shape
carat
color
clarity

shallow depth?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

guliice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
31
hi all - first off i just want to say this site is amazing. looking for a diamond for an engagement ring, incredible information here, i was lost, now i''m found... okay, i''ll stop. :)

in my price range, using the HCA i''ve found two diamonds:


#1:
0.62 ct
Depth - 61.3
Table - 55.5
Crown Angle - 34.4
Pavillion Angle - 40.7
5.49x5.52x3.38
HCA - 0.9

#2
0.63 ct
Depth - 59.5
Table - 57
Crown Angle - 32.5
Pavillion Angle - 40.8
5.59x5.63x3.34
HCA - 0.7


my questions are:

1. is an HCA of 0.7 an HCA of 0.7, no matter the values of the components making it up? i know it is, but... :) seems like the depth of #2 (59.5) is more shallow than most of the diamonds i see out there, but it''s coming up with what seems like a good score... any experiences with depths that seem to be a bit shallow? i.e., is a 0.7 really a 0.7?

2. but maybe with that ''shallow'' depth, maybe the diamond will present as a little more wide than another diamond of equal carats? (which is maybe why the measurements are larger in the first two numbers?)

3. i know it''s subjective, but is there a lot of difference between a 0.7 and a 0.9?


i apologize if the questions are a little stupid - but it''s one of those cases where to me logic would say that a 0.7 is a 0.7, and yes the larger numbers mean it''s wider - but the more i learn about diamonds, the more it seems that logic plays no part in any of this. :)

MANY thanks!
 

JulieN

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
13,375
Date: 6/27/2008 12:49:22 AM
Author:guliice
hi all - first off i just want to say this site is amazing. looking for a diamond for an engagement ring, incredible information here, i was lost, now i''m found... okay, i''ll stop. :)

in my price range, using the HCA i''ve found two diamonds:


#1:
0.62 ct
Depth - 61.3
Table - 55.5
Crown Angle - 34.4
Pavillion Angle - 40.7
5.49x5.52x3.38
HCA - 0.9

#2
0.63 ct
Depth - 59.5
Table - 57
Crown Angle - 32.5
Pavillion Angle - 40.8
5.59x5.63x3.34
HCA - 0.7


my questions are:

1. is an HCA of 0.7 an HCA of 0.7, no matter the values of the components making it up? i know it is, but... :) seems like the depth of #2 (59.5) is more shallow than most of the diamonds i see out there, but it''s coming up with what seems like a good score... any experiences with depths that seem to be a bit shallow? i.e., is a 0.7 really a 0.7?

2. but maybe with that ''shallow'' depth, maybe the diamond will present as a little more wide than another diamond of equal carats? (which is maybe why the measurements are larger in the first two numbers?)

3. i know it''s subjective, but is there a lot of difference between a 0.7 and a 0.9?


i apologize if the questions are a little stupid - but it''s one of those cases where to me logic would say that a 0.7 is a 0.7, and yes the larger numbers mean it''s wider - but the more i learn about diamonds, the more it seems that logic plays no part in any of this. :)

MANY thanks!
1. no; one .7 can look a lot different from another .7

2. yes, but there are tradeoffs. in this case, you will probably be losing out on some fire.

3. you just want it to be under 2. HCA is a rejection tool.
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
Welcome!

I would consider the first diamond as the primary contender, it has great numbers and should offer a nice balance of performance features. Also I doubt there would be a tangible difference between the face up size difference of those two diamonds. I would also see if you can get Idealscope images, particularly if you are interested in the second one. Also the HCA can't predict or see many other components of the diamond, so you can't really evaluate how one would differ from the other with the scores unfortunately, don't use it to make final selection as it isn't intended to be used that way. Idealscope, trusted vendor evaluation and ultimately your own eyes can be the deciding factors.
 

azbuyer

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
119
Yes, I have been having similar internal debates. The one stone I am considering has a 59.4% depth but it looks like a bigger stone. Multiplying length x width it gets me a surface area of 76.24. But I think it does lose a bit of fire.

A similar carat weight stone that has depth of 67.9 (which i thought was too deep for cushion) has a surface area of 75.25 - so same weight but the shallow one looks bigger.

I just think for that kind of difference, I am leaning toward wanting more fire than the 1mm size (face up) because when she looks down at her ring, I want it to sparkle and pop
 

guliice

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
31
many thanks for the responses julien and lorelei - really appreciate the feedback, and yes - #1 is looking pretty good right now. i think i will order the ideal scope today so i can really check the diamond.

and azbuyer - i agree on a little bit of size not mattering as much as the fire/brilliance - i want that thing to POP when she looks at it. :)
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
# 1 has excellent numbers and should be a lovely diamond, so I look forward to seeing and IS image when you can.

And you are most welcome
35.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top