measurement calculations

[freddy2005]

if given the following specs, can the measurement be derive?

Depth: 60.2%
Table: 55.2%
Girdle: 1.5-4.1%
crown 34.5
pav. 40.8
Carat weight: 1.03
shape: round

 

[valeria101]

Sort of... not to the point of matching the measurements on the lab report to the second decimal, but...

Depth: 60.2%
Table: 55.2%
Girdle: 1.5-4.1%
crown 34.5
pav. 40.8
Carat weight: 1.03
shape: round

6.58... on average.

Sorry... I didn''t actually do any math, there''s a bit of software helping with these tricks

 

[freddy2005]

6.58 x what?

 

[belle]

that''s as close as you''re gonna get with only numbers freddy. the stone would have to be measured to get any more than a general approximation based on the proportions.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/1/2006 2:40:49 PM
Author: freddy2005
6.58 x what?

6.58 x 6.58 .... that''s what I meant by ''average''. There''s never such a thing on a lab report. You may get 6.61 x 5.57 or something. Sorry... there''s no way I could work that out.

However, what makes a visible difference (on the diamond, not the ink on the lab report) is about 0.2mm. That''s an order of magnitude more than predicting size can do.

As far as I know to play with these things

 

[freddy2005]

measurement has 3 numbers: a - b X c...u gave me a..what im looking for is c

c ~ 4.03?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/2/2006 5:14:45 AM
Author: freddy2005
measurement has 3 numbers: a - b X c...u gave me a..what im looking for is c

c ~ 4.03?

It's hard to get a lot of input because we try to be as precise as possible here. Speculating: If Ana's 6.58 x 6.58 is correct a 60.2% depth would be around 3.96 mm. On the other hand, if it's 6.51 x 6.51 with the girdle averaging differently the depth would be around 3.92 mm. It's very unlikely that numbers a and b will be precise. Those numbers are pretty important to know: If the diameters are 6.55 x 6.75 it will look oval.