I thought I covered all the bases during my search for a diamond, but after buying it I realized that it was a bit shallow (table % outside of the ideal, crown angle too small). I was concentrating on all the other specs and thought that the HCA score (which is excellent on this stone) would guarantee good proportions.
I posted my concerns on another forum, and the consensus was that the proportions of this stone would possibly result in slightly less fire but more brilliance with greater spread, which is an acceptable compromise, and that this was a pretty good deal. I did look at this stone in person, side by side next to other stones with "better" proportions, and it certainly did not lack in brilliance.
- 1.40 carats
- I color (in a yellow gold setting, so it didn't need to be too high, but it still faces up white)
- VS2
- 1.1 HCA
- Excellent cut, polish, symmetry
- No fluorescence
- Large diameter for the weight (obviously because it's slightly shallow)
Spent exactly $9k, including the setting, which has .32 carats (H-I, SI1).
What do you think?
GIA: http://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=5172736593
I posted my concerns on another forum, and the consensus was that the proportions of this stone would possibly result in slightly less fire but more brilliance with greater spread, which is an acceptable compromise, and that this was a pretty good deal. I did look at this stone in person, side by side next to other stones with "better" proportions, and it certainly did not lack in brilliance.
- 1.40 carats
- I color (in a yellow gold setting, so it didn't need to be too high, but it still faces up white)
- VS2
- 1.1 HCA
- Excellent cut, polish, symmetry
- No fluorescence
- Large diameter for the weight (obviously because it's slightly shallow)
Spent exactly $9k, including the setting, which has .32 carats (H-I, SI1).
What do you think?
GIA: http://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=5172736593
300x240.png)