Too deep? (Need Image-Scope picture help)

[kindred]

I just received my beginner's Ideal Scope but I'm still figuring out how to use it. At certain angles, it looks like this diamond may be a little bit too deep.

The only proportions I have are:
6.34 x 6.36 x 3.97 mm.

If I am doing this right, the depth percentage is 62.519. Is that too deep? A jeweler told me the table was a little small, if that helps at all.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/10/2009 2:04:25 PM
Author:kindred
I just received my beginner's Ideal Scope but I'm still figuring out how to use it. At certain angles, it looks like this diamond may be a little bit too deep.

The only proportions I have are:
6.34 x 6.36 x 3.97 mm.

If I am doing this right, the depth percentage is 62.519. Is that too deep? A jeweler told me the table was a little small, if that helps at all.

The depth is fine in my opinion, how did you calculate it? As to the table, if you can post the proportions of the diamond to include the table size then we can get a better idea.

How to interpret Idealscope images - http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart.asp These are used more to determine any light leakage, not depth....Or do you think you are seeing leakage due to a deep pavilion angle?

How to use IS - http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_howto.asp

 

[coatimundi_org]

Ditto Lorelei on depth.

Can you post pics and get the other measurements from the jeweler?

 

[kindred]

Author: Lorelei

The depth is fine in my opinion, how did you calculate it?

I got the depth percentage by dividing the depth (3.97 mm.) by the average of the two width measurements (6.34 and 6.36 mm.) and multiplying by 100. I thought I saw to do that in the guide, but now I can''t find the page.

I am trying to take pictures and I''ll post them later if they turn out.

 

[Lorelei]

This is the formula I use, I made it 62.2%?

To get the depth percentage for a round brilliant you divide its depth in mm by its average girdle diameter.

Example: A round measures 6.48–6.52 x 3.95

First, get the average girdle diameter. Add the smallest and largest diameters (the first two mm numbers) and divide by two.

* Add the first two numbers (6.48 + 6.52 = 13.00)
* Divide by 2 (13.00 ÷ 2 = 6.50)
* Round to the nearest hundredth = 6.50

Second, divide depth (the third mm number) by the average girdle diameter you calculated and multiply by 100, rounding the result to the nearest tenth of a percent.

* Divide depth by average girdle diameter (3.95 ÷ 6.50 = 0.60769)
* Multiply by 100 (60.769)
* Round to the nearest tenth of a percent = 60.8%
With rounds, the greater the depth the smaller the diamond ''faces up'' but the total configuration - especially crown and pavilion angles - determines performance. Cut grading systems used by the major labs generally include depths of 59-63% as candidates for the top grade. Other systems are more narrow but that range is solid ground.

 

[kindred]

My fiance took these pictures.
#1

 

[kindred]

My fiance thinks this picture most accurately depicts the diamond as it looks through the Ideal-Scope in person.
#2

 

[kindred]

#3

 

[kindred]

#4

 

[kindred]

To recap, this is the Tiffany ring I won from a Signed Pieces auction on Ebay. It''s .99 carat, VS1, I. Does anyone think I could do better for $4,521 USD?

 

[Lorelei]

It shows some leakage in the IS, but whether this is visible to the naked eye we can't really tell - can you see this in the actual diamond? Bottom line is if you are both unhappy then maybe you should change it.

Can you post all the proportions and the table size please? Also some pics of the actual diamond?

 

[kindred]

I can see some leakage around the center of the diamond. It sparkles more if I move it away from my body than if I look at it closer (this may be that phenomena where the head blocks the light?).

I don''t have all the measurements. I couldn''t find anyone locally who could take measurements and I need to decide whether to keep it or return it in the next couple days.

Date: 1/12/2009 5:17:54 AM
Author: Lorelei
Also some pics of the actual diamond?

I can ask my fiance to take some, but I''m not sure what you mean.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/12/2009 11:19:00 AM
Author: kindred
I can see some leakage around the center of the diamond. It sparkles more if I move it away from my body than if I look at it closer (this may be that phenomena where the head blocks the light?).

I don't have all the measurements. I couldn't find anyone locally who could take measurements and I need to decide whether to keep it or return it in the next couple days.

Date: 1/12/2009 5:17:54 AM
Author: Lorelei
Also some pics of the actual diamond?

I can ask my fiance to take some, but I'm not sure what you mean.

By this I mean photos of the diamond itself in normal light. Yes this is normal that it will look sparklier held away from the body than close. I know it is hard to know what to do...If the Tiffany name is important to you then that is a factor to consider, but if you aren't happy then maybe this isn't the right diamond for you. Did the ring come with the Tiffany paperwork?

