one last cut opinion.....

[hoorray]

I''m just about to make a decision, and would like one last input from the "cut experts" out there.

I''ve been reading this site long enough to be convince that cut is what it is all about. I havn''t found a stone that completely meets the 1A standard in the 2.5ish size, but this one is close. It gets a 1.6 XXXVG on the Holloway cut advisor. I don''t have any pictures or scope results at this point. Is there anything I''m missing here? I''ll probably go look at it next week, but don''t really know what to look for in person.


2.52 E VS2
8.8x8.7x5.4
61.4 depth
57 table
35 (34.9 - 35) crown angle
40.8 (40.7 - 40.9) pavilion angle
.2 culet
1.5 - 2.1 (1.7 avg) medium girdle
Ex polish and symmetry
Hearts & Arrows

There are a couple of slightly smaller stones (2.25 - 2.3) that do meet the 1A specs in the same price range. Should I consider trading off the size for the slightly more perfect cut? (will it make a visible difference?)

thanks for the help -- this is a big decision!

 

[pqcollectibles]

Hi Hooray!

Angles variances are VERY tight!

Is the girdle faceted?

I am not sure if .1 mm diameter difference on 2.5 carat weight will make a diamond appear out of round or not.

Maybe one of the experts will comment.

Make sure the jeweler/broker has a viewer and shows you the H&A patterns. You want to look for clean and crisp patterns.

 

[hoorray]

Hi pq,

Yes, the girdle is faceted. I didn't think about the out of round question -- that's a good point. Most of the diamonds of this size seemed to have about the same variances. The actual dimensions are 8.74x8.78x5.38. The initial report I had must have rounded to 1 decimal place.

thx,

hoorray

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hi Hooray.

The diamond's not out-of-round, and the numbers look good.

I ran the specs through the DiamCalc software, and came up with the following POSSIBLE Light Return Analysis and POSSIBLE simulated IdealScope image.

If you'd like me to do the same for the other contendors, I'd be happy to do so.

Be sure and make the sale contingent upon the diamond appraising out to your satisfaction with an independent appraiser, and you can't lose.

-----------

Light Return (mono)…...: 0.99 Very Good
Light Return (stereo)…..: 0.97 Very Good
(Non) Leakage (mono)..: 0.91 Very Good to Good
(Non) Leakage (stereo).: 0.91 Very Good to Good
Contrast............................: 0.93 Very Good to Good
(Non) FishEye Effect…...: 1.00 Very Good

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated, sometimes dramatically. The computer generates an image with “perfect” symmetry, which is rare. Also, the star/lower girdle facet lengths will probably be different from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or Sarin info is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in considering the major light performance aspects.
-----------

 

[pqcollectibles]

Decimal points, and/or rounding can make a lot of difference!

I asked about faceted because of the spread on the girdle measurements and the average. Faceted takes into consideration peaks and valleys.

Rich Sherwood gave you some very good information to ponder.

Looks like you've found another good diamond to consider!

 

[hoorray]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the great info! There are 3 others that I have considered that may be slightly better cuts, but all are smaller and the same price or slightly more expensive. Their specs are below. I'm trying to figure out if this level of difference in the cut will make a difference or if I should go for the larger stone.

#1
2.358 vs1 f
8.57x8.61x5.25
xx pol/sym
61.1 depth
56 table
1.2 - 2.0 med faceted girdle
35 crown angle
40.6 pav angle
.4 culet
H&A

#2
2.3 vs2 e
8.56x8.6x5.22
xx pol/sym
60.2 depth
55 table
1.0 - 1.5 thin faceted girdle
34.3 crown angle
40.9 pav angle
.2 culet
H&A branded

#3
2.25 vs1 f
8.4x8.48x5.17
xx pol/sym
61.3 depth
56 table
H&A branded
34.6 crown andle
40.8 pav angle
1.1 culet
1.1 avg (.9 - 1.4) thin to med girdle

thanks again for your help and any more advice you want to give me!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hi Hooray. POSSIBLE Light Return Analysis figures on the 3 stones follow. These stones (theoretically) PROBABLY have a slightly better performance than the 2.52, but the question would be whether it's enough to offset the advantage of size that the 2.52 has. The nuances of performance might not be as easy to detect as the very real advantage of a diameter that will be discernible as larger to the eye.

Price would be a consideration as well...

-----------
.......................................................................2.36..........2.30..........2.25
Light Return Mono……...V.Good 0.99...............V.Gd 1.01.....V.Gd 1.01
Light Return Stereo........V.Good 0.96...............V.Gd 0.99......V.Gd 0.99
(Non) Leakage Mono……V.Good 0.96............V.Gd 1.02.......V.Gd 0.96
(Non) Leakage Stereo…V.Good to Gd 0.93.......V.Gd 0.98.....V.Gd 0.97
Contrast………….......…..V.Good 0.97...............V.Gd 0.96.......V.Gd 0.95
(Non) Fisheye Effect……V.Good 1.00...............V.Gd 1.00.......V.Gd 1.00

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated, sometimes dramatically. The image shown has perfect symmetry, which is rare, and the star facet/lower girdle facet lengths may vary from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or when the Sarin data is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in indicating the major light performance aspects.
-----------

 

[Richard Sherwood]

2.36 simulated IdealScope image

 

[Richard Sherwood]

2.30 simulated IdealScope image

 

[Richard Sherwood]

2.25 simulated IdealScope image

 

[Richard Sherwood]

If it were me, price aside, my battle would be between the 2.52 and the 2.30.

Is there any chance that you can look at the two side-by-side?

 

[Rhino]

Rich would you say those images look closer to LightScope than IdealScope images? I see you are changing the "simulation parameters" in DiamCalc and that is good.

Rhino

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Yeah Rhino, once you boost the simulation parameters up from 2 to 4, the image does begin to resemble your LightScope image somewhat. Definitely looks more like what you see through the IdealScope when veiwing with the eye.

 

[hoorray]

Hi Rich,

Thanks for the great input! I will try to see if I can see a couple of these side by side, and I'll let you know how it goes.

Hoorray!