PS experts how does this stone look?

[scramblezy]

My first post!
Looking at a 0.78, E, VS2, round diamond

Table: 55%
Depth: 62.5%
Crown: 35 degrees (15.5%)
Pavilion: 40.4 degrees (42.5%)
Girdle: slightly thick, faceted

It is for a ring and will be set in a white gold solitaire setting! No scopes unfortunately so I do apologise. Jeweller will come back with the GIA report number soon but they are a bit bogged down by existing orders at the moment so might take a while to respond. But in the meantime curious to know, any red flags from the photo? Leakages? Asymmetry?

I see a ring of inclusions(?) when looking at the diamond from the back, what is this? It looks like an inclusion in the pavilion getting mirrored perhaps? Should I be worried?

Based on my readings here on PS it’ll look smaller than others because it’s quite deep. That’s okay with me as long as it’s sparkly! Do you think it will be? I would just like it to be lively. Thanks all!

 

[scramblezy]

Forgot to add, my jeweller is getting the stone shipped in so I will be able to have a look in person before deciding. This might be a while away, but what should I look out for in the store? Is this stone even worth looking at based on the photos and numbers above? Thanks again!

 

[Karl_K]

pavilion angle is to low and there is some wonk going on have him try again and not bring that one in.

 

[scramblezy]

pavilion angle is to low and there is some wonk going on have him try again and not bring that one in.

Thank you Karl! How do you know there’s some wonk going on? Would like to learn please if you don’t mind sharing! Also curious, if it had say a 40.6 pavilion would it still be too shallow?

I have also been trying to read up, an overly steep pavilion = leakage and a shallow one = obstruction? Is this correct? Thanks!

 

[Karl_K]

Thank you Karl! How do you know there’s some wonk going on? Would like to learn please if you don’t mind sharing! Also curious, if it had say a 40.6 pavilion would it still be too shallow?

I have also been trying to read up, an overly steep pavilion = leakage and a shallow one = obstruction? Is this correct? Thanks!

40.6 pavilion can work well with that crown as long as its well cut without huge variations. GIA grossly rounds all the numbers after averaging them but in general its true.
Yes shallow pavilions have issues with obstruction.

The variation in the arrows and between the arrows indicate all is not right.
Some of it is the lighting but it appears to me there is some wonk.

 

[scramblezy]

40.6 pavilion can work well with that crown as long as its well cut without huge variations. GIA grossly rounds all the numbers after averaging them but in general its true.
Yes shallow pavilions have issues with obstruction.

The variation in the arrows and between the arrows indicate all is not right.
Some of it is the lighting but it appears to me there is some wonk.

Got it! Does wonk mean variation in the pavilion angles since that 40.4 on the certificate is only an average? And some of them are too low hence this shows up in the photo?

I am actually wondering if I should just have a look at this stone anyway as education for myself. Should I expect that when I move my head closer to the ring it will go dark and an ideal cut will not? Any other tell tale signs I should look out for? Thank you for answering all my questions so far!

 

[scramblezy]

Since Karl mentioned this one is a no go and should be rejected, thought I would try to do some diamond education here with this as a case study, to better learn how to identify bad diamonds from photos! Circled areas on the photo that might show wonkiness but not sure if it’s right?

Can one tell from a photo if obstruction is going to be a problem or can one only tell leakiness? I saw that @flyingpig was really good at this, appreciate any help I can get!

 

[sledge]

See below.

Symmetry is pretty far off. Ideally the black arrows would land directly where the red lines split them in half. See how basically the right side of the stone is out of whack? The 2 arrows in the 2-4 o'clock positions are particularly bad. The one at 5 o'clock is whacky but not quite as bad. Then again around 8-9 o'clock you have another arrow with symmetry issues.



While this is a far cry from an exact image, I tried to draw in the hearts as best I can. You can tell they too are off by quite a bit. Some of this is obviously my inability to draw perfect free-handed. But if you look at the original image without my chicken scratch you can see better how the hearts are a mess.