 

[John P]

Date: 1/11/2009 8:23:34 PM
Author: kindred
To recap, this is the Tiffany ring I won from a Signed Pieces auction on Ebay. It's .99 carat, VS1, I. Does anyone think I could do better for $4,521 USD?

Tiffany cuts most of their diamonds with crowns a bit higher than the 'bullseye' people tend to shoot for around here. That makes for nice fire but often resuts in a bit of under-table leakage like you're seeing. Their stones have been well cut for many years; long before the most modern precision cutting was possible.

 

[kindred]

Lorelei, thanks for the clarification. I'll have my fiance take some more pictures. The ring did not come with a certificate, but it did come with an insurance replacement cost sheet from Tiffany. The only measurements on it are the 6.34 x 6.36 x 3.97 mm. I mentioned earlier.

I just realized my thread title is wrong. It should say Ideal-Scope, not Image-Scope. I blame being sick.

*eta* The diamond looks really nice freshly cleaned, but it sure gets dirty fast just from me looking at it in the house.

 

[glitterata]

Date: 1/11/2009 8:23:34 PM
Author: kindred
To recap, this is the Tiffany ring I won from a Signed Pieces auction on Ebay. It''s .99 carat, VS1, I. Does anyone think I could do better for $4,521 USD?

I did a PS search and the closest I found under 1 ct were these:

0.908 H VS1 1.1-EX ex-ex-ex-vg 0 H&A ACA 60.7% 57% 34.7¡ 40.7¡ thn-med f id id no 6.26-6.28x3.81 AGS $5087*S

0.91 J VS2 2.3-VG vg-vg-vg-vg 1 H&A 62.06% 57.52% 34.99¡ 40.97¡ no ex ex ft 6.20x6.17x3.84 GIA $4081S

0.91 H VS2 2-EX ex-vg-vg-vg 0 H&A 61.6% 55.55% 34.15¡ 41.07¡ no id id no 6.26x6.25x3.85 AGS $5546S

0.92 H VS2 1.4-EX ex-ex-ex-vg 0 H&A 62.39% 54.98% 34.62¡ 40.79¡ no ex ex mb 6.24x6.20x3.88 GIA $5607S

0.95 H VS2 2-EX ex-vg-vg-vg 0 &A 62.19% 57.03% 34.62¡ 40.96¡ no ex ex no 6.30x6.26x3.91 GIA $5790S

Above 1 ct they jump in price. So you''d have to settle for a smaller and/or lower clarity (though perhaps higher color) diamond for more money, especially if you include a setting. And it wouldn''t be a Tiffany.

Do you like the ring? Would the cut bother you?

If it were me, I would probably keep it, but it''s really about what your eyes like. (Well, if it were me I would probably look for an OEC. But that''s a whole other kettle of worms.)

 

[John P]

Date: 1/12/2009 11:49:53 AM
Author: kindred
Lorelei, thanks for the clarification. I'll have my fiance take some more pictures. The ring did not come with a certificate, but it did come with an insurance replacement cost sheet from Tiffany. The only measurements on it are the 6.34 x 6.36 x 3.97 mm. I mentioned earlier.

I just realized my thread title is wrong. It should say Ideal-Scope, not Image-Scope. I blame being sick.

*eta* The diamond looks really nice freshly cleaned, but it sure gets dirty fast just from me looking at it in the house.

Average girdle diameter in mm: 6.35
Depth in mm: 3.97
Depth = 62.5%

In my observations Tiffany cuts responsible c/p angles and often have 'small tables' (55-57ish). Their crown heights can approach 16% due to table/angle selection. I applied a 'typical' T&Co configuration to one of the ideal-scope images using Octonus software. While the computer assumes a perfect wire-frame, which is impossible in reality, the match is in the ballpark for T&Co makes of this depth.

For the record it was 56, 62.5, 40.9, 36.0, 60, 80, m-stk to get this close. Only an estimate of course. There's some asymmetry and a bit of tilt in the image. We'd need harder specs on pdepth or cheight to be decisive, girdle & angle-wise.

 

[Judah Gutwein]

Kindred,

The price is very good and the merchandise is swell.
Does there exist another diamond with slightly better optics? Sure.
However, there are other variables here too. To make a fair comparison, you''d have to copy all like variables in your quest to find a better ring/deal.
I would say that if you like it personally (ultimately, you''re the only one wearing it and you''re the only one who has seen it), keep it.

Best,

Judah

 

[John P]

Date: 1/12/2009 1:13:20 PM
Author: Judah Gutwein
Kindred,

The price is very good and the merchandise is swell.
Does there exist another diamond with slightly better optics? Sure.
However, there are other variables here too. To make a fair comparison, you''d have to copy all like variables in your quest to find a better ring/deal.
I would say that if you like it personally (ultimately, you''re the only one wearing it and you''re the only one who has seen it), keep it.

Best,

Judah

Ditto.