- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 12,039
Niel|1403874401|3702002 said:Why are we calling it a dud?
Was it distinctly terrible looking when you saw it? Does it have a huge table or something? Slightly steep deep may be out of "ideal" to our over anilitical diamonf minds but doesn't seem like a "dud"
Have you seen an aset of it?
Ditto this. I'm not sure why you're assuming it's terrible. And - I mean this in the nicest possible way - what business is it of yours? You are an onlooker in this, no more. If my fiance bought me a ring and my FATHER inserted himself somehow into the mix, it would just be weird.
As for the stats - the pavilion angle is spot on, the crown is a little steep, and as for the depth %, I remember someone saying once on PS that, in their opinion, the ideal depth for RB diamonds was 61.7% - and a *bunch* of people were all over him/her, telling them that diamonds over 62% - and even quite a bit over 62% - could be completely fine. And I mean a LOT of people. I think, having looked at a lot of old cuts, it seems to me that stats are a great guide - especially if you want a H&A cut for which, granted, the parameters are strict, but diamonds do have personal characteristics. And on the plus side, the color and clarity are nice, and if this is the size she wants, at least you can mentally check that box too.
Anyway, all that to say - it doesn't sound bad to me at all, and I don't think it's your concern.