Non-sym Princess? Your thoughts please

[asterisk]

If you have a diamond that is non-sym with a ration above 1.05, could you please post it up?? What kind of settings would mask the non-sym diamond?

 

[neatfreak]

No setting is going to mask a poorly cut diamond except for one that distracts you from the center stone...

Have you purchased said stone yet? Can YOU post pictures of what we are dealing with here?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/14/2008 12:58:03 PM
Author: neatfreak
No setting is going to mask a poorly cut diamond except for one that distracts you from the center stone...

Have you purchased said stone yet? Can YOU post pictures of what we are dealing with here?

Welcome to Pricescope,

And ditto, can you give us some more info please?

 

[asterisk]

Hey guys!

Please refer to my other thread
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-help-on-this-stone-for-the-e-ring.102203/

The diamonds is slight asymmetrical.

 

[asterisk]

attached

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 12/14/2008 12:53:50 PM
Author:asterisk
If you have a diamond that is non-sym with a ration above 1.05, could you please post it up?? What kind of settings would mask the non-sym diamond?

Bear in mind that a simmetry rating on a lab report has nothing to do with the l / w ratio. You could have a perfectly symmetrical diamond with a 2:1 ratio, and a very asymmetrical one with a 1.0000 ratio (not that either one would be a "good" diamond).

Your diamond is rated as "very good" simmetry from GIA, so I doubt you'll be able to see any asymmetry with the naked eye.

If what worries you is the out-of-square issue, I'd point out two things:

1. 0.2 mm - while about 4 times the maximum discrimination of the unaided human eye - is still very small and well within the "tolerance" of 5% to consider a stone square. Once the stone is set, it will likely become totally invisible.

2. I'd be more concerned on whether the ratio has a negative effect on brilliance because of poor cut. It does not seem to be the case based on the IS picture, but have you seen the stone? Do you like it? Have you seen it side-by-side with something you know is really well cut? Have you compared them in different types of lighting?

ETA: 3. If you really are concerned, there are plenty of 1.0 princesses available. But, to mask the slight rectangular shape, set it N-S. The human eye tends to "shorten" and "fatten" squares, so by setting it with the slightly longer side in the "length" sense it may actually appear squarer than a true square.

 

[asterisk]

Great suggestions. I''m actually considering this stone through a reputable online retailer. I wished I was closer to actually view it in person. One of my worries about the asymmetry was that i would result in a worse cut but according to lab grading the cut is

What do you think able the attached ASET & Idealscope?

 

[asterisk]

?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Tthe grading report may say that is non symmetrical - but no human eye could ever pick it. It is not uncommon that lab grading does not match the optical performance of a stone.

 

[neatfreak]

Just pick the setting you like best, I agree that no human eye can detect the lack of symmetry in that stone.

 

[jstarfireb]

If it''s L:W that you''re talking about rather than symmetry, the human eye will be able to detect the difference. I know this because my stone is only 0.12mm different (yours is 0.2 if you subtract one dimension from the other)...and I can detect the difference with the naked eye if I look hard enough. My stone is set so the longer dimension is north-south on the ring, and that helps to mask it. I would not go for a halo setting with an off-square princess; that will accentuate the difference.

As for other issues with that particular stone, it''s nice, but I''m picky with my princesses, so I''d look for a tighter ASET. That one has too much green for my tastes (green = less strong light return than red). It will probably be a pretty stone, and certainly better than a common mall store princess, just not a top-notch performer in comparison to some of the knockout princesses that are available. Like this one, which is lower in color but will face up nice and white due to the stellar cut. Or this one, which is a tad smaller but looks to be a stunner. Whiteflash doesn''t seem to have much in the way of ACA princesses right now, but this Expert Selection looks to be the best of the bunch, even though its table is on the larger side.

 

[asterisk]

Date: 12/14/2008 10:25:19 PM
Author: jstarfireb
If it''s L:W that you''re talking about rather than symmetry, the human eye will be able to detect the difference. I know this because my stone is only 0.12mm different (yours is 0.2 if you subtract one dimension from the other)...and I can detect the difference with the naked eye if I look hard enough. My stone is set so the longer dimension is north-south on the ring, and that helps to mask it. I would not go for a halo setting with an off-square princess; that will accentuate the difference.


As for other issues with that particular stone, it''s nice, but I''m picky with my princesses, so I''d look for a tighter ASET. That one has too much green for my tastes (green = less strong light return than red). It will probably be a pretty stone, and certainly better than a common mall store princess, just not a top-notch performer in comparison to some of the knockout princesses that are available. Like this one, which is lower in color but will face up nice and white due to the stellar cut. Or this one, which is a tad smaller but looks to be a stunner. Whiteflash doesn''t seem to have much in the way of ACA princesses right now, but this Expert Selection looks to be the best of the bunch, even though its table is on the larger side.

I thought setting it East-West would be best in my case. I liked the GOG diamond you posted but only wished it was higher in color.

