Thoughts about this round brillant diamond?

[ru4rn]

Carat weight: 0.81 carat
Color: G
Clarity: VVS2
Cut: Very good
Total depth: 62.3%
Table Size: 58%
Crown Angle: 36.5
Crown height: 15.5%
Pavilion Angle: 40.4
Pavilion Depth: 42.5%
Star length: 55%
Lower half: 80%
Girdle: THN to STK
faceted: 4.2%
Flurescence: None

Unfortunately, I don''t have a link to the diamond but just wanted to know your thoughts about this diamond just knowing the numbers????

Thanks for help!

 

[ru4rn]

I forgot to add 5.87-5.94 x 3.68mm

I hope someone can help. I know the color and clarity are good but unsure about the other numbers?

 

[Regular Guy]

Cool.

A little unconventional, a definite FIC, and even a possible candidate for AGS0, not to mention GIA X.

As they say, a good next step could be to secure IS images to (help) confirm the reasonableness...

 

[ru4rn]

What makes it unconventional? It says its GIA so not sure what FIC, etc. means?

 

[Regular Guy]

Review the tutorial above under "knowledge."

Here''s a quick hit on FIC.

 

[ru4rn]

Thanks! I think what I''m learning so far is this diamond has a high crown and pavilion angle? What''s the downfall with high crown and pavilion angles? Also, what does the measurements mean (5.87-5.94 x 3.68mm) Is the width 5.87 or is it 5.94 and what is the 3.68 number? This is all so confusing...

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 3/17/2009 12:13:41 AM
Author: ru4rn
Thanks! I think what I''m learning so far is this diamond has a high crown YES and pavilion angle? What''s the downfall with high crown and pavilion angles? Non standard, just. Reduces brilliance some, but gains on fire. Also, what does the measurements mean (5.87-5.94 x 3.68mm) Is the width 5.87 or is it 5.94 Both...imagine rarely is a diamond perfectly round, so if you measure twice across at right angles, you get two measures... and what is the 3.68 number? Depth, top to bottom. This is all so confusing...

see in context above...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/16/2009 11:12:59 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Cool.


A little unconventional, a definite FIC, and even a possible candidate for AGS0, not to mention GIA X.


As they say, a good next step could be to secure IS images to (help) confirm the reasonableness...

Table is to big to be a classic fic.
With a 55 table and decent optical symmetry it would be a great fic.
It has AGS1 potential at best because of the larger table it would have to be at 55-56 to get 0.