What do you think of this stone? Nd HCA help..

[Skyblue]

Hi Everyone,

I am considering this stone for an upgrade but all I have right now is an AGS report. I have input the info on HCA both ways. When I do it one way, it seems to come out promising --1.7 something (can''t remember right now) but the other way puts it into the 3 range?

The spec''s are as follows:


Pav. angle - 41.2
Pav. depth - 43.6
Crown angle - 33.9
Crown height - 14.3
9.04-9.11x5.54
Table - 52% (yep)
Total Depth - 61.1
Size - 2.767

The report says AGS 000 and the cutter says it is H&A but I have nothing else right now until the stone comes in. I am scratching my head trying to figure it out. I am also wondering about the 52% table. I am not knowledgeable enough to really figure what I am doing wrong here.

Any help and/ or opinions would be much appreciated.

Thanks a bunch

 

[Mara]

Hmmm well first off, the HCA score is 3.0...VG all across, no EX's.

Seems like could be somewhat odd specs for an H&A. And an AGS0? I'm not sure exactly where the cutoff is but I would not think 52% table is AGS0. From the AGA grading charts, 52% is within the 1B...53% is the cutoff for 1A.

The crown angle is a bit shallow, and the pav angle definitely a bit deep at 41.2...don't like the table mixed with depth combo. Too small of a table for that depth IMO.

From the numbers this stone is not really seeming like that great of a deal....but I guess you will see what it looks like when the stone comes in and be able to determine if you like it or not. It may have a bit of a darkness in the center I am thinking?

Maybe an expert can chime in.

 

[strmrdr]

The angles are what you need to use.
That diamond is wierd.
It will be interesting to see what the experts think of it.
Its far enough out there that I dont know what to think of it.

 

[Skyblue]

Hi Again,

Thanks for the thoughts.

I kind of thought "weird" also. I can't figure out why it comes up 3.0 using angles but much better the other way ? The report is a little fuzzy but I verified 52%. I also asked if 52% was still considered ideal and was told yes. (by a well known PS vendor). There are not too many stones in this size range esp. J SI2 so that is why I decided to see how it "looks".

 

[Mara]

Hmm I don''t see this stone you are considering in the PS search engine but it''s with a PS vendor?

I also found this one which actually has very promising numbers so far with a nice girdle and EX EX...I would find out what the angles are....it''s a virtual stone so possibly your PS vendor could call it in as well. It''s a 2.63 J SI2 with a GIA cert.

http://www.uniondiamond.com/diamonds/diamonds.php?item_id=6732&search_type_id=2&action_type_id=2&network_id=0cf05810a0f83094f6e9972ef21cdd34#

 

[Skyblue]

Hi Mara

I think you are confirming some of my fears regarding this stone.

I ran the #'s the "wrong" way when I first saw the report and when it came back positive, I thought it would look nice despite the smaller table. So, .... I told the vendor to call it in. I just went back tonight and that is when I saw 3 --

.

The diamond with Union Diamond could definitely be something to think about. It is good to know it is in virtual inventory. I think I will mention it to my vendor next week.

As I am upgrading, I have to stick with my vendor. I previously compared my current stone K - 2.27 w/ I - 2.57 but did not see enough of a size difference (nor could I really see much color difference). I decided to put my $$ into size vs. color but am hoping to do J.

Thanks again for your help.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is very very hard to find diamonds in this size range - so maybe you might need to compromise on cut quality.
If you can set it in an open setting so the leaking light can get in the bottom and come out the top and it will have some good table fire..

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/26/2005 3:56:49 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is very very hard to find diamonds in this size range - so maybe you might need to compromise on cut quality.
If you can set it in an open setting so the leaking light can get in the bottom and come out the top and it will have some good table fire..

Garry
how does that work?.i thought light comes in from the top leaks out at the bottom but, what you're saying here,it works in reverse also?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

look up Newtons 2nd law of thermo dynamics

 

[JohnQuixote]

Maybe it''s just late, but I''m not able to reconcile these proportions in DiamCalc. Taking 9.04x9.11x5.54 combined with 33.90, 41.2 the table insists on being 57%. Garry/Serg?

 

[Maxine]

so the pavillion angle is what hurts it''s score????????

 

[Mara]

i am not sure what hurts the HCA score but those specs are just a bit odd...a 52% table with a high depth like that is not my cup of tea and then the 41.2 angle..definitely out of my range. The crown angle is a bit shallow as well, but if the numbers were something like 57 table, 60.5 depth, 40.8 pav angle and even keeping that 33.9 crown angle, this would probably be a MUCH sweeter stone.

 

[Kaleigh]

It''s not my cup of tea either.

 

[Skyblue]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for responding. I just managed to get back on to PS.

Gary, thank you for your suggestions regarding the setting. I was concerned regarding the scarcity of product also so that is why I decided to at least "see" the stone.

I appreciate everyone''s input. It especially makes me feel a little better that the numbers seem a little strange and I am not completely slow ....

. The report is a little fuzzy and I questioned the 52% (hoped for 57%) but I did not question the other #''s as they seemed relatively clear. Maybe there was an error made?

How often does AGS make errors? Or human error? I guess I will find out when the stone actually comes in and they can compare it.

Thanks again...............

 

[Mara]

let us know what they say and see how the stone looks, i am very curious.

but i would also check out that other stone I found last nite, the virtual one, i am very curious, the numbers look very good from the outside, it could be great if the angles were a hit!

 

[Kaleigh]

I am interested to see what they say also. Please let us know how it goes and good luck!!!

 

[Skyblue]

Thanks everyone. The soonest I will know anything is Tues or Wed.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Noting wrong with 52% table

AGS accept 47% for ideal now

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/27/2005 1:00:02 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Noting wrong with 52% table

AGS accept 47% for ideal now

Garry
what crown and pavil angle would go with a 47% table?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 6/26/2005 4:43:00 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
Maybe it''s just late, but I''m not able to reconcile these proportions in DiamCalc. Taking 9.04x9.11x5.54 combined with 33.90, 41.2 the table insists on being 57%. Garry/Serg?

Hey John,

Very good of you to spot what is really wrong with the stone. With this crown angle and crown height, the table size will NOT be 52%.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/27/2005 1:16:41 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 6/27/2005 1:00:02 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Noting wrong with 52% table

AGS accept 47% for ideal now

Garry
what crown and pavil angle would go with a 47% table?

33.4 C 41.1P