Is this an Ideal cut?

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/18/2009 2:12:33 PM
Author: QueenMum
Do you say there will be leakage under the table?

nope obstruction and scintillation is the issue.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/18/2009 3:39:46 PM
Author: QueenMum

Problem of the experts is that they can''t measure fire or scintillation.

They only can with their eyes, no tool can do that today.

Detas and ags ray tracing can measure fire potential and somewhat scintillation.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/18/2009 3:31:12 PM
Author: QueenMum

I thought that the 1.46ct with a 42.06 lower girdle and 40.19 upper girdle will work for a crown with minimum leakage, even if it is true that I would prefer a 61% star length that would give us a 42.22 upper girdle what would, with the same lower girdle, result in good light return too, but also for more fire and contrast in the diamond.

Steeper upper girdles don''t always result in more fire being returned to the eye.
Upper girdle definition can however change the scintillation and fire.
That is where upper painted diamonds take a large hit as the uppers blend together.
This is why a small amount of painting can really hurt a diamond with a crown angle on the low side of the acceptable range as they don''t have a lot to start with.

 

[strmrdr]

QueenMum,
If you don''t mind me asking tell me about your eyesight?
glasses? contacts? good near vision? good far vision?
That can make a huge difference on how diamonds appear to someone.

 

[Stephan]

That''s the good question.

I only see with one eye.

 

[Stephan]

But that eye works very good when the distance is 20cm or more.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/18/2009 4:43:15 PM
Author: strmrdr
nope obstruction and scintillation is the issue.

I agree, but will the obstruction be that bad on this diamond?
Both to enhance obstruction and scintillation issues, LG could be slightly longer, and stars much more longer.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/18/2009 4:58:28 PM
Author: QueenMum
That''s the good question.

I only see with one eye.

I am sorry to hear that :{

Unfortunately that also means you don''t see diamonds the same way most people do.
Serg and AGS has been doing a lot of research in this area.
You would absolutely hate many gia EX diamonds that are steep/deep.
They need a 2 eyed view to cover the mild ring of death.

I have one eye that is a lot weaker(20/450) than the other and has a lot more correction and when I take my glasses off and in effect am seeing it with just one eye they look totally different.

I hope this don''t sound mean but it does make a large difference.
I am glad you have found combinations that work the best for you :}

 

[Stephan]

Of course it is not mean, it is the truth.

And indeed I hate deep diamonds.
I was born that way, they call it amblyopia.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/18/2009 5:07:13 PM
Author: QueenMum

Date: 4/18/2009 4:43:15 PM

Author: strmrdr

nope obstruction and scintillation is the issue.

I agree, but will the obstruction be that bad on this diamond?

Both to enhance obstruction and scintillation issues, LG could be slightly longer, and stars much more longer.

longer lowers over 78 helps the stars have a lesser impact on contrast.
Scintillation could be helped with the resulting steeper uppers but might also be hurt if they get to steep.
Overall the stars is not a huge difference as long as no painting is present on the uppers however the lowers do make a huge difference.

 

[sandystone1]

Stephan/Carl,

Thanks for the info. I am more leaning towards the 1.33 stone as dimensions wise it is very slightly smaller than 1.46 and I would be saving close to 2000 on this one. Also it is slightly higher in color. If you had to choose one which on would it be? both of you plz give me ur pick.

1.33 ct Round HCA 1.5 (No images available)
Ideal
F
VS2
Depth: 61.6
Table: 56
Crown: 35
Pav: 40.8
Gri: Med faceted 3.5%
Pol: Ex
Sym: Ex
Cutlet: None
Fl: None
7.07 x 7.05 x 4.35

 

[Stephan]

I also agree that ray tracing can measure fire, but can it measure its intensity?
I saw diamonds with a lot of fire, but weak fire that can''t be seen from a distance.
Other diamonds just send fire to the other side of the street.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/18/2009 5:24:42 PM
Author: sandystone1
Stephan/Carl,


Thanks for the info. I am more leaning towards the 1.33 stone as dimensions wise it is very slightly smaller than 1.46 and I would be saving close to 2000 on this one. Also it is slightly higher in color. If you had to choose one which on would it be? both of you plz give me ur pick.