FYI, even poorly cut stones represent some version of heart & arrows SHAPES. However, this does *not* make them a H&A stone. To be H&A, symmetry has to be a top tier cut.

More to the point, light performance is based on angles & alignment. When something is off, light doesn't bounce & return properly and you end up a lesser quality stone.



More info about H&A if you want to learn:

How Hearts and Arrows Diamonds are Graded | Whiteflash

Hearts and arrows diamond grading is key to understanding the level of a quality craftsmanship and light performance. Learn about this here.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[sledge]

I concur with @Karl_K and would not waste your time or theirs, let alone expense, to ship in a stone you aren't interested in buying.

I would spend $50 and order an ASET so you can check light performance, especially if buying stones locally and/or from a virtual online dealer that doesn't offer advanced images.

ASET Scope

datlas.com

Handheld ASET®

The handheld ASET is easy to use on loose or mounted diamonds, and is convenient for travel. Learn more at AmericanGemSociety.org.

www.americangemsociety.org

 

[scramblezy]

See below.

Symmetry is pretty far off. Ideally the black arrows would land directly where the red lines split them in half. See how basically the right side of the stone is out of whack? The 2 arrows in the 2-4 o'clock positions are particularly bad. The one at 5 o'clock is whacky but not quite as bad. Then again around 8-9 o'clock you have another arrow with symmetry issues.



While this is a far cry from an exact image, I tried to draw in the hearts as best I can. You can tell they too are off by quite a bit. Some of this is obviously my inability to draw perfect free-handed. But if you look at the original image without my chicken scratch you can see better how the hearts are a mess.

FYI, even poorly cut stones represent some version of heart & arrows SHAPES. However, this does *not* make them a H&A stone. To be H&A, symmetry has to be a top tier cut.

More to the point, light performance is based on angles & alignment. When something is off, light doesn't bounce & return properly and you end up a lesser quality stone.



More info about H&A if you want to learn:

How Hearts and Arrows Diamonds are Graded | Whiteflash

Hearts and arrows diamond grading is key to understanding the level of a quality craftsmanship and light performance. Learn about this here.

www.whiteflash.com

This is very informative thank you! Appreciate the information about H&A too, with your drawings I can now see why Karl said the stone looked wonky. I will be asking to see other stones.

Strangely the jeweller told me these were pretty good proportions. Coupled with the small table he said he expected it to be quite lively since it was a steep crown and shallow pavilion. He said he was speaking from experience having seen many a stone (and he is an experienced jeweller) so I’m not sure what’s going on here...

 

[flyingpig]

Since Karl mentioned this one is a no go and should be rejected, thought I would try to do some diamond education here with this as a case study, to better learn how to identify bad diamonds from photos! Circled areas on the photo that might show wonkiness but not sure if it’s right?

Can one tell from a photo if obstruction is going to be a problem or can one only tell leakiness? I saw that @flyingpig was really good at this, appreciate any help I can get!

Leakage is not a concern for 35/40.4 in general and based on the photo. The circled areas show good light return.

The problem is the arrows. You do want these dark when viewing closely straight on. But you also want the arrows to return light and appear bright when tilted and/or when viewing distance is increased, say arm's length.

Persistent dark arrows are not desirable and 40.4 PA can cause this effect. It is not bad in this case. But when 40.4 PA is coupled with a shallower CA, say 33, you may see extra patches of obstruction between the arrows and around the arrowheads.

 

[scramblezy]

The circled areas show good light return.

I clearly have a long way to go before I get the hang of analysing photos of diamonds, I’ve gotten it all wrong! Thank you for correcting me.

Persistent dark arrows are not desirable and 40.4 PA can cause this effect. It is not bad in this case. But when 40.4 PA is coupled with a shallower CA, say 33, you may see extra patches of obstruction between the arrows and around the arrowheads.

This is now even clearer to me - so in the worst case scenario you pretty much end up with a darkish blob on the table instead of nice clear arrows when you lean over to look at the stone.

