FancyDiamond Brilliant_Rock Premium Joined Jun 16, 2009 Messages 1,065 May 16, 2011 #1 Which stone is better, based on their IS images, Diamond #1 or #2? Is any one of these worth pursuing? For Diamond #1, do I have to be concerned about possible obstruction in the circled areas (tip of arrows and near the edge)? Thanks for help.
Which stone is better, based on their IS images, Diamond #1 or #2? Is any one of these worth pursuing? For Diamond #1, do I have to be concerned about possible obstruction in the circled areas (tip of arrows and near the edge)? Thanks for help.
stone-cold11 Super_Ideal_Rock Joined Sep 9, 2008 Messages 14,083 May 16, 2011 #2 Both should be fine, looks like both have error during their respective photo session in the IS booth. #1 looks to be placed too far into the scope while #2 is tilted when the images are taken. What are the proportions for these stones?
Both should be fine, looks like both have error during their respective photo session in the IS booth. #1 looks to be placed too far into the scope while #2 is tilted when the images are taken. What are the proportions for these stones?
FancyDiamond Brilliant_Rock Premium Joined Jun 16, 2009 Messages 1,065 May 16, 2011 #3 Stone-cold11|1305566063|2923137 said: What are the proportions for these stones? Click to expand... Thanks for the feedback. #1 61,5% depth, 55% table, 34.5 crown (15.5%), 40.8 pavillion (43%), 55% star lenght, 75% Lower Halves. #2 61,4% depth, 58% table, 35.5 crown (15%), 40.6 pavillion (43%), 50% star lenght, 80% Lower Halves.
Stone-cold11|1305566063|2923137 said: What are the proportions for these stones? Click to expand... Thanks for the feedback. #1 61,5% depth, 55% table, 34.5 crown (15.5%), 40.8 pavillion (43%), 55% star lenght, 75% Lower Halves. #2 61,4% depth, 58% table, 35.5 crown (15%), 40.6 pavillion (43%), 50% star lenght, 80% Lower Halves.