Table > than Depth, but Excellent HCA score

[bostontexas]

I've found this diamond which is very large for its ct size of 1.95, due to its large table I am assuming.

The GIA report is:
H, VS2
Cut: VG
Polish: Ex
Symmetry: VG
Fluorescence: Faint
The proportions are on the GIA certificate diagram linked here: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/certificate.aspx?idno=2930709&file_name=1

2 private dealers where I'm from told me this is not a good diamond.
The way I see it, it is larger than what it should be due to the table, and balanced in a way to give it an Excellent HCA score.
Now people tell me all the time a large table or even when table is larger than depth is really bad..
But given that this diamond is larger than what it should be and has excellent HCA, shouldn't this make it a really good pick?

Not sure if I am missing anything here :/

Please help

 

[Jumpin_Jacks]

Still a newbie, the table may be a personal preference to having something slightly larger, but the biggest issue I think is the depth. It's outside of the ideal 60%-62%. Shallow diamonds from what I've read do not reflect light as much and will appear less sparkly and more lifeless than an ideal. Might as well get an excellent smaller cut, at least that what most will tell you here on PS.

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-cut

http://jewelry.about.com/cs/thefourcs/a/diamond_cut.htm .....their quote: Light traveling through a shallow cut diamond is lost out of the bottom of the stone and does not bounce back into sight. The lack of light play makes shallow cut diamonds appear lifeless.

Edit: HCA is a 1.3 but light return is only Very Good. Not sure how much lower than 60% on depth you can go before it affects light return, but seems like it's affected somewhat with the 58.7%. Is it discounted from an ideal at the same specs otherwise?

 

[Karl_K]

This diamond can not begin to be evaluated by the numbers on the GIA report.
They are rounded then averaged then grossly averaged and for this combo that can make a huge difference.

A lot of experts will look at the depth and vg cut grade and say forget it.
The hca in spite of the good score points to a potential issue with brightness even if the numbers are spot on. It has a predicted score of AGS1 based on the cutting tables if the numbers are spot on. Not that bad but not the best.

My opinion is that within the GIA rounding and averaging there is some potential for a nice diamond but unless size per ct is the top priority id move on. Not worth the hassle to find out for sure.

 

[bostontexas]

Thank you for your replies.

So basically the diamond is rounded and averaged. Which tools would I use to see if it has excellent potential, would I use the ASET and ideascope?

Also should I really eliminate this diamond from my options since it has potential due to the excellent HCA score?

I'm still confused about this.

 

[diamond-enthusiast]

The ASET and Idealscope should be sufficient for light performance.

If you are really hardcore and have a good understanding of numbers, get a Sarin or Helium report.

 

[TC1987]

Also look up "head Obstruction" and maybe "pendant stone" as well. The shallower diamonds can appear dark close-up due to shadow from the observer' head. They might be okay at arm's length, though. That's why they are sometimes called "pendant stones," because they are as good for rings. But if it looks great at arm's length, that might still be okay if the wearer is accepting of that limitation. Other than the wearer, most people will be looking at it at least arm's length.

You might have to set it in a relatively open prong setting like a Tiffany type head to let light into the pavilion to help offset leakage or darkness to make it look it's best.

A large table means a stone cut more for brilliance than fire. The fire might be only around the perimeter of the diamond in the crown facets. The table area might look all or mostly white (brilliance.) Depending on how it's faceted, it might look "silvery" and not firey.

Some older RBs were cut with bit tables and shallow depth. It's a very different look from the modern hearts & arrows, and different from the Old European, both of which have smaller tables, steeper crown angles, and more mass of the diamond above the girdle line as % crown height.
((eta that one is only 60% which is not too bad. European Cuts (circa 1920-1940) have a big table but Rich Sherwood appraiser says they probably sill still have a higher crown and smaller table than a modern RB. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/european-cut-diamond.3875/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/european-cut-diamond.3875/[/URL] But I think I have read elsewhere on here in later posts that the European cut is large table and low crown, with shallow depth to give a spready diamond.))

Very low crown angles might be susceptible to chipping, too. (eta Look that up but I think it's still in the decent range and 32 degrees is where what problem starts.)