Whiteflash Depth % is different...

[Peerless]

Hi Pricescope Experts,

I am looking for a well cut round brilliant diamond, and noticed on the pricescope search engine that most of the diamonds from Whiteflash have a depth percentage of 60.x% compared to most of the other vendors'' depth percentages that vary and go into the 61.x %. Other than depth, how else does this affect the diamond? I''ve also noticed that most of their ACA are consistently (on average) in the 34.8 and 40.8 for crown and pavilion angles, and 55-56% table respectively. How would this compare visually to a 34.5 and 40.8 crown and pavilion angle with a 55-56% table? Thanks for the advice.

Peerless

 

[Demelza]

I think you''ll find that a lot of the superideal cut H&A diamonds out there have similar specs to the Whiteflash stones you''re seeing. If you narrow your search to include only AGS 0, H&A diamonds, I think you''ll see that most of the diamonds from WF, GOG, JA, and others, will have depth and table percentages, and crown and pavilion angles well within the range you''re describing (with some minor variation, of course).

Stones with higher depths are not necessarily bad, but it often means that the diamond will appear smaller for its carat weight. A 61.x % depth is still considered ideal, but you will lose a tiny bit of diameter as compared to a stone with a 60.5% depth. All other things being equal, however, it shouldn''t impact performance until the depth gets quite a bit higher.

I sincerely doubt that a stone with a 34.5 crown angle would differ greatly at all from a stone with a 34.8 crown angle. Both are well within the acceptable range when paired with a pavilion angle of 40.8.

Re: table %: I was told by a very well-respected appraiser on this forum that the human eye cannot discern any difference in performance within a percent or two. You''re not likely to see any difference between a 55% and 56% table.

I''m no Pricescope expert, but I believe the above is fairly accurate. Perhaps a real expert will step in soon.

 

[Peerless]

Thank you for the advice Demelza. It just seems that the ACA stones are cut with specific parameters and consistently average around the 60.x% depth with 34.8 crown and 40.8 pavilion. Also, WF stones have beautiful idealscope images, but I can''t seem to find any hearts and arrow images of the individual stones. I''ve looked at GOG stones and they are specifically cut with a 61.x% depth and their crown and pavilion angles vary much more like most of the other vendors. It appears that WF is cutting their stones with very specific parameters in mind for the most part, but I have seen variances to these specific parameters that have also been labeled as ACA. Just a thought...

Peerless

 

[Demelza]

It is definitely true that WF cuts beautiful, very precise stones. They know what numbers create a beautiful stone, so you'll see those same numbers repeated over and over again with minor deviations here and there. I don't, however, think they are the only vendor selling stones of this quality. There is more than one set of angles that will result in a gorgeous stone, and, even within the ACA line, you'll see quite a bit of variation over time. I guess my point is that you shouldn't feel that you have to box yourself into only one set of specs (e.g. 34.8 ca, 40.8 pa). You'll see that there is quite a lot of disagreement around these parts about exactly what specs create the most beautiful stones.

 

[Peerless]

Yup I've researched that people have preferences on the pa and ca, for example 34.5 & 40.8 (GOG) vs 34.8 & 40.8 (WF). I have also seen pa & ca variances on the ACA stones like you pointed out Demelza, but if you look at the majority of the ACA stones, it appears that they are aiming for 34.8 & 40.8 as a sweet spot - correct me if I am mistaken. The most glaring difference is the 60.x depth percentage of ACA stones compared to the 61.x depth percentages of most vendors. Does this affect the overall look, other than depth and spread? Also, how does star ratios factor into the overall look as well as variances on all the parameters (for example pa and ca angle variances)? More fluid light show? I am looking for an extremely tightly cut stone as one of the most important factors, but I am not sure how visible this is to the untrained eye, kind of like clarity.

