$1^3D_1(c\bar{s})$ mass and $\sim 54$ MeV lower than the predicted $1^3D_3(c\bar{s})$ mass. Depending on how well the predicted and measured decay widths agree one could accept the discrepancies in the mass predictions as being within the uncertainties of the model.

The predicted total width for the $2^3S_1(c\bar{s})$ is 26 MeV versus the $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ measured width of $117\pm 13$ MeV and the predicted value for the ratio of partial widths is $\Gamma(D_{s1}^*(2^3S_1) \to D^*K)/\Gamma(D_{s1}^*(2^3S_1) \to DK)=0.99$ versus the observed value of $0.91 \pm 0.13 (\hbox{stat}) \pm 0.12 (\hbox{syst})$. While the $\Gamma(D^*K)/\Gamma(DK)$ ratio is in good agreement there is significant disagreement for the total widths even if we accept that the predicted widths could be off by a factor of two. Similarly, the measured $D_{sJ}^*(2860)^\pm$ width and $\Gamma(D^*K)/\Gamma(DK)$ ratio are $58 \pm 11 \; \hbox{MeV}$ and $1.10\pm 0.15 (\hbox{stat}) \pm 0.19 (\hbox{syst})$ respectively compared to the predicted values of 145 MeV and 0.34 for the $1^3D_1(c\bar{s})$ state. We conclude that the decay properties of the $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ and the $D_{sJ}^*(2860)^\pm$ are not consistent with those of the $2^3S_1(c\bar{s})$ and $1^3D_1(c\bar{s})$ states. This conclusion is consistent with those of other calculations although it should be noted that Ref. [@Close:2005se] and [@Yuan:2012ej] (unequal $\beta$ case) 