61]

Sorry - forgot to include the link to the actual stone. It''s:

http://whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-12583.htm


Now a new question - I find that the pic of this stone doesn''t seem to look as "lively" as these ones below - also WF ACA.

http://whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-609778.htm

http://whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-540874.htm

http://whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-292592.htm

Is it likely just the picture? or is there something in my diamond proportions that''s making it look somewhat "flat".

I know that these ACAs are amazing stones so I''m probably just splitting hairs, but heck ... geeky inquiring minds want to know!

Belle - Guilty as charged, I guess I''m just a sucker for punishment so I''m afraid this is as easy as it gets!

 

[Lord Summerisle]

my guess is more the lighting set up when taking the photo and the exposure setting on the camera for the shots.