Peerless

 

[Mara]

i like a smaller depth in the 60s because it shows more in the diameter...once you start to get into the larger carat stones, you can see huge diameter variances in two stones that are cut with similar specs but one has a ~61.9 table and one has a 60.5 table. for example, dee jay, a PS''er was looking recently for a 3.75c stone or similar, and she had a 3.75c specs that had something like a 61.9 depth or maybe 62 and then another stone which was 3.57 or so that had a 60.7ish kind of depth. the diameters in the 3.57 and 3.75 were basically the same because of the depth difference. so i tend to think, well why would i pay for a stone that is larger technically but shows face up the same as a less expensive but still well-cut stone.

this may not really apply to your case but i like a smaller depth just because it seems like more bang for my buck and i don''t like losing diameter in the depth or girdle. also i have owned a few stones with smaller depths in the 60''s and other sweet spot kinda specs and they have all been amazing so i just tend to gravitate towards that now.

 

[Peerless]

Makes sense Mara, and thanks for your response. I was just wondering if the lower depth percentage had any affect on the light performance, such as more fire, brilliance, or scintillation. Thanks again pricescopers, as this forum has helped me narrow down what I am looking for in a round brilliant.

 

[Demelza]

The only impact a depth in the 61% range will have on the diamond (assuming all other things are equal) is diameter. A 61% depth is still well within the range of superideal cut AGS 0 diamonds and should not impact light performance. But, like Mara said, you may want to stay within the 60% depth range in order to get maximum spread.

Re: crown and pavilion angles: I would doubt that WF tries to get each ACA as close to a 34.8/40.8 combo specifically. Perhaps John Q from WF can speak to this, but I doubt there is anything magical about that particular combination. It somewhat depends on the table and depth percentage of a particular stone as to what the ideal crown and pavilion angle will be. There isn''t one ideal combo for every stone.

 

[Peerless]

Demelza, you''re probably right about the 34.8/40.8 combo, because I think I''m caught up on the way it sounds sort of like the 60/60 combo, lol! Thanks again for pointing that out.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/5/2006 12:34:02 AM
Author: Demelza

I think you''ll find that a lot of the superideal cut H&A diamonds out there have similar specs to the Whiteflash stones you''re seeing. If you narrow your search to include only AGS 0, H&A diamonds, I think you''ll see that most of the diamonds from WF, GOG, JA, and others, will have depth and table percentages, and crown and pavilion angles well within the range you''re describing (with some minor variation, of course).

Stones with higher depths are not necessarily bad, but it often means that the diamond will appear smaller for its carat weight. A 61.x % depth is still considered ideal, but you will lose a tiny bit of diameter as compared to a stone with a 60.5% depth. All other things being equal, however, it shouldn''t impact performance until the depth gets quite a bit higher.

I sincerely doubt that a stone with a 34.5 crown angle would differ greatly at all from a stone with a 34.8 crown angle. Both are well within the acceptable range when paired with a pavilion angle of 40.8.

Re: table %: I was told by a very well-respected appraiser on this forum that the human eye cannot discern any difference in performance within a percent or two. You''re not likely to see any difference between a 55% and 56% table.

I''m no Pricescope expert, but I believe the above is fairly accurate. Perhaps a real expert will step in soon.

This is really good input from Demelza.

A depth between 60-62% represents our normal paradigm for ACA, and a common sweet spot for other diamontaires we respect. Variation between 60.x and 61.x has negligible performance implications. It can depend on girdle thickness as much as angle/table relationships. Likewise, a difference of a percent or two with table size or a few tenths in the crown are commensurate when the diamond''s parameters combine to land it in the middle of commonly targeted ''ideal'' zones.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/5/2006 12:01:05 AM
Author:Peerless
Hi Pricescope Experts,

I am looking for a well cut round brilliant diamond, and noticed on the pricescope search engine that most of the diamonds from Whiteflash have a depth percentage of 60.x% compared to most of the other vendors' depth percentages that vary and go into the 61.x %. Other than depth, how else does this affect the diamond? I've also noticed that most of their ACA are consistently (on average) in the 34.8 and 40.8 for crown and pavilion angles, and 55-56% table respectively. How would this compare visually to a 34.5 and 40.8 crown and pavilion angle with a 55-56% table? Thanks for the advice.

Peerless

Hi Peerless and welcome to Pricescope. Your post interested me, so I took data from all the ACAs we have in stock. The average depth % of our current inventory is 60.95. Of course this will vary some as we rotate stock, but our paradigm - with an occasional borderline exception - is 60-62%.

