Opinions on these please?

[CCNZ]

Hi all
Interested for an opinion on these 3 candidates.


1-
http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=15757396&weight=1.04

HCA 2.5


2-

http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=14365104&weight=0.91

HCA 2.7


3-

http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=1106368044&weight=0.91

HCA 1.8

 

[Lorelei]

The third diamond is the safest bet looking at the proportions, can you get an Idealscope image for it?

 

[stone-cold11]

From the numbers, #3 is probably the best candidate, although all are a little near to the edge where performance is iffy, eg. #1 and #2 could be good perfroming stones while #3 fails, depending on the rounding of numbers so IS of them will be good if available.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/11/2008 4:55:48 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
From the numbers, #3 is probably the best candidate, although all are a little near to the edge where performance is iffy, eg. #1 and #2 could be good perfroming stones while #3 fails, depending on the rounding of numbers so IS of them will be good if available.

3 fails? Number three could be a good diamond, can you explain what you mean by failing please?

 

[stone-cold11]

I said could fail when view through IS/ASET, maybe due to LGF, Stars angles, off symm, etc, I didnot say will fail, please make a distinction between those 2 words.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/11/2008 5:14:04 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
I said could fail when view through IS/ASET, maybe due to LGF, Stars angles, off symm, etc, I didnot say will fail, please make a distinction between those 2 words.

You did not say that in your post.

"From the numbers, #3 is probably the best candidate, although all are a little near to the edge where performance is iffy, eg. #1 and #2 could be good perfroming stones while #3 fails, depending on the rounding of numbers so IS of them will be good if available. "

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 12/11/2008 5:17:25 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 12/11/2008 5:14:04 AM

Author: Stone-cold11

I said could fail when view through IS/ASET, maybe due to LGF, Stars angles, off symm, etc, I didnot say will fail, please make a distinction between those 2 words.

You did not say that in your post.

''From the numbers, #3 is probably the best candidate, although all are a little near to the edge where performance is iffy, eg. #1 and #2 could be good perfroming stones while #3 fails, depending on the rounding of numbers so IS of them will be good if available. ''

Yes, I did, see the sentence structure?

, eg. #1 and #2 could be good perfroming stones while #3 fails,

, this is all under the example sentence.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/11/2008 5:20:22 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 12/11/2008 5:17:25 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 12/11/2008 5:14:04 AM

Author: Stone-cold11

I said could fail when view through IS/ASET, maybe due to LGF, Stars angles, off symm, etc, I didnot say will fail, please make a distinction between those 2 words.

You did not say that in your post.

''From the numbers, #3 is probably the best candidate, although all are a little near to the edge where performance is iffy, eg. #1 and #2 could be good perfroming stones while #3 fails, depending on the rounding of numbers so IS of them will be good if available. ''

Yes, I did, see the sentence structure?

, eg. #1 and #2 could be good perfroming stones while #3 fails,

, this is all under the example sentence.

Did you mean to say falls not fails?

 

[stone-cold11]

I meant what I said, fail in performing.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/11/2008 5:26:58 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
I meant what I said, fail in performing.

Why?

 

[stone-cold11]

I already said it. Read my post again.

 

[CCNZ]

So all have potential?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/11/2008 6:38:23 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
I already said it. Read my post again.

Ok then just to clarify, you are saying that the third diamond will ' fail' performancewise and therefore not be a good diamond to choose?

You said originally that the third diamond looks to be the best candidate, then fails in performance, which is it please as I am confused?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/11/2008 6:43:34 AM
Author: CCNZ
So all have potential?

The third one looks to be the best one to me, you can certainly get Idealscopes for all of them but the third would be the one I am most interested in.

The first could also be a good pick but the 35/ 41 angle combo is hovering around what we call the steep deep zone, as GIA rounds the numbers it depends on which way they are rounded as to whether the diamond will show any negative effects such as light leakage, so an Idealscope is very useful in these cases.

The second is a bit deeper with the depth and thick girdle, could be a nice diamond but an Idealscope again would tell us more.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/11/2008 5:14:04 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
I said could fail when view through IS/ASET, maybe due to LGF, Stars angles, off symm, etc, I did not say will fail, please make a distinction between those 2 words.

Actually, your post reads as #3 fails in performance, though you may not have meant it that way.



CC, I agree with Lorelei's assessment of the three and their potential. An IS is really needed.

 

[stone-cold11]

I said could fail, not will fail. It is in the example sentence structure.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/11/2008 7:47:56 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
I said could fail, not will fail. It is in the example sentence structure.

The way you wrote the post came across that you said that #3 WILL fail. It is important to clarify what is meant for those reading in order for them to get accurate advice and information. Why do you not think the third diamond is a good stone please?

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 12/11/2008 6:43:34 AM
Author: CCNZ
So all have potential?

Yes, all have potential, #3 has the best chance for best performance.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 12/11/2008 7:51:44 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 12/11/2008 7:47:56 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
I said could fail, not will fail. It is in the example sentence structure.

The way you wrote the post came across that you said that #3 WILL fail. It is important to clarify what is meant for those reading in order for them to get accurate advice and information. Why do you not think the third diamond is a good stone please?

I HAVE NEVER SAID #3 IS A BAD STONE!!! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AN EXAMPLE? STOP BLOODY PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!

 

[Lorelei]

CCNZ, please let us know how you get on concerning the Idealscope images.

 

[stone-cold11]

And how many times have I clarify already? If you do not understand the difference in meaning between could and would, and that the sentence in question is in the example sentence structure, that is my fault? Where in the quote did I state #3 was bad except in the example structure? It is an example! I am here to help CCNZ and not to argue sentence structures with you and we ended out with 80% of the thread on one stupid mis-understanding? What for???

From the numbers, #3 is probably the best candidate, although all are a little near to the edge where performance is iffy, eg. #1 and #2 could be good perfroming stones while #3 fails, depending on the rounding of numbers so IS of them will be good if available.

It is an example, I already stated that #3 is the best in the lot. Or did you not understand that part? I am saying from the major dimensions HCA predicts the stone might be good but GIA rounds off numbers significantly and HCA does not take into account of the minor facets angles and sizes, it could still perform badly when compared in real life if these facets are off, which is why an IS is needed.

 

[CCNZ]

Thanks everyone appreciate your help I will try and view the stones or at least see if i cna get a IS for them.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/11/2008 8:43:04 AM
Author: CCNZ
Thanks everyone appreciate your help I will try and view the stones or at least see if i cna get a IS for them.

Most welcome, let us know how you get on and post the IS images when you get them!