Thoughts on these proportions......?

[FB.]

No images available at present, but it has what appear to be an unusual and interesting set of proportions.....

6.18 x 6.27 x 3.98mm

Total depth - 63.9%
Table - 56%
Crown height - 17.0%
Crown angle - 38.0''
Star - 50%
Pavilion depth - 41.5%
Pavilion angle - 39.8''
Lower half - 75%
Girdle - Slightly thick to thick, faceted.
Culet - very small
Polish - very good
Symmetry - very good

Opinions appreciated.....

Thanks
FB

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/19/2009 12:15:32 PM
Author:FB.
No images available at present, but it has what appear to be an unusual and interesting set of proportions.....

6.18 x 6.27 x 3.98mm

Total depth - 63.9%
Table - 56%
Crown height - 17.0%
Crown angle - 38.0'
Star - 50%
Pavilion depth - 41.5%
Pavilion angle - 39.8'
Lower half - 75%
Girdle - Slightly thick to thick, faceted.
Culet - very small
Polish - very good
Symmetry - very good

Opinions appreciated.....

Thanks
FB

Edit - misread proportions confusing pavilion depth, yes within fiery ideal cut range, might be ok but need an Idealscope image, these diamonds are typically heavier depthed than the usual near Tolkowsky and other makes, although it is too deep for me as you could lose face up size ( often a tradeoff with FIC's) an Idealscope image would tell us more.

 

[Stephan]

Hi Lorelei!

This diamond is not bottom heavy?!?

 

[Stephan]

1.3 FIC excellent (HCA).
Do you have pictures?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/19/2009 12:20:41 PM
Author: QueenMum
Hi Lorelei!

This diamond is not bottom heavy?!?

Ah misread pavilion depth for angle, FIC might be ok although it is still deep for my taste even for this type of stone. Which vendor has it FB?

 

[stone-cold11]

Very interesting.

Would love to see IS/ASET, movie of this stone like that by GOG.

 

[Stephan]

I really would like to see a picture of this.
If the price is right, it could be OK even if there is some extra weight hidden in the thick girdle.