Am I now at the point of splitting hairs?

[MarionC]

I'm driving myself crazy - of course! It's so much fun. Before I make a final decision, does either of these look better than the other in terms of cut? or just different?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

They both look perfect, so yes, you'd be splitting hairs to choose one over the other based on these images. Choose based on price, color, or clarity!

 

[MarionC]

They both look perfect, so yes, you'd be splitting hairs to choose one over the other based on these images. Choose based on price, color, or clarity!

Thanks! That's what I needed to know.

 

[tvle84]

The first one is definitely better in terms of cut. On the ideal scope images, if you look at the the second image, going clockwise from the top, the 4th arrow head looks off. The first one looks more symmetrical than the second one in my opinion.

 

[JulieN]

Can you see them for yourself?

 

[Gypsy]

Splitting hairs definitely.

 

[MarionC]

The first one is definitely better in terms of cut. On the ideal scope images, if you look at the the second image, going clockwise from the top, the 4th arrow head looks off. The first one looks more symmetrical than the second one in my opinion.

that's what prompted me to post the question - [and the bases of the arrows are not symmetrical].
Most of the AGS 000s seem to have some little thing like that and I didn't know if that was the way they are actually cut or if the stones are slightly tilted in the photo? I realize these are microscopic & would not make a difference in performance.

 

[TC1987]

I was going to say "the one without the speck," but they I looked back and saw it's VS2 and .7ct if it's what's shown here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-vs2.198882/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-vs2.198882/[/URL]
If it's the stone from that thread, then I'd go with it over the other one shown here. Looks more precisely cut. That difference may or may not be visible to the naked eye. The second stone just looks a bit sloppy, but I think it's also think it's slightly tilted, not exactly perpendicular to the camera lens in both the IS and ASET images.

 

[tyty333]

I like the first one better but I'm sure they are both lovely!

 

[MarionC]

I was going to say "the one without the speck," but they I looked back and saw it's VS2 and .7ct if it's what's shown here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-vs2.198882/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-vs2.198882/[/URL]
If it's the stone from that thread, then I'd go with it over the other one shown here. Looks more precisely cut. That difference may or may not be visible to the naked eye. The second stone just looks a bit sloppy, but I think it's also think it's slightly tilted, not exactly perpendicular to the camera lens in both the IS and ASET images.

yes, it's that stone - and it is super-gorgeous.The facets around the table look chunky and the whole stone looks ultra polished. I liked the precision - that's how I picked it out of the "flock", and I also like that it's a G. I've thought of going up one grade in clarity, but will it look as great at this diamond? or will each new stone present new questions. Definitely a rabbit hole for those of us with time [no upcoming wedding] and a passion for quality.
Perhaps I'm learning that there is a place to stop, relax & enjoy. As I've said before, you learn something from each diamond and it's not always about diamonds.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Yes, there would probably always be some nuance to any stone if you studied it long enough. In this instance, good enough is good enough!

BTW, what is the size of the stones?

 

[MarionC]

Yes, there would probably always be some nuance to any stone if you studied it long enough. In this instance, good enough is good enough!

BTW, what is the size of the stones?

The top is 0.7 and the bottom is 0.8.
[btw, The 0.8 is 3k+ more ]

 

[tvle84]

The first one is definitely better in terms of cut. On the ideal scope images, if you look at the the second image, going clockwise from the top, the 4th arrow head looks off. The first one looks more symmetrical than the second one in my opinion.

that's what prompted me to post the question - [and the bases of the arrows are not symmetrical].
Most of the AGS 000s seem to have some little thing like that and I didn't know if that was the way they are actually cut or if the stones are slightly tilted in the photo? I realize these are microscopic & would not make a difference in performance.

I thought it was because of a tilt as well, but if you look at the ASET image, that same arrow is now moved up a little more and it's still shaped that way. Although, I'm sure this is a very very minor issue - I'm just a very nit picky person!

 

[MarionC]

I'm just a very nit picky person!

We are certainly in good company here!

 

[John P]

I'm just a very nit picky person!

We are certainly in good company here!

That's for sure. My wife says I put the "Oh!" in OCD.

Want proof?

Most of the AGS 000s seem to have some little thing like that and I didn't know if that was the way they are actually cut or if the stones are slightly tilted in the photo?

but I think it's also slightly tilted,

if you look at the ASET image, that same arrow is now moved up a little more and it's still shaped that way.

All of these observations are correct.

There are slightly different degrees of tilt between the two photos. When multiple photos are taken sometimes tilt, when present, is different: Imagine the diamond being placed and leveled. Photo 1 is taken, but when changing the environment (Mag/IS/ASET etc.) something gets bumped ever-so-slightly and the diamond shifts.

Producing representative images at these magnifications in structured-lighting-environments takes more time than most people might ever imagine. Tilt is a constant issue. This can be simple tilt of the diamond, or even the camera lens being a matter of microns out-of-parallel with the stage.

To demonstrate how painfully sensitive this is see the computer models below.

* The top image has no tilt.
* The middle image is tilted just 2 degrees north
* The bottom image is tilted 1 degree north and 1 degree east

And these are perfect wire-frames. Actual diamonds have different +/- tolerances in their facet-groups, which are exaggerated with tilt.


Based on experience, I'd say the second Ideal-Scope Jimmianne posted above has about 2-3 degrees of tilt toward the north (12:00), much like the middle sim from the prior graphic. The second ASET has between 1-2 degrees of tilt toward 1:00, similar to the bottom sim, but I can only select 4 compass points in the software so the model is actually tilted toward 1:30.





In addition to the bezel contrast patterns (arrowheads) you can also detect tilt in SLEs by looking at table reflection; the circle of small dark triangles that appear halfway between the edge of the table and the culet.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

So in other words, as I think John would hopefully agree...one of those stones is not better than the other based on those images (are they bth ACA's?)!!! If you held them side by side, I suspect you'd be drawn to the larger one!

 

[MarionC]

My wife says I put the "Oh!" in OCD.

Want proof?

John, yep, that's proof!
So, the eye wins again! ... but only if looking at the actual diamond, not its picture on the diamond dating website.

 

[MarionC]

So in other words, as I think John would hopefully agree...one of those stones is not better than the other based on those images (are they bth ACA's?)!!! If you held them side by side, I suspect you'd be drawn to the larger one!

hey - it's not funny - the larger ACA is only 0.14 bigger but costs 2x as much!
However, I'm tempted to test your theory...

 

[John P]

So in other words, as I think John would hopefully agree...one of those stones is not better than the other based on those images

I agree. The images are equivalent as I interpret them.

So, the eye wins again! ... but only if looking at the actual diamond, not its picture on the diamond dating website.

I love it.

 

[anthony-roman]

They both are beautiful but the first one looks better in terms of cut and clarity.