You mentioned that it is not bad in this case, but Sledge and Karl said it would not be worth having this stone be brought in to be looked at. Just confused here, is it a complete no go or does it have a chance/should I look at it? My jeweller is a bit confused about how concerned I am and says the stone should be lively and sparkly.

 

[sledge]

You mentioned that it is not bad in this case, but Sledge and Karl said it would not be worth having this stone be brought in to be looked at. Just confused here, is it a complete no go or does it have a chance/should I look at it? My jeweller is a bit confused about how concerned I am and says the stone should be lively and sparkly.

Sounds like your jeweler should read this thread I created awhile back:

Why Advanced Images Matter...A Bad 34.5/40.8...

I'm just as guilty as anyone. Helping someone find a stone and run across one with that 34.5/40.8 combo. You smile. You then run through the rest of the proportions.... 57 table, 61.7 depth, 75 LGF's, 50 stars and medium-slightly thick girdle....check, check, check,check and check You...

www.pricescope.com

Short answer is proportions isn't the end all. The stone in the example above had all the right stuff on the lab report. Absolutely gorgeous proportions, but a complete mess in reality.

Additionally your jeweler is dancing around the fact that pavilions 40.45 and below can suffer from obstruction. Or super obvious symmetry problems of this stone, especially to an experienced eye.

You need to question why a jeweler who is experienced as you stated, isn't able to identify and talk about these issues with you. Perhaps that VESTED interest has his vision a little cloudy.

I would not purchase this stone, and I don't recommend you do it either. If you provide a budget and stone requirements, we can help find you something better.

 

[sledge]

FYI, a very simplified GIF of how obstruction works.

 

[flyingpig]

Ideal. We agree that this is ideal.

1.18 Carat round diamond

This True Hearts TM diamond, 1.18 carat I color vs1 clarity has ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

PA slightly shallow. Your stone. It has nice look arrows. It may look similar to the ideal stone. But the arrows will be consistently dark.

Slightly Shallow PA and slightly shallow CA (32~33)

1.00 Carat round diamond

This 1 carat round diamond E color si1 clarity has Very Good proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

Notice more persistent arrows and extra contrast. Arrowheads look like clubheads

Very shallow PA and CA

1.50 Carat round diamond

This 1.5 carat round diamond D color si1 clarity has Very Good proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

Look at it..

 

[flyingpig]

If it is GIA and good lookimg IRL, I may consider it with, maybe, 15~20% discount compared to a GIA Ex with ideal proportions.

Edit. It does not look bad. But I am not thrilled either.

 

[scramblezy]

Thank you all, I understand better now. That previous stone was not a dog but I can definitely do better with a stone with safer proportions. Is this correct?

I have been in conversation with my jeweller and he has suggested another stone, this time AGS graded. Is this any different from the previous one?

Table: 55.1%
Depth: 62.0%
Crown: 35.1 deg
Pavilion: 40.5 deg

Thank you for your patience!

 

[sledge]

Thank you all, I understand better now. That previous stone was not a dog but I can definitely do better with a stone with safer proportions. Is this correct?

I have been in conversation with my jeweller and he has suggested another stone, this time AGS graded. Is this any different from the previous one?

Table: 55.1%
Depth: 62.0%
Crown: 35.1 deg
Pavilion: 40.5 deg

Thank you for your patience!

Did he give you a copy of the entire report? If so, can you share? Alternatively, if he gave you the AGS report number, you can look it up online. Reason I ask is because AGS does a ray-trace and prints the computerized ASET on the report. Kind of nice.

In regards to obstruction, this stone may exhibit as well. The critical angle you are trying to avoid is 40.45.

If you aren't aware, a round diamond has 8 actual pavilion angles. When reported on an AGS report, all 8 of those actual pavilion angle values are added together and averaged and shown as a single value, rounded to the nearest 0.1 degree.