I created this graphic to illustrate how something like girdle thickness alone can influence depth. These diamonds have the same angles and table (I used your 40.8, 34.8 observation), but are a % apart due to the average girdle thickness. There would be negligible performance difference, no spread difference and, in this example, a 0.03 difference in ct weight (1.02 ct versus 1.05).

Thanks for your observations and questions.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/5/2006 11:33:52 AM
Author: Demelza

The only impact a depth in the 61% range will have on the diamond (assuming all other things are equal) is diameter. A 61% depth is still well within the range of superideal cut AGS 0 diamonds and should not impact light performance. But, like Mara said, you may want to stay within the 60% depth range in order to get maximum spread.

Re: crown and pavilion angles: I would doubt that WF tries to get each ACA as close to a 34.8/40.8 combo specifically. Perhaps John Q from WF can speak to this, but I doubt there is anything magical about that particular combination. It somewhat depends on the table and depth percentage of a particular stone as to what the ideal crown and pavilion angle will be. There isn''t one ideal combo for every stone.

Sure Demelza. Happy to address it. Actually, a similar question was brought up in a sales team meeting last week. The simple answer is that each diamond is made according to the needs of the rough. There is a specific range, or ''bullseye'' of parameters for ACA, but when the material is running on the polishing wheel the end result must be an agreement between the fashioner and the rough.

Technically, Brian Gavin insists on specific parameters; 60-62% depth as mentioned for example. You can sift through inventory to estimate further, but generally it''s 40.6-40.9 PA (41.0 for smaller carat weights) coupled with CA from 34-35 range. We are fans of fire, so many are targeted to have 34.5-34.9 crowns, with the occasional 35.

Now forget everything I said above!

What''s hard to convey in this medium is that the exact numbers are secondary. The visual inspection is what counts. Looking at the diamond with the eyes is most important, far beyond numbers. Yes, for ACA and similar top brands there are non-naked-eye elements like optical symmetry and qualification for ideal polish/sym that are figured in as well... But for any premium diamond inside a known bullseye for performance, just remember that the performance the wearer sees will be there to enjoy years after you''ve finished agonizing over EX vs Ideal polish, or a 34.6 versus 34.8 CA.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 7/5/2006 1:11:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/5/2006 11:33:52 AM

Author: Demelza


The only impact a depth in the 61% range will have on the diamond (assuming all other things are equal) is diameter. A 61% depth is still well within the range of superideal cut AGS 0 diamonds and should not impact light performance. But, like Mara said, you may want to stay within the 60% depth range in order to get maximum spread.


Re: crown and pavilion angles: I would doubt that WF tries to get each ACA as close to a 34.8/40.8 combo specifically. Perhaps John Q from WF can speak to this, but I doubt there is anything magical about that particular combination. It somewhat depends on the table and depth percentage of a particular stone as to what the ideal crown and pavilion angle will be. There isn''t one ideal combo for every stone.

Sure Demelza. Happy to address it. Actually, a similar question was brought up in a sales team meeting last week. The simple answer is that each diamond is made according to the needs of the rough. There is a specific range, or ''bullseye'' of parameters for ACA, but when the material is running on the polishing wheel the end result must be an agreement between the fashioner and the rough.


Technically, Brian Gavin insists on specific parameters; 60-62% depth as mentioned for example. You can sift through inventory to estimate further, but generally it''s 40.6-40.9 PA (41.0 for smaller carat weights) coupled with CA from 34-35 range. We are fans of fire, so many are targeted to have 34.5-34.9 crowns, with the occasional 35.


Now forget everything I said above!

What''s hard to convey in this medium is that the exact numbers are secondary. The visual inspection is what counts. Looking at the diamond with the eyes is most important, far beyond numbers. Yes, for ACA and similar top brands there are non-naked-eye elements like optical symmetry and qualification for ideal polish/sym that are figured in as well... But for any premium diamond inside a known bullseye for performance, just remember that the performance the wearer sees will be there to enjoy years after you''ve finished agonizing over EX vs Ideal polish, or a 34.6 versus 34.8 CA.

