AGS 0 Lightmap differs from Sarin – HCA 2.2

[Hello]

Hello.
I have purchased the below diamond and it is on the way to me. This is an AGS Ideal 0, with an HCA of 2.2.

The retailer ran a Sarin report in-house and it is below.

The lightmap on the AGS Cert looked fine. On the Sarin report, the lightmap looks horrible.

The Sarin report is concerning me. How do the Sarin Report #’s look? Could the Sarin machine be miscalculated? The Min and Max numbers on the Sarin have a high variance.

Should I trust the AGS Report?

1.3 - I - VS2 - AGS 0

Light Performance: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 56.9%
Crown Angle: 35.3
Crown Height: 15.3%
Girdle: Faceted, 2.2% to 4.1%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion Depth: 43.1%
Star Length: 45%
Lower Girdle Length: 76%
Total Depth: 62.2%
Culet: Pointed

 

[flyingpig]

I don't expect the numbers between two reports to be identical, but I have not seen such large difference, especially table and pavilion angles. 35.06 vs 35.3 and 40.99 vs 40.8?? AGS does some rounding (to the nearest tenth??), but still....

I am not in the diamond industry. However, I have worked with plenty of lab equipment. The accuracy of any lab equipment is heavily relied on the skills and experience of the person using it, in addition to proper calibration and following instruction. I am sure Sarin is no different.

I suspect a bad scan.... But I know nothing about the actual operation of Sarin, and how it works.

Yes, you should trust AGS for now. The AGS report is prepared by qualified lab technicians, whereas the Sarin report is prepared by a retailer (although I don't intend any disrespect to diamond retailers)

Please correct me if I am wrong. I am curious as well..

 

[Hello]

FlyingPig. Thank you for the reply. Hoping others can comment on this topic as the difference between AGS and Sarin lightmap is staggering.

 

[miraj]

Perhaps ask the retailer to explain the difference?

 

[Hello]

Perhaps ask the retailer to explain the difference?

Here is the reply from the retailer when they sent the Sarin.

"Please find above attached as per your request, the Sarin/ASET report for Diamond SKU#: XXXX. All the grades came back as excellent as expected. Please note because we use proprietary technology to run these reports, the light performance images are never going to come out as accurate as they do when run by AGSL. The good news is the diamond report from AGSL comes with the ASET/SARIN image so you will receive that with your diamond."

My follow up email asked if the machine could be miscalculated. Awaiting a response.

 

[sharonyanddave]

Perhaps ask the retailer to explain the difference?

Here is the reply from the retailer when they sent the Sarin.

"Please find above attached as per your request, the Sarin/ASET report for Diamond SKU#: XXXX. All the grades came back as excellent as expected. Please note because we use proprietary technology to run these reports, the light performance images are never going to come out as accurate as they do when run by AGSL. The good news is the diamond report from AGSL comes with the ASET/SARIN image so you will receive that with your diamond."

My follow up email asked if the machine could be miscalculated. Awaiting a response.

Ask the seller to provide you with the .srn file and post it or better yet get another scan. I will then be able to look at the outline of the stone and tell you if its a bad scan or not but its highly likely its the scan or other artefact in generating the images.

I would want the girdle inscription checked with the grading report to make sure it is indeed the same diamond that would be the biggest concern.

 

[Hello]

Thank you, sharonyanddave.

See below for the .SRN File.

 

[flyingpig]

Thank you, sharonyanddave.

See below for the .SRN File.

wow.. I look forward to what sharonyanddave has to say about this.
I, too, have seen some "ugly" looking light performance pictures included in Sarin reports, that qualify for both GIA ex and AGS ideal.

It looks like it is a good retailer you are dealing with, Hello

 

[sharonyanddave]

Thank you, sharonyanddave.

See below for the .SRN File.

So I can't readily see any scan errors the outline is okay.



That doesn't mean the angles aren't off or the diamond wasn't tilted there is a lot of assymetry in the pavilion angles, which if true would not be consistant with the AGSL image. I would have liked to see it scanned again.

This is what the generated image look like under standard ASET30 parameters which if the scan was good would be equivalent to what you would see with the standard ASET scope, it is similar to what the vendor generated.


This is what it looks like under ASET 33.5 parameters which similar to the lighting AGSL uses on their grading reports.


Its just not a close enough match to the generated ASET image on the AGSL report, particularly, the table reflection is much larger than on the AGSL report and the white area at 10 o'clock is not seen in the AGSL generated image. Unfortunately I still can't tell, either bad scan or its not the same diamond. I am sorry but I am no further along in reaching a conclusion than before. Perhaps someone more experienced who has actually run a few scans and knows if a bad scan might show such tilt could comment. Garry H, Rhino, or John Pollard Perhaps?

 

[Hello]

I am sending back the stone to the retailer for another scan. The retailer will do the scan, using the more accurate/longer time scan setting. Hope to have more news early next week.

 

[sharonyanddave]

I am sending back the stone to the retailer for another scan. The retailer will do the scan, using the more accurate/longer time scan setting. Hope to have more news early next week.

Okay good luck.

 

[Hello]

*update*

The retailer has been very nice to work with. They did a new Sarin scan using the slower and more accurate speed setting. In addition they sent a ASET image. Also a new .SRN file.