1.33 ct Round HCA 1.5 (No images available)

Ideal

F

VS2

Depth: 61.6

Table: 56

Crown: 35

Pav: 40.8

Gri: Med faceted 3.5%

Pol: Ex

Sym: Ex

Cutlet: None

Fl: None

7.07 x 7.05 x 4.35

personally I refuse to buy diamonds without images unless I am seeing them in person first.
All that can really be said about it is that the rounded averaged numbers work well together.

 

[Stephan]

Sorry Sandy, we are hijacking your thread.
As you could see, I''m not a fan of the 1.33ct but other opinions are welcome.
Lower girdle and star length is a precious information too.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/18/2009 5:26:05 PM
Author: QueenMum
I also agree that ray tracing can measure fire, but can it measure its intensity?

I saw diamonds with a lot of fire, but weak fire that can''t be seen from a distance.

Other diamonds just send fire to the other side of the street.

not yet with on an overall diamond view, yes for individual rays.
Serg is working on it and has some views in DC but im not sure I agree with the results yet.

 

[sandystone1]

Hi guys,

I made a visit to NYC diamond exchange yesterday. One of the dealers mentioned that lot of cutters prefer 58% table for 61.3 to 61.8 depth. Is that a right statement? Isn''t 55 - 57 the best?

Thanks
Sandy

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/20/2009 2:38:47 PM
Author: sandystone1
I made a visit to NYC diamond exchange yesterday. One of the dealers mentioned that lot of cutters prefer 58% table for 61.3 to 61.8 depth. Is that a right statement? Isn''t 55 - 57 the best?

I don''t know what cutters prefer, but in matter of performances, it is not that simple.
I guess he was trying to sell you something.

 

[sandystone1]

From what I remember, it was a 1.37 ct Round 61.4 Depth, G VS2 stone and he said he would go with 58 as it make a stone look bigger. Asking price 9500. I asked for certificate and he said it will be provided once I decide to buy. The stone looked good.

Thanks
Sandy

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/20/2009 2:56:19 PM
Author: sandystone1
I asked for certificate and he said it will be provided once I decide to buy.

Don''t deal with him.
How to decide without seeing the certificate!
Scandalous.

 

[sandystone1]

Hi guys,

What are your opinions about this stone? I am inclined more towards this one. Do you think it will have sufficient fire to it? Also will the stone appear bigger?

1.35 ct Round HCA 1.5 (No images available)
Ideal
G
VS2
Depth: 61.7
Table: 55
Crown: 35
Pav: 40.8
Gri: Med 3.0%
Pol: Ex
Sym: Ex
Cutlet: None
Fl: None
7.13 x 7.16 x 4.41 mm

Thanks
Sandy

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2009 10:29:29 AM
Author: sandystone1
Hi guys,

What are your opinions about this stone? I am inclined more towards this one. Do you think it will have sufficient fire to it? Also will the stone appear bigger?

1.35 ct Round HCA 1.5 (No images available)
Ideal
G
VS2
Depth: 61.7
Table: 55
Crown: 35
Pav: 40.8
Gri: Med 3.0%
Pol: Ex
Sym: Ex
Cutlet: None
Fl: None
7.13 x 7.16 x 4.41 mm

Thanks
Sandy

It has potential, can you get an Idealscope for it please?

 

[sandystone1]

Thanks Lorelie. I am sorry I dont have any images. Is 35 to 40.8 CAA good or do you think it is too steep?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/21/2009 10:42:40 AM
Author: sandystone1
Thanks Lorelie. I am sorry I dont have any images. Is 35 to 40.8 CAA good or do you think it is too steep?

It is borderline steep deep Sandy and GIA round the numbers so it could show leakage if the angles are actually steeper - or not if shallower - so it is a gamble without an image as to whether it will leak or not.

