Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Could these proportions be nice?

Stephan

Stephan

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
2,917
I don't have pictures at yet, I'll see this diamond later but does it have a serious probability to look great?
It's a 2.5ct+.
Thank you for your opinions!

GIA rounded numbers:

Cut Grade, Polish & Symmetry: Excellent

Proportions:
Depth: 59.9%
Table: 59%
Crown Angle: 33.0°
Crown Height: 13.5%
Pavilion Angle: 41.2°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5%
Star length: 50%
Lower Half: 80%
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
Culet: None
 
Hi Stephan,
I do believe it might have a great look.
I'd love to see it.
Can you post some photos after you're gotten them?
 
Yap, good chance of no leakage.
 
Stone, all diamonds have some leakage.
 
Thank you both!
I hope I'll have a chance to see this diamond.
David, you would love the color! ;)
 
OK Stephan, I'm on the edge of my seat now- what color is it?
 
Ok, my bad, no significant leakage under the table.
 
It's an N.
Right now I have a 1.56ct L-VS1, Brian Gavin Signature.
The cut is magnificent but I want something bigger and yellower, shrinkage is there...
For this table, I would prefer 75% LG with 41 pavilion...
The look of big tables with 80% LG isn't always the best... a similar look to moissanite no? :D
 
well, depends on the rounding. :P
 
To me, it's a taste issue Stephan.
We recently looked at a stone with a 60% table, 85% LGF which looked nothing at all like a Moissy.....and nothing like the stone you're replacing.
 
It's sold!

Another one here.
It's not that easy to find GIA certified diamonds in Europe... :roll:

anotherone6060.jpg
 
Looks promising from the numbers.
 
I bet I'd like that one a lot Stephan!
 
Rockdiamond said:
I bet I'd like that one a lot Stephan!
Click to expand...

Probably not as much as if the lower half is larger, in the 80s %.
 
I don't know, I think with such a 'large' table I prefer 75 % LG...
 
RD's preference is not towards having strong large arrows so a larger lower half will be more to his taste.

I would prefer 75% lower half too.
 
Oh sorry, now I understand! :)
 
Contrary to the trend often reported here longer LGFs in this diamond do not help prevent leakage under the table they do the exact opposite.

stephane80LGF_0.jpg
0.95 brightness under the table for monovision.

Stephane75LGF.jpg
Improves to 0.99 with 75% LGF
 
Thank you CCL, that was my feeling too.
 
ChunkyCushionLover|1288878372| said:
Contrary to the trend often reported here longer LGFs in this diamond do not help prevent leakage under the table they do the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

well this stone is not exactly deep or marginally so, for which cases said trend applies, so no concerns about overly steep lgfs leaking, as you well know already :))
 
I'm just back home.
Someone called me to show me
http://www.hrdantwerplink.be/?record_number=10023855002&weight=2.59&L=

I answered: forget it, it's too shallow.
He insisted, so I went there and I had a look.
And it looked very nice.
Not that much obstruction with my idealscope, well more than my BGD but nothing really noticeable.
The LG didn't look like 80% but more like 78%.
I didn't see leakage, and it performed well even tilted.
It also looked much yellower than my BGD.
But in matter of fire, it was a very nice diamond.
I think I could buy it, but I asked him for a better price.
Wait and see!
 
Here is a picture I've received for the O-VS1.
Sorry for the poor quality, I didn't receive better.

ovs1p.jpg
 
Cool beans Stephan.
Having been "PS-roasted" more times than I can count for suggesting that stones with proportions that might seem "outside the box" can indeed by very pretty ( even desirable), I love hearing about your experience!
 
Hi David, I think it's a question of money.
If the 2.59 was the same size than the smaller O-VS1, I would probably not consider it.
The insane size of the rock makes it look better than a smaller one, if the price is the same.
As the HCA says: 'Worth buying if the price is right'!
What I also like about it is that the less perfect light return makes the yellow and the fire obvious.
And non ideal diamonds have less light return, but they don't look as dark under strong lighting.
It's a serious contender.
;)
 
I think money is always an issue Stephan.
But I have this theory- cheap can never be cheap enough, while overpaying a little for something extraordinary is not a problem.
IN other words- buying something one does not love, simply due to the price usually ends up as a total loss.
Whereas, paying a little more than you want for something you treasure is an aspect quickly forgotten.

IOW- if you don't really love the way the stone looks- regardless of the price, it might not be a great buy......
 
No, to my eye it was gorgeous, I just don't want to pay a premium because the paper says it's an ugly ugly diamond!
:naughty:
 
40.2.. that stone could seriously take an oilbath and still not leak through the pav..

can you tell us more about how it looked to your eyes, how it performed compared to other 'makes'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top