Rate my rock

[sobchak]

First, this place is amazing. I've gone from diamond noob, to diamond expert (okay, relatively speaking) in a matter of weeks. Thanks for all your help to us diamondly challanged.

I've got my sights set on a stone, but I wanted a final opinion from the experts. Everything looks good, and it rates a .7 on the HCA, but I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was missing.

Certificate: AGS
Shape: Round
Measurements: 5.48-5.51*3.37 mm
Weight: .62 ct
Gridle: Slightly Thick (min) to Thick (max), faceted
Culet: Point
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Clarity: VS2
Color: G
Fluorescence: None
Depth: 61.4%
Table: 55.1%
Pavil: 40.6 (39.9-41.1)
Crown: 34.6 (34.2-34.

My main concern is that the AGS and Sarin reports give it a grade of 3. Is that good or bad?

 

[sobchak]

Pretty Please.

 

[Buena Girl]

welcome!,

I am sorry that I cannot offer an opinion, but this will bump up your topic. I''m sure an expert will chime in soon. Sometimes it takes a while

 

[YoungPapa]

sobchak,

I''m sure it''s a beautiful diamond. From what you''ve posted the diamond is perfect except for the girdle which is a little bit thicker than normal. It''s strange a cutter put so much time into the diamond in every other aspect but then still thickened the middle. Could there be an extra facet or natural plotted on the AGS report?

Regardless of the girdle it''s still going to be an outstanding looking diamond. Enjoy!

 

[strmrdr]

Pavil: 40.6 (39.9-41.1)
unless that is a typo.
PASS!
the cutlet would have to be seriously off center to get numbers like that.

Also the fat girdle is going to make it smaller than it should be for its weight.

 

[sobchak]

The average girdle size is 2.1%, so maybe not so bad.

strmrdr: I double checked, and it''s not a typo. I''m a bit confused. That number is not far off from many other Ideal cut diamonds I''ve seen online. Why do you think that''s unacceptable in this case? I''m not questioning your opinion, just looking for more info.

Thanks

 

[strmrdr]

The average is good at 40.6 the numbers that make up the average arent 39.9-41.1.
There has to be something going on with the pavilian of that diamond the range is too wide.

 

[strmrdr]

niceice also posted a warning a while back about some cutters that were cutting ags0 stones with wide ranging pavilian angles and fat girdles to hide weight and still make ags0 but im having trouble locating the thread.

 

[strmrdr]

Found the thread...
hmmm sounds a lot like this one...
Fat girdle and large swing in the pavilion facets...
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/latest-trend-0-ideals-cut-for-weight-not-beauty.20500/

Here is the relevant parts.

"We sift through the rejects pretty quick and don''t retain a lot of the information on them because they''re rejects, but here is an example of what we''re talking about. Keep in mind that this is off of memory and the paperwork is not in front of us, so no "your numbers don''t add up" responses please!

One diamond had a pavilion angle of 40.8 degrees listed on the AGS diamond grading report, a person who has been reading here on PS for awhile will realize that the 40.8 degree pavilion angle measurement is the average result of a series of high and low measurements for the pavilion facets. Looking to the OGI Nova Scope computerized proportions analysis we are able to determine that the lowest measurment was 40.4 degrees and the highest measurement was something like 41.4 degrees but most of the measurements were like 41.1 / 41.2 / 41.3 / 41.4 / 41.0 / 41.2 / 41.3 and then the single 40.4 which caused the average number to appear to be GREAT but in reality the pavilion is cut too deep and there is a lot of wobble in the stone."

"Another thing we noticed is that the girdles are being pushed for weight and we''re happy to learn that the AGS will be taking this into account on their new grading system.."