decision time: which one out of the final 3 looks best

[wronghand]

I've come down to these three stone. about same size and color and clarity.
Based on the image, which one looks best? and why?
Thanks!

 

[emmebee]

They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)

 

[16ocean]

They all look gorgeous.


Perhaps the first . . . it looks as if the arrows are a touch larger and I tend to like that.

 

[chrono]

They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)

Same here; cannot go wrong with any of the 3 but my sweet spot is the third as well.

 

[wronghand]

They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)

The third one has smallest table @ 56%.

 

[wronghand]

They all look gorgeous.


Perhaps the first . . . it looks as if the arrows are a touch larger and I tend to like that.

The first is a I. the others are H.
The setting ring will be a solitaire Platinum. My only concern with the first is the color. I hope it's white enough on platinum. price difference is about 12%.

 

[emmebee]

They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)

The third one has smallest table @ 56%.

Not just the table, also the circle in the middle of the table.. culet reflection? Not sure what it's called.

 

[yssie]

They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)

The third one has smallest table @ 56%.

Not just the table, also the circle in the middle of the table.. culet reflection? Not sure what it's called.

Table reflection - it's a function of table size and pavilion depth. Here's an old (but good!) discussion on why the colour of the table reflection changes from green to red in ASET photos: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-aset-40-768-pavilion-on-the-ledge.29977/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-aset-40-768-pavilion-on-the-ledge.29977/[/URL]

 

[telephone89]

I like the larger arrows of the 1st, but the 3rd also looks lovely. I think I colour in plat would be fine, have you seen any I's in person? I don't really notice a tint unless you compare to a higher colour.

 

[wronghand]

I like the larger arrows of the 1st, but the 3rd also looks lovely. I think I colour in plat would be fine, have you seen any I's in person? I don't really notice a tint unless you compare to a higher colour.

That's the problem, never saw a I in person. Saw H before, very white to me. Plus everyone tell me H is the minimum or threshold of white or safe bet on platinum.

 

[emmebee]

They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)

The third one has smallest table @ 56%.

Not just the table, also the circle in the middle of the table.. culet reflection? Not sure what it's called.

Table reflection - it's a function of table size and pavilion depth. Here's an old (but good!) discussion on why the colour of the table reflection changes from green to red in ASET photos: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-aset-40-768-pavilion-on-the-ledge.29977/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-aset-40-768-pavilion-on-the-ledge.29977/[/URL]

Thanks Yssie! Funny, I've read that article before (in the very beginning when I was here, as the ASET I obtained had a mixed color table reflection), but I didn't grasp the table reflection comment. Thanks for redirecting me back

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Are they all ACA's? If so, they all will be great. I would go for an H. They are all going to look very much alike in real life viewing. I guess with limited info such as clarity, I would pick the third one.

 

[wronghand]

Are they all ACA's? If so, they all will be great. I would go for an H. They are all going to look very much alike in real life viewing. I guess with limited info such as clarity, I would pick the third one.

Yes. All ACA. VVS2, VS1, VS1. I, H, H Size are within 0.1mm. HCA: 1.3, 1.0 and 1.1. Here are snap shot of light performance images from AGS certificate.
Looks the middle one is the cleanest. Although I favor the third one from other images.

 

[Dancing Fire]

#3 H VS1 sounds good to me...

 

[wronghand]

pulled the trigger on the third one on a 6 prong knife edge. Hope fully I come out brilliant.

 

[gregchang35]

Well done on the choice...


Cant wait to see the final product....!

 

[emmebee]

Can't wait to see!

As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Can't wait to see!

As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.

