the horror

[John P]

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.

 

[John P]

Date: 1/30/2009 11:47:05 PM
Author: Gypsy

Date: 1/30/2009 5:36:20 PM
Author: John Pollard
I3 takes a special kind of diamond.

An I1 will typically have inclusions obvious at 10X mag and often visible to the unaided eye. A crafty cutter can plan to mask these with good planning...so the rare eye-clean I1 does exist. These are nice finds budget-wise.

I2 usually indicates the inclusions are easily visible, or so numerous that they affect transparency or brightness. The diamond might also have durability concerns caused by those characteristics.

I3 typically has visible inclusions and durability issues to boot. Or, paraphrasing one of my GIA instructors, the diamond is fugly and ready to explode.

''Set the diamond down sir. Now carefully back away... And tread lightly!''

I

you John. Always making me laugh.

Right back at you Gypsy.

U2.

 

[Gypsy]

 

[Savvymon]

Wow what shocker!!!! I wonder what the reserve is?

 

[Pippin]

Date: 2/1/2009 11:59:17 PM
Author: John Pollard
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.

Thanks for the info, I was really curious about this!

 

[Pippin]

Oh my lord, it''s back.............


And better than ever!!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-93-CARAT-BRILLIANT-CUT-DIAMOND-GIA-CERTIFIED_W0QQitemZ300291928354QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDiamond_Solitaire_Rings?hash=item300291928354&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318


THE PRICE!!!!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dee*Jay]

If I asked nicely do you think they could find me a matching stone to make a set of studs?

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 2/10/2009 3:03:49 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
If I asked nicely do you think they could find me a matching stone to make a set of studs?

Sure! It''ll just take some of Lisa''s rock salt, aluminum foil and a couple of thumbtacks. Should be a great matched set!

 

[Pippin]

Date: 2/10/2009 3:03:49 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
If I asked nicely do you think they could find me a matching stone to make a set of studs?

Or you could just get these, LOL:

http://cgi.ebay.com/3-5-ct-SET-DIAMOND-EARRINGS-ONE-IS-1-54-AND-ONE-IS-1-51_W0QQitemZ300291923110QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Fine_Earrings?hash=item300291923110&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Same seller!!! YOU''LL SAVE ON SHIPPING!!!!!!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Date: 2/10/2009 3:15:52 PM
Author: Pippin

Date: 2/10/2009 3:03:49 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
If I asked nicely do you think they could find me a matching stone to make a set of studs?

Or you could just get these, LOL:

http://cgi.ebay.com/3-5-ct-SET-DIAMOND-EARRINGS-ONE-IS-1-54-AND-ONE-IS-1-51_W0QQitemZ300291923110QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Fine_Earrings?hash=item300291923110&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Same seller!!! YOU'LL SAVE ON SHIPPING!!!!!!

I especially like the part where they state that "Both earrings are beautiful!!!!!" [Note: FIVE exclamation marks.] Well thank god for that; I was afraid only one (or in this case NONE) of them would be "beautiful"...

 

[Tuckins1]

Date: 1/30/2009 6:50:57 PM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 1/30/2009 4:37:44 PM

Author: Todd Gray

There is actually a clarity grade beyond I-3 generally known amongst the trade as ''dead'' it''s primarily relied on by discount jewelers who advertise things like ''one carat diamond tennis bracelets $99.00''

Ditto!!

 

[LD]

Oh I love the mood lighting on the photography!

 

[bee*]

can''t believe it''s ended-was just getting out my credit card

 

[DiamanteBlu]

Date: 1/31/2009 11:43:51 AM
Author: gemgirl
It actually hurt to read that listing, and that diamond appraised for $25,000.-? On what planet?

That is in inflated fiat currency. They''re printing the FRNs as we speak.

 

[Pippin]

"THE DEPTH AND TABLE LOOK LIKE THEY ARE FLIPPED BUT THEY ARE NOT THE DIAMOND IS VERY WIDE FOR A 2.93 STONE WHICH MAKES IT LOOK ALOT LARGER."

And also gives it a HUGE fisheye, LOL!!

I can't believe they are asking $16,500 for this thing.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 2/10/2009 3:03:49 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
If I asked nicely do you think they could find me a matching stone to make a set of studs?

Was that set of studs, or set of duds ?