 

[marcy]

You would never notice it. Lovely diamond.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/14/2008 11:12:43 PM
Author: asterisk


I thought setting it East-West would be best in my case. I liked the GOG diamond you posted but only wished it was higher in color.

Here''s a thread on an I color Princess. In a very well cut stone, the color is masked some. I realize these are pictures, and don''t represent real life exactly, but it can at least give you an idea. Might not be as bad as you think? Anyway, just thought I''d throw this out there for ya in case it would help!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-princess-in-a-legato-solitaire.75195/

 

[purrfectpear]

Just curious why people are saying it wouldn''t be noticable. Are you guys saying you really can''t see that it has a slightly rectangular shape from the posted pics?

I can see it

 

[stone-cold11]

Can you see it in actual size? If so, WoW, you are good, that is all I can say!

I can''t, and if the sides are mounted in the NSEW directions instead of the points, I would not see a difference with it mounted.

 

[jstarfireb]

Date: 12/15/2008 7:16:38 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 12/14/2008 11:12:43 PM

Author: asterisk
I thought setting it East-West would be best in my case. I liked the GOG diamond you posted but only wished it was higher in color.

Here''s a thread on an I color Princess. In a very well cut stone, the color is masked some. I realize these are pictures, and don''t represent real life exactly, but it can at least give you an idea. Might not be as bad as you think? Anyway, just thought I''d throw this out there for ya in case it would help!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-princess-in-a-legato-solitaire.75195/

Asterisk, my ACA princess is an I, and it''s blindingly white. I say this a lot, but it bears repeating: I compared it to my friend''s F princess that''s not as tight in the cut department, and I can''t tell the difference. Call Jon at GOG if you''re interested in that stone; he can tell you a lot more about it and perhaps send you a video comparing it to a higher color. That stone would definitely be my top pick out of all the ones I posted.

As I mentioned before, I can definitely see the L:W difference in my 5.5 x 5.38 princess set in my engagement ring. It''s subtle, but it''s there. An extra 0.08 mm beyond that will also be subtle.

Now that I think about the optical illusions involved, E/W may in fact be a better way to set it. I remember looking at the Gateway Arch in St. Louis as part of an intro psych course in college; it''s actually just as wide as it is tall, but the eye elongates the vertical dimension. So perhaps you should set it E/W to compensate?

 

[musey]

Date: 12/15/2008 10:05:37 AM
Author: purrfectpear
Just curious why people are saying it wouldn''t be noticable. Are you guys saying you really can''t see that it has a slightly rectangular shape from the posted pics?

I can see it

The posted pics aren''t exactly "actual size"

They''re saying that it wouldn''t be noticeable to the naked eye (ie. no magnification).

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 12/15/2008 1:40:41 PM
Author: musey

Date: 12/15/2008 10:05:37 AM

Author: purrfectpear

Just curious why people are saying it wouldn''t be noticable. Are you guys saying you really can''t see that it has a slightly rectangular shape from the posted pics?


I can see it

The posted pics aren''t exactly ''actual size''

They''re saying that it wouldn''t be noticeable to the naked eye (ie. no magnification).

OP also asked about symmetry which is different than the ratio...I agree that the ratio might be more noticeable in some settings (i.e., a halo), but the symmetry is what he asked about at first, which I don''t think is an issue. But really, I doubt anyone would notice either once it was mounted.

 

[musey]

I must've misinterpreted the OP's post, I assumed he/she was confusing symmetry with l/w ratio. Now I see that both are an issue!

I think rockytalky is too confusing for me

 

[JulieN]

I can tell jstirefireb''s pr is sort of rectangular in her avatar. The one you posted seems less rectangular to me than hers.

 

[jstarfireb]

Date: 12/15/2008 8:15:17 PM
Author: JulieN
I can tell jstirefireb''s pr is sort of rectangular in her avatar. The one you posted seems less rectangular to me than hers.

Correct; my avatar is 333 by 323 pixels according to the graphic program I use. But since the avatar is cropped (by myself, and somewhat sloppily since I''m no graphic artist), that''s probably not the best picture to go on. Do you still see a difference when you look at the WF page for my stone? I do, but it''s subtle at 40x, and even more subtle in person. Anyway, I think I misspoke a little (silly me, making all sorts of mistakes today!) when I said that the diamond in question will look a little more off-square than mine. I was going by absolute numbers, not ratios, which are what really count. My stone''s L:W ratio is 1.02, and the stone in question has a ratio of 1.03. I think that means they''ll probably be similar in real life to the naked eye.

Bottom line: the difference is likely to be very subtle and barely noticeable once the diamond is set, as it is with mine. What would make me consider other stones is not the L:W ratio, but the ASET. It just depends on how picky you are about cut quality. Do you want a top-notch performer (look at the GOG stones then), or would you compromise cut quality just a tiny bit to get the right combination of the 4 Cs, not to mention price, for you (then you may have found a winner).