Am I being a firescope snob?

[Pair0Ducks]

Perhaps the images I see on this site are bias to either amazing, amazing stones or real dogs. That makes things inbetween a little harder to judge. Take these two firescope images. How would you rate them? The slighly paler center and the white on the outside, too much? or are these great stones and I am just looking for an image like a few I''ve seen here.

 

[Pair0Ducks]

Here is the second one:

 

[Pair0Ducks]

BTW, the HCA gives them a 1.4 and a 1.6

 

[strmrdr]

they could be of the same diamond if you look the lighting is slightly brighter in the first one causing it to apear lighter or one or the other has been photoshoped.
Look at the backgound color.

They both look exellent and its a coin toss based on the images the rest of the specs and price will have to be the deciding factor between them.

 

[valeria101]

These are excellent by any standards... so I am not sure what you are talking about...

You may want to inspect the note on the difference between Ideal Scope and Firscope images (LINK), and perhaps the examples cited on ideal-scope.com and Garry's site (preciousmetals.com.au) for ref. The pictures you posted do not seem to point to any cut flaw, relative to the respective set of references.

Also, you may find some of the older posts on what "light loss" translates in the shades of red on an Iscope useful. These make clear what the limit of interpretation is for the range of "reds" in cause

It is not saying that all the reading only justifies a 'lower' standard, there is a limit of interpretation for each of these light return tests, and if you really want to tell apart the best of the best, it is indeed useful to know how effective the tools of your analysis are supposed to be.