On my 0.18 carat side diamond the girdle in part looks exactly like the girdle to the left of middle. This is shown in Gary Roskin's book on diamond grading as a Very Thin Girdle at 50X magnification, I am looking at my stone with a 10x loupe. There is also a photo of the same diamond in the book at 10x and it looks like my stone.
As my diamond is only 3.7mm in diameter would a Very Thin girdle look like this. On my diamond to the left and right of the thin part it also looks thicker. I have complained to the jeweller the ring was bought from and they had the stone for two whole weeks and the reply I got was that my concerns were unfounded and the girdle was ideally proportionate to its size. They went on to say that a thick girdle is not a good thing as the table would be smaller because of it!!?
Anyway, I do not believe them and have written to them but they just ignore my e-mails.
They did reply once and said if I was still concerned I should get a suitably qualified gemmologist to look at it. That is what their Chairman is supposed to be who looked at the stone. Anyway a gemmologist will not write up a report on such a small stone and anyway they still believe they are right.
Could it be that I am wrong? I do think the girdle is exactly like the one attached here although to the side of the thin part of the girdle does not look as thick as it does on this picture but the waves in the outline look about the same.
Can someone please help me?
The picture shows a 1.36 carat diamond at 50X magnification:
As my diamond is only 3.7mm in diameter would a Very Thin girdle look like this. On my diamond to the left and right of the thin part it also looks thicker. I have complained to the jeweller the ring was bought from and they had the stone for two whole weeks and the reply I got was that my concerns were unfounded and the girdle was ideally proportionate to its size. They went on to say that a thick girdle is not a good thing as the table would be smaller because of it!!?
Anyway, I do not believe them and have written to them but they just ignore my e-mails.
They did reply once and said if I was still concerned I should get a suitably qualified gemmologist to look at it. That is what their Chairman is supposed to be who looked at the stone. Anyway a gemmologist will not write up a report on such a small stone and anyway they still believe they are right.
Could it be that I am wrong? I do think the girdle is exactly like the one attached here although to the side of the thin part of the girdle does not look as thick as it does on this picture but the waves in the outline look about the same.
Can someone please help me?
The picture shows a 1.36 carat diamond at 50X magnification:
300x240.png)