 

[sandystone1]

Lorelie/Stephan/Karl,

Thanks for your reply. I do have some images for the following stone. Can you please help me analyzing this one.

http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-signature-ideal-cut-f-color-vs2-clarity_LD01481093?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=0#grading_report

Thanks.
Sandy

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Sandy,

It looks promising by the numbers but from the photomicrograph on the GCAL report it looks as if the diamond is a little shallow, but it is very hard to tell from these tiny images.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/21/2009 1:38:51 PM
Author: sandystone1
Can you please help me analyzing this one.

http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-signature-ideal-cut-f-color-vs2-clarity_LD01481093?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=0#grading_report

So much money?
For a little less, you could have a big diamond like this one:
http://www.bluenile.com/round-diamond-1-carat-ideal-cut-i-color-vs1-clarity_LD01487592?__fun_frm=i&filter_id=0#grading_report

 

[sandystone1]

Yep. You are right. The money on this one is a bit higher than I thought. I have made my final selections based on all our conversations over the last few weeks.
I will be purchasing my stone this week and planning to propose my girl sometime next week. I appreciate all you folks especially Stephan, Karl, & Lorelie for making me an aware & informed buyer.

Here is my pool which will be the last pool (Thank god ....it has been a tiring process). Please make this last decision for me. If my order of priority is
Cut - Size - Price, which one would you pick. And again I am sorry for not having images for you.

1.31 F VS1 Med - Sl Thk 0.9 HCA 61.3 Depth 57 Table 35/40.6 CA/PA (7.02 x 7.05 x 4.31 mm)Star 50% Lower Depth 80% $10300
1.30 G VS1 Thin - Med 1.5 HCA 61.59 55 35/40.8 (7.03 x 7.05 x 4.34 mm) Star 55% Lower Depth 75% $9400
1.30 G VS1 Med faceted 0.9 HCA 61.3 57 35/40.6 (7.03 x 7.01 x 4.30 mm) Star 50% Lower Depth 80% $9500
1.36 G VS1 Med-Sl Thk 1.1 HCA 61.6 57 34/40.8 (7.12 x 7.09 x 4.38 mm) Star 50% Lower Depth 80% $9900
1.37 G VS1 Thin-Med 1.5 HCA 61.7 55 35/40.8 (7.13 x 7.16 x 4.41 mm) Star 55% Lower Depth 75% $9500

All the above are Ideal Cut as per GIA, EX for Polish & Symm. Cutlet & FL is None

Thanks
Sandy

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 4/22/2009 10:42:22 AM
Author: sandystone1
Yep. You are right. The money on this one is a bit higher than I thought. I have made my final selections based on all our conversations over the last few weeks.
I will be purchasing my stone this week and planning to propose my girl sometime next week. I appreciate all you folks especially Stephan, Karl, & Lorelie for making me an aware & informed buyer.

Here is my pool which will be the last pool (Thank god ....it has been a tiring process). Please make this last decision for me. If my order of priority is
Cut - Size - Price, which one would you pick. And again I am sorry for not having images for you.

1.31 F VS1 Med - Sl Thk 0.9 HCA 61.3 Depth 57 Table 35/40.6 CA/PA (7.02 x 7.05 x 4.31 mm)Star 50% Lower Depth 80% $10300
1.30 G VS1 Thin - Med 1.5 HCA 61.59 55 35/40.8 (7.03 x 7.05 x 4.34 mm) Star 55% Lower Depth 75% $9400
1.30 G VS1 Med faceted 0.9 HCA 61.3 57 35/40.6 (7.03 x 7.01 x 4.30 mm) Star 50% Lower Depth 80% $9500
1.36 G VS1 Med-Sl Thk 1.1 HCA 61.6 57 34/40.8 (7.12 x 7.09 x 4.38 mm) Star 50% Lower Depth 80% $9900
1.37 G VS1 Thin-Med 1.5 HCA 61.7 55 35/40.8 (7.13 x 7.16 x 4.41 mm) Star 55% Lower Depth 75% $9500

All the above are Ideal Cut as per GIA, EX for Polish & Symm. Cutlet & FL is None

Thanks
Sandy

They all have good potential
But my picks would be (in no particular order: 1, 3, 4.

I have the #1 and 4 combo with a slightly smaller table, but the same depth as 4. Gorgeous!

 

[Stephan]

I''m at work so I''ll be short:
1 and 3

 

[Lorelei]

1, 3 and 4.