analyticangel
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 33
Hi
I had asked for feedback on the following stones especially since the numbers seemed off to me to qualify for excellent GIA cut
one was very good due to girdle size John at WF commented on these
Now i have them to see in martini settings and need to either keep or return
Opinions please
STONE 1
68 H SI stone RB
GIA graded it on January 16 2007 as Excellent Cut VG POLISH VG SYmmetry
5.76x 5.80 x 3.39Depth 58.7 %Table 60 %
CA 32.5PA 41.0
STONE 2
A suggested match for studs was as follows
.68 H SI 5.73 x 5.77 x 3.42
GIA very good cut
Depth 59.5
Table 59
CA 34.0
PA 40.8
Lower half 80%
here were COMMENTS from WF
While this is a different “look” than many of the smaller-tabled stones we see on PS, the PA/CA work together for great light return. The table size and low crown will balance it toward brightness over fire. Are the lower halves at 80-85%? That would suit this configuration nicely IMO. As a point of interest the AGS cut guidelines predict this combo to receive a 1-2 in light performance (depending on how the GIA numbers are rounded, optical symmetry, minors, etc)...so both labs consider this basic configuration highly even though it’s outside the conventional 'ideal' bullseye. Nothing wrong with that.
On diamond #1: 75% LH is ok. It will have broader, less rapid flashes in its scintillation than 80%+ will in many lighting conditions. I asked this question because 75-80 is what I consider the premium range for higher crowns (when there is more fire in the balance) whereas makes with this size table and shallow crown often have 80-85, giving that brightness a more rapid scint quality. This difference is subtle and not a deal-breaker, especially if the price is right.
Both of these are more shallow than we commonly see here, but the angles work. They're a hybrid of 60/60 and near-Tolkowsky and I imagine they'd be very bright on the ears. As earrings they are not perfectly matched in angles or depth, but the spread and tables are well-matched (the two most obvious factors). My priorities for matching earrings are spread-table-PA-CA-depth, in that order. These are not twins but they are better than many commercial pairings. For that matter, it is said that there's always a nose between the ears.
so now here are some pics
honest opinions welcomed

I had asked for feedback on the following stones especially since the numbers seemed off to me to qualify for excellent GIA cut
one was very good due to girdle size John at WF commented on these
Now i have them to see in martini settings and need to either keep or return
Opinions please
STONE 1
68 H SI stone RB
GIA graded it on January 16 2007 as Excellent Cut VG POLISH VG SYmmetry
5.76x 5.80 x 3.39Depth 58.7 %Table 60 %
CA 32.5PA 41.0
STONE 2
A suggested match for studs was as follows
.68 H SI 5.73 x 5.77 x 3.42
GIA very good cut
Depth 59.5
Table 59
CA 34.0
PA 40.8
Lower half 80%
here were COMMENTS from WF
While this is a different “look” than many of the smaller-tabled stones we see on PS, the PA/CA work together for great light return. The table size and low crown will balance it toward brightness over fire. Are the lower halves at 80-85%? That would suit this configuration nicely IMO. As a point of interest the AGS cut guidelines predict this combo to receive a 1-2 in light performance (depending on how the GIA numbers are rounded, optical symmetry, minors, etc)...so both labs consider this basic configuration highly even though it’s outside the conventional 'ideal' bullseye. Nothing wrong with that.
On diamond #1: 75% LH is ok. It will have broader, less rapid flashes in its scintillation than 80%+ will in many lighting conditions. I asked this question because 75-80 is what I consider the premium range for higher crowns (when there is more fire in the balance) whereas makes with this size table and shallow crown often have 80-85, giving that brightness a more rapid scint quality. This difference is subtle and not a deal-breaker, especially if the price is right.
On diamond #2: Those primary measurements would normally receive EX. What is the girdle thickness (min/max and avg) and is there any comment regarding the cut grade on the report to explain VG?
Both of these are more shallow than we commonly see here, but the angles work. They're a hybrid of 60/60 and near-Tolkowsky and I imagine they'd be very bright on the ears. As earrings they are not perfectly matched in angles or depth, but the spread and tables are well-matched (the two most obvious factors). My priorities for matching earrings are spread-table-PA-CA-depth, in that order. These are not twins but they are better than many commercial pairings. For that matter, it is said that there's always a nose between the ears.
so now here are some pics
honest opinions welcomed