Emmebee,
This is a good question that people often wonder about. AGS light performance grading is very comprehensive involving sophisticated ray tracing of a 3D model of the actual diamond. ASET devices and photo setups aim for an obscuration cone of 30 degrees (the blue area). But the LP grading analysis involves computation of performance at both 30 and 40 degrees of obscuration. Calculations are made on the basis of two parts 30 and one part 40, for an average of 33.5 degrees. The light maps on the report are likewise printed at 33.5 degrees. This leads to a little more blue replacing some red on the printed documents, as compared to ASET devices and most photo setups. The beauty of the computer generated light maps is that they derive mathematically from the exact environment prescribed by the ray tracing construct, with consistent and repeatable results. The results are as good as the scans of the diamonds, which are themselves quite accurate when done carefully on the regularly maintained and calibrated measuring devices in the lab. It is particularly helpful to be able to compare and cross validate real and computer generated images.

 

[wronghand]

Can't wait to see!

As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.

Well I brought up this question but decided go with the third one before see any response. Personally I like the 56% table over the 57.7%. But second one did looks a little brighter. Hopefully in the end my choice looks lovely. I've spent too much time looking at different stone. It start to hurt my brain[emoji29]

 

[emmebee]

Can't wait to see!

As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.

Well I brought up this question but decided go with the third one before see any response. Personally I like the 56% table over the 57.7%. But second one did looks a little brighter. Hopefully in the end my choice looks lovely. I've spent too much time looking at different stone. It start to hurt my brain[emoji29]

Sorry wronghand, definitely didn't mean to question your final choice - I was actually one of the ones who voted for stone #3 with the smaller table.. I think you made a great decision and I'm very excited to see it! I was asking the question as I wasn't sure whether the blue "contrast" area (as shown on the computer generated ASET but not the regular ASET) would even be visible in real life.

 

[emmebee]

Can't wait to see!

As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.

Emmebee,
This is a good question that people often wonder about. AGS light performance grading is very comprehensive involving sophisticated ray tracing of a 3D model of the actual diamond. ASET devices and photo setups aim for an obscuration cone of 30 degrees (the blue area). But the LP grading analysis involves computation of performance at both 30 and 40 degrees of obscuration. Calculations are made on the basis of two parts 30 and one part 40, for an average of 33.5 degrees. The light maps on the report are likewise printed at 33.5 degrees. This leads to a little more blue replacing some red on the printed documents, as compared to ASET devices and most photo setups. The beauty of the computer generated light maps is that they derive mathematically from the exact environment prescribed by the ray tracing construct, with consistent and repeatable results. The results are as good as the scans of the diamonds, which are themselves quite accurate when done carefully on the regularly maintained and calibrated measuring devices in the lab. It is particularly helpful to be able to compare and cross validate real and computer generated images.

Thank you for this very detailed response - the miracle is that I think I understand what you're saying! That is definitely a credit to you

So to apply that to real life viewing, take stone #3 for example, it sounds like the contrast under the table would NOT be able to be seen from 30 degree viewing, but would be at 40 degrees (and above).

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Can't wait to see!

As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.

Emmebee,
This is a good question that people often wonder about. AGS light performance grading is very comprehensive involving sophisticated ray tracing of a 3D model of the actual diamond. ASET devices and photo setups aim for an obscuration cone of 30 degrees (the blue area). But the LP grading analysis involves computation of performance at both 30 and 40 degrees of obscuration. Calculations are made on the basis of two parts 30 and one part 40, for an average of 33.5 degrees. The light maps on the report are likewise printed at 33.5 degrees. This leads to a little more blue replacing some red on the printed documents, as compared to ASET devices and most photo setups. The beauty of the computer generated light maps is that they derive mathematically from the exact environment prescribed by the ray tracing construct, with consistent and repeatable results. The results are as good as the scans of the diamonds, which are themselves quite accurate when done carefully on the regularly maintained and calibrated measuring devices in the lab. It is particularly helpful to be able to compare and cross validate real and computer generated images.

Thank you for this very detailed response - the miracle is that I think I understand what you're saying! That is definitely a credit to you

So to apply that to real life viewing, take stone #3 for example, it sounds like the contrast under the table would NOT be able to be seen from 30 degree viewing, but would be at 40 degrees (and above).

Yes, it starts to show as the cone goes past 30, and at 40 would be more pronounced (more blue) than the light map on the cert.