- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
It''s a GIA GTL report. Pre-2000 though. Hard to make out any details.
Someone asked why a diamond would be cut this way. I''d speculate this was either secondary rough from a much larger sawable or a spready makeable with extra material side-to-side. Either way it looks like depth was the limiting design factor. With a max of 5.22 mm deep one would presume there was also potential to produce a nice-performing 2.35 ct RB, but that would be at the expense of nearly 1mm of spread. Carat weight being king, the cutter chose to turn out a dubious (!) near-3ct, rather than a 2.0-2.3ct of nice cut quality. Without more info we can''t know whether a smaller diamond would have suffered as much, more, or less from inclusions present.
Someone asked why a diamond would be cut this way. I''d speculate this was either secondary rough from a much larger sawable or a spready makeable with extra material side-to-side. Either way it looks like depth was the limiting design factor. With a max of 5.22 mm deep one would presume there was also potential to produce a nice-performing 2.35 ct RB, but that would be at the expense of nearly 1mm of spread. Carat weight being king, the cutter chose to turn out a dubious (!) near-3ct, rather than a 2.0-2.3ct of nice cut quality. Without more info we can''t know whether a smaller diamond would have suffered as much, more, or less from inclusions present.