which round brilliant dimensions

[illy]

All other things being equal, which of the following dimensions would, in your view, be more likely to produce a more beautiful stone?

Stone 1

table % 56.1
depth % 61.3
crown % 14.9
crown angle 34.1
star % 52
pav angle 40.8
pav % 43.1
lower girdle % 79
girdle thin to medium

Stone 2

table % 55.3
depth % 61.8
crown % 15.5
crown angle 34.7
star % 49
pav angle 40.7
pav % 42.9
lower girdle % 77
girdle thin to slightly thick


Appreciate any input!

Thanks

 

[diamondgezer]

For me (a newbie) you could toss a coin on those figures! If anything I'd go for stone 2 because the ca/pa seem more complimentary. But I'm NO expert. I'd bet that the experts would say they need more info to try and judge betweenthem (Aset/idealscope)
The HCA tool rates them pretty identical. You may need to consider the other factors to decide (colour/clarity/carat/price)

 

[illy]

thanks DG. anyone else have thoughts or comments?

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

Both sets of proportions have positive implications. It also looks like you might be considering AGS graded diamonds, which avoids GIA’s practice of rounding. While that’s great most of the numbers you’re posting are averages of a number of facet-measurements. Those averages might describe a facet group that’s close, or it might be far away from the average. Any chance you can post up an idealscope or aset image?

 

[diamondgezer]

Hi Diamond Hawk - I don't want to threadjack, but maybe you can clarify something for a newbie? You mention that facet groupings may be close or distant from the average. Doesn't the symmetry grading tell us something about that??

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

Hi Diamond Hawk - I don't want to threadjack, but maybe you can clarify something for a newbie? You mention that facet groupings may be close or distant from the average. Doesn't the symmetry grading tell us something about that??

Hi DG! Unfortunately, the standards for lab-graded symmetry are extremely liberal. With crown and pavilion angles, swings of > a full degree low to high continue to be permitted with no penalty. They are only looking at facet junctions and "twist" crown to pavilion in the large scale. Because it all comes from a tradition of loupe grading and not micro-scans, this makes sense - though I do believe that symmetry now takes info from the computer 3D scan into account. In any event I would call grading for symmetry very liberal - which is why an idealscope or aset is nice to have.

 

[hearts-arrows_girl]

I like #2, because of the higher crown. Both stones are great, but 2 is more my style.

 

[illy]

thanks for all the comments everyone - I really appreciate it.

I've decided to go with #1 as it is a slightly better grade (VS2 as opposed to SI1) - buying online without seeing the stone, I wanted to mitigate the risk of any visible inclusions.

I noticed a few of you preferred stone #2 because the crown/pav angle combo is apparently more complimentary (34.7/40.8 as opposed to 34.1/40.8 ). Is there likely to be any significant visual difference between these two combos? I have read that the first angle combo produces greater dispersion as opposed to the second combo which produces greater brilliance.

Any thoughts on this would be great.

Lastly, attached are the aset/idealscope images of stone #1. any comments would be much appreciated.



Thanks for all your help

 

[illy]

anyone?