Seeking opinion on this H&A pattern

[dww777]

Hi,

I''m wondering what everyone''s opinion is of this diamond. The specs are:

$12,000
1.30, F, VS1
AGS Ideal: Cut, Symmetry, Polish

Table: 56.3%
Crown Angle: 34.3
Girdle: Faceted, 1.7% to 4.1%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Star Length: 48%
Lower Girdle Length: 77%
Total Depth: 61.8%

Here is a pic of the H&A. Specifically to the H&A, I have a number of questions:

0. Could you comment on your view of the H&A pattern? And, overall, is this stone worth the $12k in your opinion?

1. The hearts don''t seem very symmetrical, and the slit between each heart seems a bit long (I read the H&A guide). So it doesn''t seem like this can qualify as a true H&A diamond. Is this a correct statement?

2. Does anyone have any idea why there are two dots on the hearts? I see these from time to time on these H&A images. Whiteflash''s pictures tend to not have them, but are those accurate depictions of the actual stones?

3. As you can see, there are 3 pictures of the crown and 3 of the pavilion. During the pictures the stone had been rotated. I notice that in all 3 pictures of the hearts, the hearts with the dots have a gray-ish look, where as some of the other hearts are sometimes pure white and sometimes gray. Similarly, the same arrow in the 3 arrow pictures is always orange, regardless of the camera/stone angle. Because the change in camera angle didn''t seem to change the discoloration, it doesn''t seem like the discoloration is due to lighting conditions.

So basically, is there something wrong with this stone?

Thank you so much!

 

[dww777]

Oh, another thing. If you look at the picture of the actual diamond, does it seem like it is missing two arrows? Could this be linked to the discoloration of the H&A images?

Thanks!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I will leave it for others to judge the H&A''s for you.
The 2 dots are holes for setting (just kidding) - no they are probably 1 inclusion seen twice - it is normal to see more inclusions thru the pav side.

The photograhs are not real good and that is probably the main issue - the stone should be nice, but the h&A''s Cut nuts can disect it 4 u

 

[strmrdr]

0> 12k is competitive.
1> yea its h&a in my book, the clefts is a debatable subject. Longer lgf% work well with that crown/pavilion combo anyway but they look on average under the 8% rule anyway.(77% average)
2> reflection of 1 inclusion
3> the camera and stone isn't properly centered over/in the scope.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[John P]

Date: 9/16/2008 8:41:48 PM
Author:dww777
Hi,

I'm wondering what everyone's opinion is of this diamond. The specs are:

$12,000
1.30, F, VS1
AGS Ideal: Cut, Symmetry, Polish

Table: 56.3%
Crown Angle: 34.3
Girdle: Faceted, 1.7% to 4.1%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Star Length: 48%
Lower Girdle Length: 77%
Total Depth: 61.8%

Here is a pic of the H&A. Specifically to the H&A, I have a number of questions:

0. Could you comment on your view of the H&A pattern? And, overall, is this stone worth the $12k in your opinion?

1. The hearts don't seem very symmetrical, and the slit between each heart seems a bit long (I read the H&A guide). So it doesn't seem like this can qualify as a true H&A diamond. Is this a correct statement?

2. Does anyone have any idea why there are two dots on the hearts? I see these from time to time on these H&A images. Whiteflash's pictures tend to not have them, but are those accurate depictions of the actual stones?

3. As you can see, there are 3 pictures of the crown and 3 of the pavilion. During the pictures the stone had been rotated. I notice that in all 3 pictures of the hearts, the hearts with the dots have a gray-ish look, where as some of the other hearts are sometimes pure white and sometimes gray. Similarly, the same arrow in the 3 arrow pictures is always orange, regardless of the camera/stone angle. Because the change in camera angle didn't seem to change the discoloration, it doesn't seem like the discoloration is due to lighting conditions.

So basically, is there something wrong with this stone?

Thank you so much!

Nothing wrong with it. The H&A photography is not very sophisticated so it's nice that they provided three views for you. There are 8 distinct hearts and the inconsistencies in shape are likely due to the photography. If the stone had been precisely centered in all images it would look more consistent. The inclusion has been addressed above.

Date: 9/16/2008 8:43:17 PM
Author: dww777
Oh, another thing. If you look at the picture of the actual diamond, does it seem like it is missing two arrows? Could this be linked to the discoloration of the H&A images?

Thanks!

No worries. The dark 'arrows' are caused by obstruction; literally they're a reflection of the dark camera lens seen in the pavilion mains (arrows) of the diamond. The diamond is slightly tilted in the hand shot so two of the pavilion mains are not reflecting that shadow directly back to us. If the diamond was perfectly level to the lens you'd see them just as you do in the blue & white arrows photos.

Here is a graphic showing obstruction.

It appears to be a beautiful stone. The H&A are nice. The AGS Ideal pedigree is a strong performance indicator. By the numbers is looks to be terrific and if you've seen it with your own eyes you already know it's overall bling factor.

 

[dww777]

Huh. Very interesting. Thank you for all your comments! It puts my mind at ease

 

[Darthkim]

John, Garry,

Any reason why they used Blue for the H&A shots?

 

[Dancing Fire]

my H&A scope comes with both red or blue tin foil. i can view the H&A with either color.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

HRD-studies recently revealed that the colour of the filter influences the visibility and appearance of the pattern. Blue filters are slightly more forgiving than red filters.

Live long,

 

[John P]

Paul''s answer reminded me of the reason you see the slight yellow discoloration in the arrows photos: There are different sized H&A viewers. For your diamond''s size and make the maximum angle of the diffused white light cone was a bit small on the viewer used for the photograph. Nothing to worry about, just something that may be of interest.