Thanks, John! Very helpful!

 

[Peerless]

Whoa! Thanks for the thorough responses John Quixote, Demelza, and Mara. Like I said, as I was using the pricescope search engine, the glaring difference in parameters was the depth percentage average of 60.x with the WF stones compared to the average of 61.x depth percentage for most of the vendors. From what I''ve gathered from this thread - correct me if I am mistaken - I guess it''s safe to say the lower depth percentage equates to a thinner girdle, which equates to more spread per carat if all parameters are equal, without any noticeable change in light performance (basically what Demelza and Mara were stating). Now, how thin is too thin of a girdle (easily chippable), and does a thinner girdle show a higher level of precision compared to a slightly thicker girdle? I think I''m being too anal about cut quality, damn you pricescope! Thanks for all the input guys!

 

[JulieN]

for GIA stones, thin and above

for AGS stones, .7% and above is one opinion.

a thinner girdle is not necessarily a higher degree of workmanship...the nature of the rough may to some degree determine the girdle...

 

[Demelza]

Date: 7/5/2006 11:03:09 PM
Author: Peerless
Whoa! Thanks for the thorough responses John Quixote, Demelza, and Mara. Like I said, as I was using the pricescope search engine, the glaring difference in parameters was the depth percentage average of 60.x with the WF stones compared to the average of 61.x depth percentage for most of the vendors. From what I''ve gathered from this thread - correct me if I am mistaken - I guess it''s safe to say the lower depth percentage equates to a thinner girdle, which equates to more spread per carat if all parameters are equal, without any noticeable change in light performance (basically what Demelza and Mara were stating). Now, how thin is too thin of a girdle (easily chippable), and does a thinner girdle show a higher level of precision compared to a slightly thicker girdle? I think I''m being too anal about cut quality, damn you pricescope! Thanks for all the input guys!

I totally understand about becoming too anal about cut quality!!! It''s hard not to obsess about every little number (I''m the same way), but I think going with a superideal stone from a trusted vendor is a great first step. I would also recommend sending whatever stone you get to a top notch appraiser who can hopefully quell your anxiety and assure you that you''re getting a superbly cut stone.

As long as you stick with a thin, medium, or slightly thick girdle, you should be fine as far as durability is concerned. Either or any of those combinations fall within the AGS 0 designation. I''m not sure it''s true that a lower depth percentage necessarily equates to a thinner girdle -- there are plenty of stones with depths in the 60% range with medium or slightly thick girdles. Again, this is not a problem, and, as Julie said, some of this is determined by the nature of the rough. At least that is my understanding.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/5/2006 11:03:09 PM
Author: Peerless
Whoa! Thanks for the thorough responses John Quixote, Demelza, and Mara. Like I said, as I was using the pricescope search engine, the glaring difference in parameters was the depth percentage average of 60.x with the WF stones compared to the average of 61.x depth percentage for most of the vendors. From what I''ve gathered from this thread - correct me if I am mistaken - I guess it''s safe to say the lower depth percentage equates to a thinner girdle, which equates to more spread per carat if all parameters are equal, without any noticeable change in light performance (basically what Demelza and Mara were stating). Now, how thin is too thin of a girdle (easily chippable), and does a thinner girdle show a higher level of precision compared to a slightly thicker girdle? I think I''m being too anal about cut quality, damn you pricescope! Thanks for all the input guys!

Peerless, you''re welcome. I don''t want to confuse the issue, but lower depth does not necessarily mean a thinner girdle. Shallow crown/pavilion angles and larger table size coupled with a thick girdle could still have low depth (for example). As has been intoned, the rough itself determines treatment, and many combos are possible. Think of it this way: If I tell you to imagine a 220 lb man you need much more info to know what he''s shaped like, and whether he''s taller or shorter than another, 210 lb man. Hope that helps.

Here is a thread with some girdle thickness information and graphics.

Best regards,

 

[Peerless]

Thanks for all the great feedback guys! I am just trying to find the most beautiful stone that I possibly can, and I''m coming to the realization that it''s a very personal task in choosing out that "perfect" stone. But have no fear, pricescopers are here! The search (madness) continues...lol!