GIA takes it an extra step by not only averaging, but then rounding the pavilion angle to the nearest 0.2 degrees. Crown angles are handled similarly by GIA, except rounded to the nearest 0.5 degrees.

Because AGS doesn't average, they are a bit tighter. However, there are still 8 values and it's possible one or more of them dip below that critical 40.45 PA. So there is a chance it may still obstruct, just maybe less badly.

 

[sledge]

Just curious how this stone compares price-wise with the stones your local jeweler is presenting to you? It's similar size, color & clarity of the first stone you referenced. The difference being this is a true H&A stone that is ideally cut and has an AGS000 report, aka "super ideal". The vendor is highly respected & trusted.

Also, if you click on the lab report, it will show you the ray-trace ASET I was talking about earlier. Which in the case of the WF stone is a somewhat moot point, as they also provide actual ASET, idealscope and H&A images. However, the ray-trace is better than nothing when shopping from a vendor that doesn't supply advanced images.

Diamond | 0.790 ct F VS1 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4386692

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 0.790 carat F color VS1 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4386692

www.whiteflash.com

 

[scramblezy]

Thank you @sledge! I am still waiting on the report number from my jeweller, after which I will be sure to look it up! He says it is an AGS Ideal cut with symmetry graded ideal. Does AGS ideal symmetry means it’s unlikely to turn out like that first stone with GIA excellent symmetry? Assuming we don’t fall off the cliff with a 40.45 and below pavilion, is 40.5/35.1 even complimentary?

The first stone was offered to me for around $4000 but he can go lower if I do the setting there as well. I have known him a long time.

 

[sledge]

I expect the AGS stone to be better. And also more expensive than the GIA stone (assuming same color, clarity & carats).

I still expect some mild obstruction because the AVERAGED pavilion angle is 40.5. You likely have a few ACTUALS that crept below 40.45. The severity will depend how much actual variance there really is and also how the corresponding actual crown angle will hurt/help it.

As far as the dollars, be careful. Selling a stone cheaper if you buy a setting could be a way to manipulate price.

What you care about is the total price. He could easily lower the diamond price and inflate the setting price to achieve desired final price.

Example 1: $3,500 diamond + $1,500 setting = $5,000 total
Example 2: $4,000 diamond + $1,000 setting = $5,000 total

In both examples the stone & setting is identical. Just the jeweler had the luxury to move his dollars as needed to appear he has the lowest priced diamond. Technically true, but if you must also buy the setting at the inflated price it negates the deal.

 

[sledge]

Ideal. We agree that this is ideal.

1.18 Carat round diamond

This True Hearts TM diamond, 1.18 carat I color vs1 clarity has ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

PA slightly shallow. Your stone. It has nice look arrows. It may look similar to the ideal stone. But the arrows will be consistently dark.

Slightly Shallow PA and slightly shallow CA (32~33)

1.00 Carat round diamond

This 1 carat round diamond E color si1 clarity has Very Good proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

Notice more persistent arrows and extra contrast. Arrowheads look like clubheads

Very shallow PA and CA

1.50 Carat round diamond

This 1.5 carat round diamond D color si1 clarity has Very Good proportions and a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

Look at it..

Lab reports on each stone:

 

[flyingpig]

Lab reports on each stone:

Interesting. At least, I got the CAs right. Lol. Surprised bybthe 33/40... I did not expect 40PA, based on the size of table reflection and 58TB

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Your jeweler is confused because he usually can sell stones like this since most people walking into a jewelry store to buy a diamond for a ring are totally clueless. He thinks this is a great stone compared to many others, and that might be true. But it is not a great stone compared to a truly great cut stone. Fortunately you came here and can get some help finding a truly great stone. GIA Excellent cut is a very broad range. AGS Ideal cut gives more cut information, but those are not all equal, either.

Most of the top H&A cut stones will have a crown angle between 34-35 (up to 35.5 if crown angle is 40.6 is possible) and pavilion angle between 40.6-40.9. Table usually 54-58 and depth no greater than 62.3. I generally limit my searches within those parameters, and you'll save your jeweler some time if you tell him these parameters.

