Please help me evaluate this diamond!

[thecat]

Table: 55%
Depth: 61.5%
Crown: 34 deg
Pavilion: 40.8 deg
GIA triple EX

1. In arrows image, is there more leakage than a H&A? For instance, there seems to be a fair amount of white near the base of arrows.

2. Do you think the diamond was not placed properly when hearts image was taken? Or was the cut near V of heart just slightly sloppy?

3. What's the purpose of diamond on black and white background? What information can I gather from these 2 images?

4. Performance?

Thank you for your help.

 

[Gypsy]

You know none of those is an idealscope or measures performance right? I'm not sure you can gather any performance information from those images. If you want to check the performance you will have to get an IS ,if you examining these images because the vendor doesn't have IS images of the stone, then I'm sorry.

As for backgrounds I think it's an attempt to show tint and inclusions. I could be wrong.

 

[thecat]

The rep could only sent me these. No other info available and I was hoping someone could glean something out of these.

 

[gr8leo87]

Since I'm from trade I can't comment on the stone it self and have to keep my comments academic - the first image of the stone doesn't appear to show leakage under the table - also confirmed by how arrows are popping. The machine that is used to take that image has become pretty much a standard and produces repeatable results. The leakage under the table is usually confirmed by yellow /brown /black patches (but never white like this stone) and the arrows are not black more like gray indicating deeper pavillion. The arrows also confirm that the stone is closest to 34 degrees or above and most likely not below - as under 34 usually results in blue arrows in an arrow image. Those Pavilion and crown angles also confirm that this stone will unlikely have much leakage - if any - under the table.

 

[thecat]

Since I'm from trade I can't comment on the stone it self and have to keep my comments academic - the first image of the stone doesn't appear to show leakage under the table - also confirmed by how arrows are popping. The machine that is used to take that image has become pretty much a standard and produces repeatable results. The leakage under the table is usually confirmed by yellow /brown /black patches (but never white like this stone) and the arrows are not black more like gray indicating deeper pavillion. The arrows also confirm that the stone is closest to 34 degrees or above and most likely not below - as under 34 usually results in blue arrows in an arrow image. Those Pavilion and crown angles also confirm that this stone will unlikely have much leakage - if any - under the table.

Thanks for the academic feedback. It's very helpful for my learning even if I end up not getting it due to the sloppy hearts.

Hope you don't mind educating me about another question. Do sloppy hearts reduce performance? Thanks in advance.

Oh another question: the lgf is listed at 80%. Do you think it's longer or shorter than 80%? I know this question shouldn't affect my decision. But I prefer fatter arrows. If only they were closer to 75%.

 

[gr8leo87]

Hearts don't help a stone peform. Hearts indicate how conscientiously a diamond has been polished. Naturally if a diamond was polished with great care the cutter would have cut a nice diamond. Symmetrical hearts is an indication of a stone that would have optical symmetry. So basically the flashes would be more balanced all around the stones and things like that.

I hate GIA for rounding LGFs to the nearest 5%. For me LGFs are an important factor when I'm purchasing for my inventory. I don't buy stones with longer LGFs. 79-80 is fine but GIA would report it as 80 along with 81,82. I like 78-77 the most and 78 may get reported either side deoending on the decimal but most hearts and arrows have LGFs at 77-78 reported as 75 on GIA certificate.

80 LGF is longer than 75 LGF. shorter LGFs results in fatter Pavillion mains and consequently fatter arrows but you don't wanna go too fat

 

[thecat]

Hearts don't help a stone peform. Hearts indicate how conscientiously a diamond has been polished. Naturally if a diamond was polished with great care the cutter would have cut a nice diamond. Symmetrical hearts is an indication of a stone that would have optical symmetry. So basically the flashes would be more balanced all around the stones and things like that.

I hate GIA for rounding LGFs to the nearest 5%. For me LGFs are an important factor when I'm purchasing for my inventory. I don't buy stones with longer LGFs. 79-80 is fine but GIA would report it as 80 along with 81,82. I like 78-77 the most and 78 may get reported either side deoending on the decimal but most hearts and arrows have LGFs at 77-78 reported as 75 on GIA certificate.

80 LGF is longer than 75 LGF. shorter LGFs results in fatter Pavillion mains and consequently fatter arrows but you don't wanna go too fat

Thanks for the explanation, Leo.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Hey, some of us like fat arrows! (I look for 75-77 personally in modern rounds)

I think the stone looks good for a GIA Excellent. But yes, if you want a more perfectly cut stone, you can probably find one.

 

[gr8leo87]

Hey, some of us like fat arrows! (I look for 75-77 personally in modern rounds)

I think the stone looks good for a GIA Excellent. But yes, if you want a more perfectly cut stone, you can probably find one.

75 would be my lower limit. Even 75 sometimes seems to be too much obstruction. And 75 LGFs seem to have hearts merging into the chevrons.

But certainly I too find fatter arrows to be more attractive. And especially the symmetry.