1.4 FIC or 1.0 TIC

[BA02]

Which is better?? Both complete eye clean diamonds?? I think I prefer fire in diamonds.... The TIC is bigger than the 1.4FIC

Any help is appreciated!

 

[stone-cold11]

What are the numbers you input for the stone? Also, need the lower half numbers.

Also do you have the IS image? If so, post it here?

 

[BA02]

Stone- Cold-


#1. Table - 58%, Depth 59.8%, Crown 34. Crown % 14. ,Pav 40.8 Pav % 43 upper 50% and lower 80%

#2. Table 57%, Depth 61.6 %, Crown 35.5, 15% Pav 40.6, 43%, Upper 50%, lower 80%


I truly appreciate the help.

 

[BA02]

Also

#1. 3% girdle

#2. 4% girdle

 

[BA02]

And......#3

Table - 58%, Depth 60.5%, Crown 33, 13.5%, Pavillion 41., 43.5%, 55 upper, 75 lower

 

[JulieN]

It would be helpful if you could get pictures.

 

[BA02]

Date: 2/4/2010 11:03:12 PM
Author: JulieN
It would be helpful if you could get pictures.

Unfortunately, they are online, and I am not able to. Can you give any advice just from the #''S?

 

[BA02]

I want a diamond that shows more fire than brilliance.

 

[yssie]

Numbers for both are good. Technically the higher crown and shallower pavilion help show fire.. may or may not see the diff IRL.




If you want FIRE and radial symmetry go for an OEC/sqcushion/octavia

any RB is still an r brilliant.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/4/2010 11:06:54 PM
Author: BA02

Date: 2/4/2010 11:03:12 PM
Author: JulieN
It would be helpful if you could get pictures.

Unfortunately, they are online, and I am not able to. Can you give any advice just from the #''S?

Ask the vendor if they can supply an Idealscope image for each. Both diamonds look promising but thats about all we can tell by the numbers, the FIC might show enhanced fire or coloured light if the lighting is right.

 

[stone-cold11]

all the numbers look good. Ditto above, ask the vendor if IS image can be supplied.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Cut-quality-wise, the three stones presented are very different already in their most basic numbers.

Unfortunately, if you are mainly looking for fire in a brilliant, I fear that no online-assessment-tool (be it a picture, or the average angles provided on a grading-report) correctly addresses the issue of fire. Most are actually assessing brightness as the main character.

At the same time, I have my personal doubts whether the theory of FIC''s is correct. The phenomenon of fire is relatively under-studied and it depends upon so many variables and also light-environment, that I consider the broad HCA-description of FIC as too much of a generalisation.

In the end, I think that this subject is hitting the limits of current abilities of online-assessment.

Live long,

 

[BA02]

Date: 2/5/2010 6:43:30 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Cut-quality-wise, the three stones presented are very different already in their most basic numbers.


Unfortunately, if you are mainly looking for fire in a brilliant, I fear that no online-assessment-tool (be it a picture, or the average angles provided on a grading-report) correctly addresses the issue of fire. Most are actually assessing brightness as the main character.


At the same time, I have my personal doubts whether the theory of FIC''s is correct. The phenomenon of fire is relatively under-studied and it depends upon so many variables and also light-environment, that I consider the broad HCA-description of FIC as too much of a generalisation.


In the end, I think that this subject is hitting the limits of current abilities of online-assessment.


Live long,

When you say different....what do you mean- in what way?? Thanks~