Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Will this stone perform like crap?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
F

finchuck

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
224
This was in my crown/pavilion thread, but I wanted to see if I could get a little more advice on it. I know the photo doesn't look great, but I'm wondering if there is any chance for this stone to be a pretty good performer to the unaided eye? Obviously not an ideal stone, but does it look like it would be so bad to be considered a poor cut? The figures seem pretty good to me. The seller says that it faces up white and is totally eye-clean. Here's the stats and photo:

Weight 1.67 ct.
Shape Round Brilliant Cut
Color I
Clarity SI2
Measurements 7.7 - 7.65 x 4.62 mm
Depth 60.2 %
Table 60.0 %
Crown 13.8 %
Pavilion 43.0 %
Girdle THIN TO MEDIUM FACETED
Polish GOOD
Symmetry GOOD
Fluorescence NONE
Culet NONE
Appraisal Value $12880.00

1076409696727_75654718D_1.67CT.jpg
 
on 60/60 stones.

ie: 60% depth and 60% tables the only way to tell is looking at it or optical tests.
From what i gather the general feeling is that most are dogs but a few are great.
 
So you can't tell from these figures?

Depth 60.2 %
Table 60.0 %
Crown 13.8 %
Pavilion 43.0 %

And if so, and you're right about most being dogs, I guess buying a stone like that online is a waste of time if you have no great reason to trust a seller.
 
No dog... the HCA gives about 1.7 using the percentages you give. If angles would be used, from my experience, this number could be smaller or bigger, but not with more than 1 - which still keeps your stone in a lofty neighbourhood...
1.gif


These being said, the picture does not indicate good enough symmetry for an H&A - whatever that means. Given this, it is possible that the HCA prediction is not very accurate because the minor facets would no have the same proportions as in an "ideal cut". So... a different tool, such as the Ideal Scope, could bypass this difficulty and give you the actual "light return" signature of the stone.

I would not expect that the HCA is completely off, but this is no precision tool to begin with.

Hope this helps... a bit.
 
Thanks valeria101, that's the exact problem that I'm having with the stone. The HCA scores it good enough for me to take a look at it, but when the seller sent me the photo, I was quite turned off. He said that it's eye-clean and faces up white though.

I just think it looks horrible in that 10X magnified photo. Does it have a chance to the unaided eye is my question.
 
The numbers suggest a nice looking, non ideal stone. It could be very attractive.
1.gif
But I keep on shaking my head when I look at the picture. The SI 2 is right in the middle of the table and it looks fairly dark in that shot. Can you ask the seller to provide you with other pics?
 
Man, that's a 10X, off-collor magnification of the stone. On the 10 timnes smaller original, that spot would most likely vanish... The picture is not a work of art, but is no indication of an off-color, crappy and included diamond either. I know that most sellers around here also have awesome photographing skills, but this is far from the norm. H&A diamonds also are far from the norm, and this is beyond the point here. This picture is not all that much worse than the representative picture for non-ideal rounds... say on WF's, or than many other diamond pictures you are likely to see online. We already know the proportions of this stone are promissing... and I suspect that this can be eye clean. All in all worth seeing, especially through an Iscope, IMO
2.gif
 
PQ, you are making me doubt my soul
sad.gif


The text you are rightfully pointing at quotes angles and we are dealing with the respective % here. I am curious to see the Iscope on this stone... for a good HCA, it should work. As far as I understand, the notes on the "60 - 60" issue on the various tutorials, simply point out that these proportions are NOT SUFFICIENT to determine good light return. We know they are also not necessary.. but this does no mean they are either sufficient or necessary to define a diamond as "crap".

I hope I am not wrong here, 'cause I kept writing this piece of wisdom in my posts for a few good months by now
eek.gif
 
Where did I say the diamond would perform like crap, Val????
confused.gif


I pointed out what the Tutorial says about 60:60's. Only a small range of crown and pavillion angles will produce a good performer.
rolleyes.gif


Maybe Fin needs to take the hint and get more information on this diamond.
 
I took the hint and turned it down.

Thanks guys.
 
Fin if you feel really strongly about this stone and from the feedback, the seller handles returns very well..then I see no reason not to check it out. Maybe it will be nice and eye-clean. Maybe not. Either way you get either a great stone or a lesson, right?
 
It appears fin has found a good stone within the world of non-ideals. I just punched the stats into DiamCalc regarding the percentages and for a 60/60 shows a nice crown/pavilion combo. This screen shot shows a potential LightScope image using 55% stars coupled with 80% lower girdle depth (not sure of your minor facet cutting) but even at this the stone indicates good reflective properties and should have very good overall brilliance. The simulated image below shows very nice internal symmetry which doesn't correlate to the picture you posted indicating that variances can be on the wild side in the actual stone.




My .02c




/idealbb/files/finchuck01.gif
 
Here's the cut quality reading via DiamCalc.




/idealbb/files/finchuck02.gif
 
Wow Rhino, thanks for all of that additional information. The stone already sold, I'm not sure if I regret not jumping on it or not, but I'm sure there will be others.

The thing that I don't understand is how the magnified stone in that picture could turn out to be a pretty good performer to the unaided eye. That picture scares me so much!
 
Photographing anything reflective is VERY hard ! Gems are not only that, but also small... colorless gems take up color from the surrounding, so conveying colorless transparency via either photography or painting (granted, I know quite a bit more of the second than the first) is one of the hardest skills to learn. As far as I know, photographing gems requires enough specialization that important gem and jewelry retailers hire and train their own. It's a fun job... I could not have more respect for these people knowing what they do ! For this reason, I tend to take gem pictures with allot of salt (another colorless, white impossible to photograph crystal, btw
1.gif
).


PS: Soory PQ, I got carried away
sad.gif
 
My pleasure fin. Don't sweat it's loss... there are plenty of other fish in the sea (I think).
1.gif
 
Rhino, just out of curiosity, your sentiment is that this stone would have been a pretty good performer in person?
 
Well it appears that the buyer backed out and the seller asked me to make an offer. What do you think is a fair price for this diamond?
 
Well the seller is giving me another shot, and they have a good return policy, so I think I'm going to make an offer. Any suggestions?
 
$100
9.gif
 
Sounds reasonable, although I have a hinting sensation that they might turn me down.

LOL, seriously though, if a stone like this were on Pricescope, how much do you think it'd go for?
 
1.68


I


SI2


61.8%


61%


EGL


m-sltk.f


no


vg


vg


no


7.60-7.53x4.67


$3998


$6717*

.............
 
The appraisal value you listed is greatly inflated which as you know is par for the course.
$6550 is the tops Id go if this is a "new" diamond.
$3250 tops for "used"
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top