Something wrong with these Hearts?

[BRS]

I've done some basic reading on Hearts & Arrows diamonds on this site and wanted to know if there is something wrong with the hearts on this diamond? It looks like there is a split in the "V" section of some of the hearts.

Is this a problem or am I getting too critical?

**Link removed by moderator. Please upload pictures to forums directly.**

 

[BRS]

I think I uploaded the picture correctly this time. Sorry

 

[stone-cold11]

looks to have good optical symm, cleft in the hearts might be a tad too big to be consider a traditional H&A but that has nothing to do with optical symm.

 

[Lorelei]

For me its borderline, its a good image but the clefts are there, however they are minimal.

 

[BRS]

What effect would clefts like that have on the diamond? Does it simply take it out of the hearts & arrows category or would it effect how the stones looks via the human eye?

 

[stone-cold11]

bigger cleft just means the stone has a bigger lower half facet than what is traditional allowed for a H&A, but that can work better for some proportion.

 

[Lula]

Date: 3/4/2010 2:00:24 PM
Author: BRS
What effect would clefts like that have on the diamond? Does it simply take it out of the hearts & arrows category or would it effect how the stones looks via the human eye?

It''s a very slight variation from a perfect hearts pattern that you will not be able to detect with your eyes (unless you wear 30x magnifiers

).

If you post the numbers from the AGS or GIA report (I''m assuming you have that information) like table percentage, depth percentage, lower half (or lower girdle) percentage, crown and pavillion angles (not percentages), we can give you some more information about this stone and how it might look in person.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/4/2010 2:00:24 PM
Author: BRS
What effect would clefts like that have on the diamond? Does it simply take it out of the hearts & arrows category or would it effect how the stones looks via the human eye?

Most of the stuff we obsess about here is completely undisitngushable to the human eye

So, no, you will not see this. The only reason it matters is that there is a high premium for true H&S diamonds so you want to make sure you are getting what you pay for when you buy such a diamond.

 

[BRS]

Here is all the other info on this stone that I have.

1.15ct J VS2
Depth: 62.6
Table: 53.6
Crown: 34.5
Pavilion: 40.8

 

[BRS]

ASET Image

 

[BRS]

10x magnification

 

[Lula]

The stone'' s depth percentage is a little deep, but that might not be a problem. I''m giving your thread a bump so others more knowledgeable than me can give you their opinions.

Is this being sold as a Hearts & Arrows diamond? Or a select cut or an ideal cut or something else?

 

[stone-cold11]

IS looks good.

 

[yssie]

thritto


depth is a bit high - means only that you may be losing a tiny bit of face-up spread, doesn't have any detriment on cut or sparkle

. Nice IS, no issue with the hearts image - may be considered modified H&A by some brands but the optical symmetry is clearly there. LOVE the 53 table

 

[BRS]

Thank you!

Yes this is being sold as a Heart & Arrows diamond. Its pretty reasonably prices compared to other H&A stones I''ve seen for the same size.

 

[Dreamer_D]

The IS trumps estimates based on numbers, so it looks like a goodie as far as we can tell online. I too like the small table.

 

[BRS]

Date: 3/4/2010 4:14:14 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
The IS trumps estimates based on numbers, so it looks like a goodie as far as we can tell online. I too like the small table.

Sorry to be such a noob, but what do you mean when you say "IS"?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/4/2010 4:20:39 PM
Author: BRS

Date: 3/4/2010 4:14:14 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
The IS trumps estimates based on numbers, so it looks like a goodie as far as we can tell online. I too like the small table.

Sorry to be such a noob, but what do you mean when you say ''IS''?

Ideal Scope.

 

[FB.]

The angles are very good.
The smaller table is what makes the stone slightly deep, but smaller tables would be expected to do that.
For example; with a fixed set of crown and pavilion angles (e.g. 34.5/40., a 54% table will always result in a deeper stone than a 60% table (unless the girdles are abnormal).

 

[Lula]

Sounds like you picked a winner, BRS! Have you put it on hold?

 

[BRS]

Actually this diamond was my 2nd choice. Maybe I should reconsider my decision? I can''t post pictures of my 1st choice now but I will when I get home in an hour. FYI it''s a Brian Gavin Hearts & Arrows diamond of similar size and cut except it''s an Si1 (VS2 here) and $200 more expensive. Brian says it''s was "graded harshly" by AGS and is absolutely eye clean.

I really appreciate all the advice I''ve received here. I''ll post all the details about my other choice ASAP!

 

[Dancing Fire]

love the proportions

small table with a high crown.

 

[BRS]

Ok, here are the details of the other diamond I am considering. Its a Brian Gavin H&A but its $200 more than the other jeweler''s H&A pictured above. Which is nicer? Which is better for the money?

Carat: 1.158
Color: J
Clarity: SI1
Measurements: 6.74x6.76x4.17
Lab Cut Grade: Ideal
Light Performance: Ideal
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table %: 55.3
Depth %: 61.7
Crown %: 15.6
Crown Angle: 34.8
Star %: 53.0
Pav Angle: 40.8
Pavillion %: 43.0
Lower Girdle %: 76.0
Girdle Min-Max %: 1.3-3.6
Girdle: Faceted
Culet: Pointed

 

[BRS]

ASET

 

[yssie]

Both are really lovely diamonds - I'd buy by vendor policies, etc. at this point.

 

[Dancing Fire]

both are very nice stone. the only difference with #1 stone having an UNfinish girdle.

 

[stone-cold11]

hearts image?

faceted or bruted girdle is a matter of preference, some like it finished some don''t.

 

[Lorelei]

Yes we need the hearts image for the BG diamond, so far it looks very promising.

 

[BRS]

Here is the BG Hearts image.

 

[BRS]

As I said before, the BG diamond is $200 more expensive and graded as an Si1 as opposed to a VS2. Brian said it was "harshly graded" and assured me it would be eye clean.