Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Should I ? 2.50 G SI1 XXX

tigertales

tigertales

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
380
Looking at this diamond. It's beautiful, but I have some concerns about the numbers. I know it's got that 41% pavilion angle thing going on. Is that always an issue? What should I expect performance wise? Any concerns about light leakage under the table?

Here are the stats:
G SI 1 GIA XXX
Table 58%
Depth 62.9%
Crown angle 35.5%
Pavilion angle 41.2%
Thin to medium girdle.
no culet
no fluorescence


Also, it's Hearts and Arrows. So, I suppose it's a sacrifice in brilliance for the novelty of the cut. ( They say, anyway...maybe I'm wrong).
Thanks!
 
I have never seen a true hearts and arrows stone without an AGS report. That may be just the luck of the draw, but I wouldn't want to pay a premium for HnA wuthout an AGS report.

And no, you don't sacrifice briliance at all, which is the point of the cut - to maximize it. But that's why I'd want an AGS repoort detailing light performance.
 
20190109_152634.jpg
Well, I do have this from another lab report EGL USA
 
lol...yeah, because of the lab, or the picture?
 
so tell me, what's wrong with the H and A ?
 
tigertales said:
Looking at this diamond. It's beautiful, but I have some concerns about the numbers. I know it's got that 41% pavilion angle thing going on. Is that always an issue? What should I expect performance wise? Any concerns about light leakage under the table?

Here are the stats:
G SI 1 GIA XXX
Table 58%
Depth 62.9%
Crown angle 35.5%
Pavilion angle 41.2%
Thin to medium girdle.
no culet
no fluorescence


Also, it's Hearts and Arrows. So, I suppose it's a sacrifice in brilliance for the novelty of the cut. ( They say, anyway...maybe I'm wrong).
Thanks!
Click to expand...

Crown Angle and Pavillion Angle are not complimentary to each other and probably have light leakage. Add a 62.9 depth which is way too deep. That is why you have an HCA score of 4.7 @ Wewechew I would pass.
 
Wewechew said:
It is absolutely not a H&A diamond... the HCA is 4.7.
Click to expand...

H&A has to do with the optical symmetry. You can have an H&A without ideal angles.

OP...you have the angles marked in percent. Angles should be in degrees. Table and depth should be in percent.
 
jp201845 said:
Crown Angle and Pavillion Angle are not complimentary to each other and probably have light leakage. Add a 62.9 depth which is way too deep. That is why you have an HCA score of 4.7 @ Wewechew I would pass.
Click to expand...

In addition to angles not being complementary for optimal light performance, both angles are steeper than optimal (a steep deep stone). Plus deeper than normal depth means this diamond’s cut is storing carat weight top to bottom, so diameter is likely smaller than a well cut 2.5. There could also be painting or digging going on to reach that magic carat weight (from the ASET, it looks like it).

You will be paying the premium for a 2.5 carat diamond but not seeing that translate into diameter size.
 
tyty333 said:
H&A has to do with the optical symmetry. You can have an H&A without ideal angles.

OP...you have the angles marked in percent. Angles should be in degrees. Table and depth should be in percent.
Click to expand...
Very true the H&A have to do with symmetry... I guess we use H&A so interchangeably with "ideal cut" I spoke incorrectly.
 
tigertales said:
Thanks! I wanted to trade up with WhiteFlash, but have to work with my jeweler from whom I purchased the original 2.21. I wish White flash would accept other diamonds for trade! Wah!
Click to expand...
Why don't you try to sell your original diamond yourself? You would end up getting more for it than you would trading it in.
 
LightBright said:
In addition to angles not being complementary for optimal light performance, both angles are steeper than optimal (a steep deep stone). Plus deeper than normal depth means this diamond’s cut is storing carat weight top to bottom, so diameter is likely smaller than a well cut 2.5. There could also be painting or digging going on to reach that magic carat weight (from the ASET, it looks like it).

You will be paying the premium for a 2.5 carat diamond but not seeing that translate into diameter size.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry about that! I forgot to include the measurements, and yes, angles, not percentages on crown and pavilion.
so, the 2.5 measures 8.63 x 8.57 x 5.41
 
A 2.5 should measure around 8.80 so you see that it faces up much smaller than that. Definitely a steep/deep stone and you can be assured of some light leakage. I would definitely pass on this one.
 
tigertales said:
Oh, sorry about that! I forgot to include the measurements, and yes, angles, not percentages on crown and pavilion.
so, the 2.5 measures 8.63 x 8.57 x 5.41
Click to expand...

