Pavilion Angle & Depth Percentage for 2 id/id/id?

[antidentite]

Can you please educate me on the differences between these two diamonds? They have similar clarity, size, symmetry, and polish (all are ideal), and they also cost about the same.

However, the first one has a table % of only 54.7% (scoring 1.5 on the HCA), while the last one has a more shallow pavilion angle of 40.5‹ (it scored a 0.5 on the HCA).

What are the visual differences, if any, of the shallow table % on the first one versus the shallow pavilion angle of the second one?

Width: 7.72
Length: 7.78
Depth: 4.8
Table Percentage: 54.7%
Depth Percentage: 61.9%
Crown Ú: 34.8‹
Crown Depth %: 15.7%
Pavilion Ú: 40.8‹
Pavilion Depth %: 43.1%
HCA = 1.5

Width: 7.62
Length: 7.66
Depth: 4.73mm
Table Percentage: 55.59%
Depth Percentage: 62.00%
Crown Ú: 35.01‹
Crown Depth %: 15.53%
Pavilion Ú: 40.50‹
Pavilion Depth %: 43%
HCA = 0.5

Thank you.

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/30/2007 6:48:34 PM
Author:antidentite
Can you please educate me on the differences between these two diamonds? They have similar clarity, size, symmetry, and polish (all are ideal), and they also cost about the same.

However, the first one has a table % of only 54.7% (scoring 1.5 on the HCA), while the last one has a more shallow pavilion angle of 40.5‹ (it scored a 0.5 on the HCA).

What are the visual differences, if any, of the shallow table % on the first one versus the shallow pavilion angle of the second one?

Width: 7.72
Length: 7.78
Depth: 4.8
Table Percentage: 54.7%
Depth Percentage: 61.9%
Crown Ú: 34.8‹
Crown Depth %: 15.7%
Pavilion Ú: 40.8‹
Pavilion Depth %: 43.1%
HCA = 1.5

Width: 7.62
Length: 7.66
Depth: 4.73mm
Table Percentage: 55.59%
Depth Percentage: 62.00%
Crown Ú: 35.01‹
Crown Depth %: 15.53%
Pavilion Ú: 40.50‹
Pavilion Depth %: 43%
HCA = 0.5

Thank you.

Not the answer you are looking for. But there is a video from GOG to compare the 2nd stone and another http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/3676/
at http://goodoldgold.com/videos/cr341p41vscr35p405.wmv

It may be somehow limited from experts view ponit, but is still very informative IMO. Take a look.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

"Shallow table" is not a term, as far as I know. An ideal table can be between 53 and 57.5%. I guess you could say it is a smaller table, but that table size is not a negative.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/30/2007 7:56:07 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
''Shallow table'' is not a term, as far as I know. An ideal table can be between 53 and 57.5%. I guess you could say it is a smaller table, but that table size is not a negative.