Stone Opinions Sought

[Molls]

I''d very much appreciate any feedback on these stones (possible studs--prices within budget):

All have GIA certs and are eye-clean.

Stone 1
.96/H/SI1
cut: VG
polish: VG
symmetry: VG
depth: 63.5
table: 59
crown angle: 35.5
pavilion angle: 41
girdle: medium
flourescence: none
measurements: 6.18 x 6.23 x 3.94

Stone 2
.95/H/SI1
cut: VG
polish: VG
symmetry: EX
depth: 62
table: 58
crown angle: 35.5
pavilion angle: 40.8
girdle: medium
flourescence: faint (blue)
measurements: 6.22 x 6.26 x 3.88

Stone 3
.96/H/SI1
cut: VG
polish: VG
symmetry: VG
depth: 62
table: 58
crown angle: 36.5
pavilion angle: 40.8
girdle: medium
flourescence: medium (blue)
measurements: 6.23 x 6.27 x 3.94

Thanks!

 

[stone-cold11]

#2 has the best chance of being a good stone.

#1 and #3 is way too steep in the pavilion angle for the respective crown angles.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/1/2009 12:20:04 PM
Author:Molls
I'd very much appreciate any feedback on these stones (possible studs--prices within budget):

All have GIA certs and are eye-clean.

Stone 1
.96/H/SI1
cut: VG
polish: VG
symmetry: VG
depth: 63.5
table: 59
crown angle: 35.5
pavilion angle: 41
girdle: medium
flourescence: none
measurements: 6.18 x 6.23 x 3.94

Stone 2
.95/H/SI1
cut: VG
polish: VG
symmetry: EX
depth: 62
table: 58
crown angle: 35.5
pavilion angle: 40.8
girdle: medium
flourescence: faint (blue)
measurements: 6.22 x 6.26 x 3.88

Stone 3
.96/H/SI1
cut: VG
polish: VG
symmetry: VG
depth: 62
table: 58
crown angle: 36.5
pavilion angle: 40.8
girdle: medium
flourescence: medium (blue)
measurements: 6.23 x 6.27 x 3.94

Thanks!

Hi Molls

Diamond 1 is what we call a steep deep with both crown and pavilion angles. It is also physically too deep and could look small for the weight.

2 is borderline, might be ok depending on various factors but an Idealscope image is needed to evaluate this diamond properly.

Same as above with diamond 3. So 2 and 3 might be a match for studs, ask for Idealscope images for both if you can get them, that will tell us more.

 

[Molls]

Thanks for your replies!

Lorelei,

Just to clarify--are you suggesting that #2 and #3 might be good stones pending approval of the other factors (or that they might match, but shouldn''t be considered because the proportions aren''t good--I get HCA scores of 2.8 and 3.7 when I run them)? The dealer is very well-regarded and trusted on PS.

Many thanks

 

[FB.]

Number two is probably the better of the three, but I think that you can do better.
I would not rush to buy any of them. See what else you can find.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 12/2/2009 10:48:15 AM
Author: Molls
Thanks for your replies!

Lorelei,

Just to clarify--are you suggesting that #2 and #3 might be good stones pending approval of the other factors (or that they might match, but shouldn't be considered because the proportions aren't good--I get HCA scores of 2.8 and 3.7 when I run them)? The dealer is very well-regarded and trusted on PS.

Many thanks

They could be a possible match but the thing is if Idealscope images check out for each - as they do match up it might be worth getting an image so we can evaluate them especially as they are from a well regarded vendor.