Would you consider this stone to be "tight"?

[echelon6]

I''m looking for a stone with as little angle variance as possible. Looking for opinions on the stats below, would you consider it to be tight (low variance compared to other super-ideals) or should I move on?

According to sarin:
Crown angles: 34.7 - 35.0 (avg 34.
Pav angles: 40.6 - 41.0 (avg 40.

I''m irritated by the fact that both maximums (35.0 and 41.0) are JUST outside my preferred boundaries (e.g. see the thread on 40.9 pav angles, seems like 41.0 and above is bad bad bad according to Brian)

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/14/2007 1:41:31 PM
Author:echelon6
I''m looking for a stone with as little angle variance as possible. Looking for opinions on the stats below, would you consider it to be tight (low variance compared to other super-ideals) or should I move on?


According to sarin:

Crown angles: 34.7 - 35.0 (avg 34.

Pav angles: 40.6 - 41.0 (avg 40.


I''m irritated by the fact that both maximums (35.0 and 41.0) are JUST outside my preferred boundaries (e.g. see the thread on 40.9 pav angles, seems like 41.0 and above is bad bad bad according to Brian)

The average is 40.8, the tolerance on either side is 0.2, so the pavilion is reasonably tight. When Brian is talking about 41 and above being bad, I believe he is talking about the average being bad. (Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong)

If you go much lower in the average, then you will have to worry about going below 40.4 on some of the pavilion mains, which will also have a negative affect. I think that with an average of 40.8 that stone has a nice pavilion.

You will need to see it with your eyes to see if it is something that you like, the numbers will take you only so far.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

oh boy another thread to fight about...
first basing tightness on a sarin scan can be a problem, which sarin scanner? how well was it calibrated? Which version of the software is it using?

That said my opinion would that the numbers shown aren''t what I consider tight for the pavilion.
Is it enough to matter a lot, some would say yes, most would likely say no.

The pavilion is more important than the crown and I consider tight to start someplace under .3 and super duper tight to be under .1 (iv seen scans for 3 that made that level, dont hold out for one) for the pavilion on a helium scanner.
Crown is allowed a little more tolerance, .4 or so sounds like a good number too me.

 

[strmrdr]

btw do you have a hearts image?
That ranks above tightness on my scale, have to have them pretty hearts.

 

[aljdewey]

Yes, I''d consider this stone tight. Moreoever, Brian is the one actually looking at it, and if it passes HIS performance criteria, then I''d consider that the most important form of reassurance.

Considering that Brian is a fifth-generation diamond cutter, I''d put more stock in Brian''s opinion of performance than any other thing. Prosumers like Storm or myself can share our personal preferences, but they are just that......personal preferences, and they are academic (arbitrary?) preferences at that. None of us have seen the stone, so I''d rely more heavily on the one who''s looking at it, and that''s Brian.

 

[pyramid]

echelon6

I know it is my thread you have been reading, the thing that is discussing is pavillion angles of 41 degrees plus, it need not reflect on this diamond. As Wink has said it is where the average is 41 or 41plus. If you look over some posts where people have bought in Show Me The Ring you will see lots of stones have been sold that have 40.8 pavillion angles. I would not let this discussion worry you about this stone. Regarding how tight it is cut, I am not qualified to answer anything there and that was never really mentioned on the forum until recently.

 

[echelon6]

I value "prosumer" (every consumer actually) advice here, because I''m seeking opinions on tightness relative to other stones you''ve all seen in your long experiences on the buy side.

My first thought when I saw this stone, I thought the angles WERE NOT tight. I think your responses just confirmed it.

And I am aware that Pyramid''s thread was regarding avg PA > 41.0. But that''s not much condolence knowing that 1 or 2 pav angles for the stone I want is > 41.0 when it''s widely established that 41.0 is bad.

Stmrdr, below is the hearts image of the stone. What do you make of it? (All those dots are refractions of the same singular inclusion)

 

[strmrdr]

hearts look good.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Just wanted to say: Brian''s comments relate to cutting the pavilion at 41+ relate to the number as an average. Even then, commercial quality diamonds are at a completely different level of cut quality than those hand-selected by the niche cut-focused sellers on PS.

 

[echelon6]

Yes... idealscope image looks perfect as well.

But numbers dont look good.... I''m torn!

Also unlike GOG, WF doesn''t provide variance info on things like table dev, girdle dev, deviation of all other angles fathomable, as you''d find in a helium report. Given that the stone''s ACA, should I merely -trust- (gasp) the vendor''s quality assurance?

I want a TIGHT stone. Can''t emphasize that enough...

 

[strmrdr]

only you can decide how far you want too take it.
I love taking it too the nth degree.

 

[echelon6]

Thanks for the input guys, appreciated.