Opinions on this diamond

[lojack_ii]

If you care to comment....what are your impressions on this diamond? I am finding everyone''s advice helpful in narrowing my selections, so thanks.

Round
6.58 x 6.61 x 3.91
GIA
1.04 ct.
G
SI2
Cut = VG
Polish = VG
Symmetry = VG
Fluroescence = None
Depth = 59.3%
Table = 59%
Crown Angle = 33.5
Pavilion Angle = 40.6
HCA Grade =" 1.0 (Excellent – TIC range) -"> EX in every category.
Girdle = Medium to Slightly thick
Cutlet = None

Price = $4,235

 

[JulieN]

shallow

I shall put up an illustration for you in a minute...

edit: seems I can't find what I'm looking for. anyway, this stone is only slightly shallow, it could be a good choice, but it does have untraditional numbers.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/6/2006 5:16:12 PM
Author: JulieN
shallow

I shall put up an illustration for you in a minute...

No doubt Julie''s graphic will be more helpful, but as an appetizer...

Left to right:

Deep - Well-Proportioned - Shallow

 

[lojack_ii]

I thought the crown and pavilion angles would make up for any shallowness. In this case, would the HCA test be misleading?

 

[Regular Guy]

I think that''s what Garry would say. Let''s see what Julie says.

 

[lojack_ii]

John...is there a general rule on the amount of difference that is good to have between a table % and depth %? I heard that not considering pavilion and crown angles, a 60-60 is considered ideal by the industry (of course other factors must be accounted for). Wouldn''t that be shallow too then by proportion? Sorry, but I may not be grasping the concept fully yet.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/6/2006 5:26:59 PM
Author: lojack_ii
I thought the crown and pavilion angles would make up for any shallowness. In this case, would the HCA test be misleading?

The dessert example is exaggerated.

The depth, PA and CA combine to put it at the shallow end of a commonly accepted premium range - but there is nothing wrong with that. By the numbers it should be a very bright diamond.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/6/2006 5:30:13 PM
Author: lojack_ii
John...is there a general rule on the amount of difference that is good to have between a table % and depth %? I heard that not considering pavilion and crown angles, a 60-60 is considered ideal by the industry (of course other factors must be accounted for). Wouldn't that be shallow too then by proportion? Sorry, but I may not be grasping the concept fully yet.

60:60 can be misleading. Refer to this link.

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/60.asp

You need to know all proportions factors for a more meaningful judgment. The ones you have are a decent preliminary indication. An ideal-scope image would improve the ability to judge it even more.

 

[JulieN]

Following Garry's guideline found here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/shallow-crown-angles.52241/ a 40.8/40.9 degree pavilion would be more complementary

As John said, table and depth is very misleading. But very generally, a large table should have less depth and a small table will have more depth. So when you're looking, usually the first page has table and depth, and two more mouseclicks will get you the angles. If it's a 60% table and a 62% depth, or a 52% table and 60% depth, you can probably save yourself a mouse click or two and move on.

 

[Regular Guy]

Julie,

BTW, I''m always interested in what you have to say.

But, I can''t think that''s what you mean. Why impute the general case, when the specific case is is not only available, but reported as data by the query?

I think you''re not a true believer. I''ve sympathized here. I personally think it''s OK.

But just wanted to clarify.

 

[JulieN]

I don't use the search by cut quality function very often, mostly because I can't restrict the price.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 11/6/2006 6:06:39 PM
Author: JulieN
I don't use the search by cut quality function very often, mostly because I can't restrict the price.

Not intending to thread-jack...but...a) where can you restrict the price, and b) how would you answer JG Davis?

 

[JulieN]

price restriction: https://www.pricescope.com/panning.aspx

Depth: 59-63, depending on preference
Table: preference
Fluoresence: preference
Polish: VG+
Symmetry: VG+
Girdle: depends on proportions

But what /I/ would look for in my hypothetical stone, 1-1.5 ct:
Depth: 60.5-62.5
Table: 53-56
Fluoresence: negligible.
Polish: VG+
Symmetry: EX
Girdle: medium

 

[pinkrose]

At 59.3 % depth, Its too shallow for my liking and the table is also too big.