Jump to content

Criticize This Diamond......too Deep?


stone4her
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please give opinions on this diamond. Tell me everything that is not as good as it could or should be. I want to know all negative aspects of this diamond before I fully commit. I know it is too deep by some standards, but what does that really affect other than spread?

 

1.31ct

D

VVS2

Ex,Ex,Ex

6.99x7.03x4.36

Table: 55

Depth: 62.2

Crown angle: 34.5

Pav angle: 40.8

HCA 1.3 (1.2 by Sarin and Helium data)

Brilliancescope: VH,VH,VH

Isee2: 9.6

 

For photos, Sarin, Helium, and GIA report see-

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3362/

 

The Sarin even shows the depth as 62.46. Is the depth really that bad if the Brilliancescope and Isee2 scores are that high?

 

Please give all opinions (good or bad) on this stone.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not a huge fan of the data from the brilliancescope as a predictor but it’s better than depth percentage and you’ve got plenty of other good clues to go by. Everything you’ve listed would suggest that it’s a marvelous stone. Have you seen it?

 

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil;

 

I'd certainly put more stock in the Brilliancescope than the HCA which Garry has been the front and center in saying that it should be used as a reject tool not a pick tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give opinions on this diamond. Tell me everything that is not as good as it could or should be. I want to know all negative aspects of this diamond before I fully commit. I know it is too deep by some standards, but what does that really affect other than spread?

 

1.31ct

D

VVS2

Ex,Ex,Ex

6.99x7.03x4.36

Table: 55

Depth: 62.2

Crown angle: 34.5

Pav angle: 40.8

HCA 1.3 (1.2 by Sarin and Helium data)

Brilliancescope: VH,VH,VH

Isee2: 9.6

 

For photos, Sarin, Helium, and GIA report see-

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3362/

 

The Sarin even shows the depth as 62.46. Is the depth really that bad if the Brilliancescope and Isee2 scores are that high?

 

Please give all opinions (good or bad) on this stone.

 

Thanks.

 

Nothing negative. There is a reasonable explanation for the depth. The table size allows a little extra crown height - a good thing in this config - and coupled with a reasonable girdle that creates a tiny bit more depth. The actual images confirm that it's a top cut; hearts especially. I suspect you'll be very happy with the cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the opinions so far. Please keep sending them.

 

@Barry

It is the Brilliancescope results that really impressed me with this stone. I wish more dealers had it, as it is one of the best tests for measuring "performance" (that I have seen). The HCA and Isee2 scores are just "extra" confirmations.

 

@Neil

Unfortunately I haven't seen it because it is too far away. I will probably rely on the 30-day return window and the sellers reputation (along with the data).

 

@John

Thanks for explaining the depth. I now understand how the table and girdle can slightly raise the depth without changing the crown and pav angles. I guess the thicker girdle could actually help prevent chips as easily.

 

Any pros or cons to the 55 table in this size diamond?

 

BTW Barry, you will definitely get to see whatever stone I do get, because it will be going to you for mounting in your beautiful tiffany replica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55% tables considered in isolation without evaluating the rest of the diamond is the wrong way to make an assessment.

 

Maxing out on light performance depends on all the facets working in unison and as one unit. Consider the entire diamond.

 

The HCA measures only 17 of the 58 facets in a round brilliant diamond.

 

Whereas Gemex (www.gemex.com) has discussed how their machine works, The Isee-2 machine is a black box. To my knowledge, the manufacturer has never disclosed how the machine works and how it measures light performance and whether that which it 'measures" is valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI All,

I'll add a different perspective:

I have nothing negative to say about this diamond- in fact Good Old Gold has a great reputation- Jonathan in known to have a great eye.

The downside has to do with buying totally blind but expecting ANY machine to tell you it's a good diamond.

 

Personally I prefer a round diamond larger of table, and shallower of depth- 60/60 specifically.

Of course those numbers alone don't guarantee a great looking diamond- but if it is a really well cut 60/60, it may spread a little larger- and look like a bigger diamond.

Also- in my opinion a 60% table allows more "flash" to emerge from the diamond.

 

There are people who love the smaller tabled diamonds, and no one is "wrong" to love what they love.

But I've yet to see a machine that can judge beauty instead of my eyes.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stone4Her,

 

I previously posted (on this thread) a reply with some specific comments re: the Isee2 Machine.

 

However, I decided to delete and replace that post with a (a more relevant) direct (shorter :-)) response to your actual Title request...

 

The diamond you are contemplating (have purchased?) looks to be a beautiful stone!

 

I say, buy it!

 

Regards,

Edited by DiamondMaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@diamondsbylauren

Thanks for your perspective. Unfortunately, to some extent, I have to buy sight unseen. I live in a small town 1.5 hours away from any major city. This is where the 30-day satisfaction policy really helps, and the numerous photos and reports they have provided. I tried a trip to NYC a while back, but didn't see anything exactly like I was looking. The retail shops were pushy and put so many lights on the stones, it was hard to judge their beauty under normal lighting. The best diamonds I saw, and the best people I met (by far) were Barry and Judah. I was more than impressed by their service and helpfulness. They had many excellent stones, just none at that time the size, color, and clarity I was looking for.

 

@barry and DiamondMaven

I understand your point about the Isee2 being a "conflict of interest" compared to the BrillianceScope, but luckily this stone did very well on both (making it a moot point). After I take delivery of this diamond, I would like to meet with you one last time, to compare it to your current inventory, and leave one with you for mounting in your Tiffany replica. I will email you directly.

 

I am still seeking opinions on this diamond- especially concerning differences in table and depth and how it might affect it visually. How do 60/60 stones do on the BrillianceScope and/or the Isee2?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stone4Her,

 

One quick correction is in order.

 

My points (since removed, simply because I did not wish to turn this thread in a direction other than the one you wished to go in..) were directed at the Isee2 machine, with respect to the Isee2 machine and not as compared with the BrillianceScope (or any other) technology specifically.

 

I purposefully did not make comparisons to any other machines, because I felt that the stated points re: my reservations with the Isee2 stood on its own merits.

 

We look forward to meeting with you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...