That diamond was cut for weight. A well cut 2.5 ct should be closer to 8.7X-8.8X mm. I would pass on that stone.
 
LightBright said:
In addition to angles not being complementary for optimal light performance, both angles are steeper than optimal (a steep deep stone). Plus deeper than normal depth means this diamond’s cut is storing carat weight top to bottom, so diameter is likely smaller than a well cut 2.5. There could also be painting or digging going on to reach that magic carat weight (from the ASET, it looks like it).

You will be paying the premium for a 2.5 carat diamond but not seeing that translate into diameter size.
Click to expand...

What Aset?
 
Steep and deep is right. I said that to the jeweler and he said, well, cuts preferences change all the time...blah blah blah.

really pretty rock, though, surprisingly.
 
Based on the rounded measurements and assuming virtually picture perfect optical symmetry these are the likely results. It could have a Hearts pattern with clefts but ASET and IS show extraneous leakage under the table.

ASET.jpg
HA.jpg HEARTS.jpg IS.jpg
 
tigertales said:
Steep and deep is right. I said that to the jeweler and he said, well, cuts preferences change all the time...blah blah blah.

really pretty rock, though, surprisingly.
Click to expand...
They can be. A stone doesn’t have to be ideal to have a personality and be beautiful.
 
Oh Hi Jonathan! Thanks for that! You are 100% correct about light leakage under the table. In certain lights it's very apparent, in others, doesn't show at all. But, yes, that, I would say is the flaw I first noticed, and amazing you caught it to a technical "T".

I was just studying your YT video on this related subject of hearts and arrows variations...mine seems to fall into the first category ( on a good day) :

 
Last edited:
tigertales said:
Think of the beautiful old mine cut, or even transition cuts...technically wonky and all over the place, but serious light catchers.
Click to expand...
I know. My original engagement ring is an early round brilliant and is deep and flat. It’s still a beautiful stone though.
 
tyty333 said:
What Aset?
Click to expand...

Sorry I thought the little visual diagram from the EGL report that shows “hearts and arrows” was an ASET. What is that picture called?
 
LightBright said:
Sorry I thought the little visual diagram from the EGL report that shows “hearts and arrows” was an ASET. What is that picture called?
Click to expand...

Idealscope I think
 
Wewechew said:
I know. My original engagement ring is an early round brilliant and is deep and flat. It’s still a beautiful stone though.
Click to expand...
My original little engagement ring...gads....47 points! was so beautiful people would cross the room to see it. And guess what, after all these years, and now that I know more, it turns out it was a J VS2or SI1, and the cut...oh hells no...the table was slanted, not even level, it was deep, and the girdle was brutted and feathered. So go figure!
I loved it. HE picked it out, and that's all I cared about.
 
tigertales said:
My original little engagement ring...gads....47 points! was so beautiful people would cross the room to see it. And guess what, after all these years, and now that I know more, it turns out it was a J VS2or SI1, and the cut...oh hells no...the table was slanted, not even level, it was deep, and the girdle was brutted and feathered. So go figure!
I loved it. HE picked it out, and that's all I cared about.
Click to expand...

It was probably an antique cut (slanted table, deep with bruted feathered girdle). They can be amazing!
 
I know this is unrelated in a way, but I'd love to start a thread featuring pics and info of "Beautiful diamonds that fall outside the Ideal" I'm pretty new here, so don't know if there's already been a post like this...what do you think?
 
tigertales said:
My original little engagement ring...gads....47 points! was so beautiful people would cross the room to see it. And guess what, after all these years, and now that I know more, it turns out it was a J VS2or SI1, and the cut...oh hells no...the table was slanted, not even level, it was deep, and the girdle was brutted and feathered. So go figure!
I loved it. HE picked it out, and that's all I cared about.
Click to expand...
I feel you need to post a few picture of this pretty please!
 
doberman said:
I have never seen a true hearts and arrows stone without an AGS report. That may be just the luck of the draw, but I wouldn't want to pay a premium for HnA wuthout an AGS report.

And no, you don't sacrifice briliance at all, which is the point of the cut - to maximize it. But that's why I'd want an AGS repoort detailing light performance.
Click to expand...
Who did the lab report has nothing to do with being h&a.
My wifey's diamond is graded by GIA and has the nicest looking h&a images.
It just happens that a lot of the h&a dealers but not all on PS also use AGSL lab reports with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top