Folks. what do you think? It is concerning that the Sarin report still looks off. How does that ASET image look? I am having trouble telling if the light leakage is clear on the ASET image.

Thank you all. Pricesope is an amazing resource.

 

[sharonyanddave]

*update*

The retailer has been very nice to work with. They did a new Sarin scan using the slower and more accurate speed setting. In addition they sent a ASET image. Also a new .SRN file.

Folks. what do you think? It is concerning that the Sarin report still looks off. How does that ASET image look? I am having trouble telling if the light leakage is clear on the ASET image.

Thank you all. Pricesope is an amazing resource.

I am sorry here is the ASET33.5 from new scan it looks identical to the old one except rotated a little.



Here is the generated Black Background ASET which should matchup with the photographed one.



I hope Neil, or Dave Atlas, or Rhino, Garry H can chime in here I just don't know why the generated ASET form scan is nowhere close to the AGSL or the photographed ASET.

I would ask the vendor to clean the diamond carefully and check the calibration of their machine we should be able to get a better match.

 

[flyingpig]

Is it safe to conclude that AGSL report is to be trusted, since the photographed ASET and AGSL's ASET resemble each other?

 

[gr8leo87]

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174898']https://www.pricescope.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174898[/URL]

This may be of help.

 

[sharonyanddave]

https://www.pricescope.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174898

This may be of help.

I have already accounted for ASET33.5 simulated lighting in my white background generated image to try to match with the one on AGSL reports. That is not the problem here.

 

[sharonyanddave]

Hello.
I have purchased the below diamond and it is on the way to me. This is an AGS Ideal 0, with an HCA of 2.2.

The retailer ran a Sarin report in-house and it is below.

The lightmap on the AGS Cert looked fine. On the Sarin report, the lightmap looks horrible.

The Sarin report is concerning me. How do the Sarin Report #’s look? Could the Sarin machine be miscalculated? The Min and Max numbers on the Sarin have a high variance.

Should I trust the AGS Report?

1.3 - I - VS2 - AGS 0

Light Performance: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 56.9%
Crown Angle: 35.3
Crown Height: 15.3%
Girdle: Faceted, 2.2% to 4.1%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion Depth: 43.1%
Star Length: 45%
Lower Girdle Length: 76%
Total Depth: 62.2%
Culet: Pointed

Do you by any chance have the AGSL report number for this diamond?

 

[Hello]

AGS Cert # 14081619002

http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104081619002-PLDQR.PDF

 

[sharonyanddave]

AGS Cert # 14081619002

http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104081619002-PLDQR.PDF

It has the same physical measurements (within scan error) as the one on the AGS LAB report but different optical symmetry. I'm stumped either the vendor can't take a good sarin of the stone or the AGSL image on the report doesn't match. I am leaning towards the former.

 

[gr8leo87]

Vendor should be able to tell you about the stone by examining the stone under the loupe whether or not it matches with AGS report or not. It's not all that difficult to tell if the arrows are coming through as depicted by the AGS ASET.

 

[FancyIntense]

I had a similar issue and I contacted AGSL directly because they are the one issuing the cert. I would worry more about what the AGS report shows or says than the vendor at this point. If you really think AGS is wrong, send it back to them through your vendor to get rescanned. I would contact AGSL, who better to ask this question to? Email them your scans and concerns.

You like the vendors image better? Your stone is inscribed? Unlikely AGS made a mistake.

AGS mentioned to me that if the vendors machine is scanning in a different mode it will cause a different result. AGS uses the most accurate mode. AGS calibrates their machines daily.

 

[John P]

Forgive the late comment. I know this thread has been resolved.

Nevertheless, I want to compliment Flyingpig and Sharonyanddave. You two called this for exactly what it appears to be: Good AGSL data. Bad local scan. More importantly, you both took time to assess this from enthusiasm and enjoyment as hobbyists, not pros.

This is why I love Pricescope. Where else can someone get input on this level?

 

[Serg]

Thank you, sharonyanddave.

See below for the .SRN File.

So I can't readily see any scan errors the outline is okay.



That doesn't mean the angles aren't off or the diamond wasn't tilted there is a lot of assymetry in the pavilion angles, which if true would not be consistant with the AGSL image. I would have liked to see it scanned again.

This is what the generated image look like under standard ASET30 parameters which if the scan was good would be equivalent to what you would see with the standard ASET scope, it is similar to what the vendor generated.


This is what it looks like under ASET 33.5 parameters which similar to the lighting AGSL uses on their grading reports.


Its just not a close enough match to the generated ASET image on the AGSL report, particularly, the table reflection is much larger than on the AGSL report and the white area at 10 o'clock is not seen in the AGSL generated image. Unfortunately I still can't tell, either bad scan or its not the same diamond. I am sorry but I am no further along in reaching a conclusion than before. Perhaps someone more experienced who has actually run a few scans and knows if a bad scan might show such tilt could comment. Garry H, Rhino, or John Pollard Perhaps?

See Table junctions. Its are quite good from one side and very bad( big) from opposite side.
because they are negative, a dust is not reason. most probably scanner had wrong holder plan. or it can be dust and manual holder heigh correction. in any case 3D model has big error in angles, due table tilt .