Good overview, Dave.Date: 1/7/2005 1:10:28 PM
Author: oldminer
The way these things are graded always leads me to want to 'look' at each diamond. I would avoid 'extreme' things most of the time, but maybe this is a tiny area of the girdle. It might be an entire side or two, but it could be just at a pointed end. It might be easily altered, or maybe the stone should be skipped. One needs to have a look-see to be sure.
One thing is the average girdle thickness, the way it is presently done is we take the extremes, regardless of their quantity, and the mid-point word is their 'average girdle'. This is a ridiculous system, but it is the one in use. If a diamond had a tiny thin spot and was nearly all thick otherwise the 'average' would be reported as 'medium' when truly the stone overall or on average is 'thick'. If one were to measure 8 places on the girdle and 7 were thick and 1 was thin, how could the 'average' really be 'medium'? But, that is how it is presently being done. This is not the way it will be in the future, but for now, we abide with the system as it is.
An extremely thin area will remain an issue of durability regardless of size, but if located in a fortunate place, it might be rectified very easily.
You just have to marvel ate the skill of these guys who can get the very most out of each piece of rough.
somone will buy this stone already set in a ring - probably a 4 claw - and it will probably have a perfectly happy life.
It will have been cut from an octahedra - imaging 2 pyramids joined at their base.
Date: 1/7/2005 3:30:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
You just have to marvel ate the skill of these guys who can get the very most out of each piece of rough.
somone will buy this stone already set in a ring - probably a 4 claw - and it will probably have a perfectly happy life.
It will have been cut from an octahedra - imaging 2 pyramids joined at their base.