Put me out of my misery!

[eddie]

I am hoping I can be done shopping. It just isn''t my cup of tea. Thanks for everyones help. Please give me good responses. Although, I guess, if bad ones are warranted I will take those too. To me, everything looks good except how the diamond looks under the lightscope. And yes I know I am paying more for the clarity. That is okay by me.

Here''s the link: http://www.goodoldgold.com/princess_1_04ct_g_vvs1.htm

All opinions welcome and needed.

Thanks

 

[moremoremore]

Nice depth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don''t love the light scope, BUT I''m crazy and I''m a sucker for a stone with no dark areas of contrast which just look plain ol dark to me in a princess. It does have nice BScope results. I bet it''s a REALLY pretty stone!

 

[eddie]

Thank you moremore...

I guess I must be in the wrong forum? Or, is it that everyone is tired of these kind of posts? Nothing from anyone else?

 

[Rhino]

I generally don''t like to comment on stones from that website but on this particular diamond ...

Crown angles 1 = 42.9''
Crown angles 2 = 36.7''

Pavilion angle 1 = 58.6''
Pavilion angle 2 = 36.8

On the new AGS Cut Chart for princess cuts this combination of angles puts it in the "red" zone. There are 5 zones all color coded.

least brilliiant = dark blue
next up = green
next = yellow
next = orange
highest brilliance = red

So according to the newest info from AGS you''re looking real good.

 

[valeria101]

Yeah... the depth number sounds great, but that thick girdle eats up all the "savings" - the next on the list (F-VS1, 73% deep link) has better spread, thin girdle helping

Nicer Iscope too !

 

[openhelix]

I wouldn''t say a thick girdle on a princess is a bad thing. Granted you lose a small amount of visible size, but I would definitely rather have a thick girdle than a thin girdle on a princess. Granted you''re probably safe from chipping on any princess from medium up, but a thick isn''t bad IMO.

 

[belle]

good job eddie!!