need a quick set of professional eyes on these specs

[gamelo]

Any issues with these specs?


Depth
60.3 %
Table
58 %
Crown Angle
33.0°
Crown Height
13.5%
Pavilion Angle
41.0°
Pavilion Depth
43.5%
Star Length
45%
Lower Half
75%
Girdle
Thin to Medium, Faceted, 3.5%
Culet
None

 

[gamelo]

The lack of response suggests to me nobody found anything glaring to point out

 

[oldminer]

You are missing a grade of Symmetry. Symmetry especially may be something of importance here as it may have a visual effect on appearance. Polish could have some effect, too, but it is less likely to occur visually.

How do the maximum and minimum diameters match or are they indicating some lack of roundness?

It sounds like a reasonably typical well cut diamond, but not an AGS000 cut quality one. It may be just right for you, but there are some on Pricescope that really love top cut diamonds and place an exceedingly high degree of importance to the cut quality. I can't say they are wrong, but they are centered on that goal more than many other consumers who are in the market to make a purchase.

 

[gamelo]

You are missing a grade of Symmetry. Symmetry especially may be something of importance here as it may have a visual effect on appearance. Polish could have some effect, too, but it is less likely to occur visually.

How do the maximum and minimum diameters match or are they indicating some lack of roundness?

It sounds like a reasonably typical well cut diamond, but not an AGS000 cut quality one. It may be just right for you, but there are some on Pricescope that really love top cut diamonds and place an exceedingly high degree of importance to the cut quality. I can't say they are wrong, but they are centered on that goal more than many other consumers who are in the market to make a purchase.

Thank you, it is triple excellent. Which specifications would disqualify it from AGS000? I do know that the AGS tables place it under "Ideal". HCA rates less than 1. The maximum and minimum diameters are below 0.3% from the mean.

 

[oldminer]

Once you know for certain it rates AGS000 you have nothing left to doubt. Everything else becomes a discussion of the number of fairies that can fit on the head of a pin. Had you said it was AGS Ideal to begin with, I would have just said, "congratulations". I figured it was a borderline call for not being AGS000, but it was a guess of what "might" have been not the best possible outcome. Looks like you already had the info you needed to begin with.

 

[gamelo]

Once you know for certain it rates AGS000 you have nothing left to doubt. Everything else becomes a discussion of the number of fairies that can fit on the head of a pin. Had you said it was AGS Ideal to begin with, I would have just said, "congratulations". I figured it was a borderline call for not being AGS000, but it was a guess of what "might" have been not the best possible outcome. Looks like you already had the info you needed to begin with.

As a clarification, it is only GIA rated so I do not have AGS rating. However, I did use the AGS cut tables that look at pavilion and crown and it classifies as Ideal. I only mentioned AGS since I was not sure what about the above numbers looked like they would be an issue with AGS based on your comments. I was just wanting feedback from others to know what they thought of those cut numbers. They look good to me based on my research and reading of this forum, but you never know what people here will point out.