Pull the trigger?

[idealseeker]

So I''ve narrowed it down to one stone. I only have the specs and the opinions of the dealer and my friend who was kind enough to find it for me, both of whom I trust. Here are the specs:

0.81ct F, VS2, 53%table, 62.1%depth, 34 CA, 41 PA, th-med girdle, no culet

Idealscope excellent, GIA ex/ex, eye clean, HCA 1.5 ex/ex/vg/vg, just an overall nice stone according to my friend

If I didn''t stumble across the >62% depth issue, I probably would be making an appointment with an appraiser right now. Should I be concerned with any issues regarding the depth? Will the girdle be too thin given the CA and depth of the stone? I''ve read on other >62% threads, "girdle should be this, CA should be this, PA should be this, all due to the depth issue" or "if the price is right," etc. See how confused I am? Help! Lastly, am I being too ana1 about this?

 

[strmrdr]

sounds like a kewl stone
kinda unusual with a 53% table, I like the crown and pavilion angles.
depth is fine.

 

[idealseeker]

Why is the 53% table unusual? It''s at the low end of an ideal cut isn''t it? Is it just a preference thing, or is it fact that say a 55-56% table (with ideal CA and PA) would be a better performer? Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Rod]

Cause, the tables on the small side and the depth''s on the high side. Its a steep deep stone, which many many many people like in person. It''s probably a beautiful stone!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/3/2006 1:56:37 PM
Author: Rod
Cause, the tables on the small side and the depth's on the high side. Its a steep deep stone, which many many many people like in person. It's probably a beautiful stone!!

Its actualy a shallow/deep which is a combo I like and with the small table it will be a firecracker.
The depth is mainly because of the small table which even with the shallow angle means it has a high crown but shallow angle.
With a 57% table it would be well under 62%

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/3/2006 1:54:17 PM
Author: idealseeker
Why is the 53% table unusual? It''s at the low end of an ideal cut isn''t it? Is it just a preference thing, or is it fact that say a 55-56% table (with ideal CA and PA) would be a better performer? Thanks for the feedback!

there arent very many of them cut because a larger table with the same crown height would weigh more.
There was likely an inclusion in the rough that was cut out so it doesn''t have a larger table.
It should be a very bright fiery diamond.

Do you have an Ideal-scope image?
heart image to judge optical symmetry?

With decent optical symmetry it should be kicken.

 

[idealseeker]

Hey, thanks guys for your feedback. I think I am going to pull the trigger on it, maybe sleep on it one more day. This is by far worse than buying my first brand new car! I didn't see it, but my other set of "eyes" have and the report back to me was that the idealscope was excellent maybe vg? (they think the table had a slight lightness to it, rather than the uniform shading of red on the idealscope chart) and the H&A pattern showed good symmetry (not the ACA symmetry shown on the H&A tutorial in purple, but maybe between that and the image immediately to its left), but this isn't an H&A. I stumbled across Brian's GIA ex/ex "buyer beware" thread today and that got me nervous b/c this stone is a GIA ex/ex that was done fairly recently. However, this was picked over an AGS0 stone, so I guess the "new GIA guidelines" is something I may not have to worry about. Now off to deciding on a setting.