 

[scramblezy]

Thank you all! Very sound advice, I will be sure to check if the price of the setting gets marked up, because if so there is no point in a discount on the stone! Interesting also to see the reports on each of the stones thanks @sledge for putting them here!

I had the opportunity to view a stone recently, it was an AGS certified one, 56 table, 33.9 crown, 41.1 pavilion. But it just didn’t speak to me. Based on my understanding this would be a better set of proportions than 35.1 crown and 40.5 pavilion. If this is correct, am I crazy for not liking it? It also looked a little flat from the side (maybe due to the lower crown). Again, is there something wrong with my eyes and my judgment?

Edited to add: I was also shown a stone with 59.5 table and depth (this would be a 60/60 style I believe?) It looked icy white, but wouldn’t really throw off rainbow flashes unless I blasted it with my phone’s camera flash. Also wasn’t quite a fan, I do like some fire!

 

[sledge]

I had the opportunity to view a stone recently, it was an AGS certified one, 56 table, 33.9 crown, 41.1 pavilion. But it just didn’t speak to me. Based on my understanding this would be a better set of proportions than 35.1 crown and 40.5 pavilion. If this is correct, am I crazy for not liking it? It also looked a little flat from the side (maybe due to the lower crown). Again, is there something wrong with my eyes and my judgment?

Edited to add: I was also shown a stone with 59.5 table and depth (this would be a 60/60 style I believe?) It looked icy white, but wouldn’t really throw off rainbow flashes unless I blasted it with my phone’s camera flash. Also wasn’t quite a fan, I do like some fire!

Actually I would be equally concerned with a 41.1 pavilion. At around 41.2 degrees, you hit a critical tipping point where things start to go wonky.

Below is such an example where pavilion angle is too great creating a 43.5% pavilion depth. Light is not fully striking off the pavilion facets causing the arrows to be translucent instead of black and creating a lack of contrast in the stone. Additionally, the pink arrows are pointing to heavy obstruction in the stone.



Needless to say the ACTUAL crown & pavilion angles of the stone matter greatly. When you push the fringe they matter even more. Not to mention the "minor" facets such as lower girdle facets, upper girdle facets & stars. LGF's especially can have a drastic effect.

As far as the stone looking "flat", yes it has to do with the crown angle and table size. Steeper crowns will have more crown height and look taller (above the girdle). But there is also a light performance difference. As the crown steepens, the upper girdle facets also increase, which helps increase rainbow colored light return.

Lastly, what I think you discovered about 60/60 stones is reflective of most people's opinions. They are shallow depth with shallow crowns that yield more white light return as opposed to rainbow light return. This isn't necessarily good or bad, but rather a preference. Many people prefer a Tolkowsky style cut which has more fire and leads you towards the ideal proportions typically recommended here.

The good part of this is it seems you are learning about the various personalities and what you prefer.

If you want to tighten you search criteria, you may try limiting to the following:

54-57 table
60-62 depth
34-35 crown
40.6-40.8 pavilion
75-80 lower girdle facet

 

[sledge]

A little more visual on how CA can make a stone look flatter.

 

[scramblezy]

Sledge you are exactly right, the arrows never seemed to be dark in that 41.1 pavilion stone! It lacked contrast, even compared to the 60/60 I saw where the arrows would darken at certain angles. I do prefer being able to see the arrows.

That 33.9/41.1 was right in the middle of GIA EX and AGS Ideal so truly I expected it to be a winner. While GIA EX is too broad AGS Ideal I thought could be better trusted but I now see the importance of viewing the stones with my eyes.

I will be avoiding the higher range of pavilion angles if they will suffer from a lack of contrast, and the 60/60s as they just don’t seem quite as lively. Perhaps I might ask to see that AGS 35.1/40.5, but I will also be continuing my search with the parameters you suggested!