Arrows irregularities in Super Ideals

[Pecel]

Hello Pricescopers,

this is an example of a quite conspicuous irregularity in H&A pattern. And it seems very common as I see it in almost all branded Super Ideals.

Maybe just splitting a hair, but I wonder if it has any adverse effect on diamond's light performance/value?

 

[tyty333]

You really need to evaluate hearts and arrow images for a stone to really know whats going on. I'm pretty sure you cant capture an image
off the screen not knowing whether the stone is straight to the camera or not.

 

[John P]

Hello Pricescopers, this is an example of a quite conspicuous irregularity in H&A pattern. And it seems very common as I see it in almost all branded Super Ideals. Maybe just splitting a hair, but I wonder if it has any adverse effect on diamond's light performance/value?

Nothing adverse. First, the image wasn't made in a H&A viewer. It's a magnified image taken in a diffused hemisphere. That is a semi-structured environment, but has fluid mechanics. The black areas are reflections of the dark camera lens above (the one that's taking the photo). If you shift that lens a micron the black areas shift. Move the lens closer and the black areas get wider. Back it off and they'll narrow.

 

[sledge]

Funny you see the those areas, yet my first glance was why are the lower arrows shorter. The diamond is probably just tilted, but I'd want to verify.

What do the actual H&A images look like? I'd use those to gauge symmetry as already pointed out.

 

[Karl_K]

1 degree tilt can cause visible differences in that area in a theoretically perfect diamond. As can the angle of the lighting.

1 degree tilt

 

[matt_k]

1 degree tilt can cause visible differences in that area in a theoretically perfect diamond. As can the angle of the lighting.

1 degree tilt

Nice visual! You TOTES know your shiz about diamonds, Karl. I'm impressed.

 

[Pecel]

Funny you see the those areas, yet my first glance was why are the lower arrows shorter. The diamond is probably just tilted, but I'd want to verify.

What do the actual H&A images look like? I'd use those to gauge symmetry as already pointed out.

It is indeed a very well cut stone as the images show below. My only concern was that those "irregularities". Which I understand from all the replies (thanks!) is only a visual effect of a stone being tilted during taking a photo.

The same must go with the arrows being long/short, isn't it?

 

[Karl_K]

long arrow shafts points to the direction of tilt, in rare cases it can be a tilted pavilion in relation to the crown but the vast magority of the time the diamond is tilted.

 

[sledge]

Agree with @Karl_K that it's probably just tilted.

Nice thing though is the images appear as if this is a WF stone. if so, I'd simply ask them to verify. They are very transparent and honest, even at the expense of a sale.

Awhile back I was helping someone else pick a stone, and had a similar question come up. I assumed it was tilt and pulled @Texas Leaguer (Bryan, VP of WF) into the conversation and he confirmed there was some minor variations going on and it wasn't just a titled image. That's one of the advantages of working with a vendor like WF who thoroughly vets their stones.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I think this is an example of relative perfection vs absolute perfection. We are dissecting hugely magnified photos that reveal very small deviations in reflection patterns.

These are actual photos that will look a tiny bit different every time the diamond is re-positioned and re-imaged. Perfect orientation to the lens, at some level, is simply not attainable. As @John Pollard says a light performance photograph is a "semi-structured environment, with fluid mechanics".

It's a little like deciphering between two internally flawless diamonds. The designation is awarded if no inclusions are visible under 10x. At 15 or 20x an inclusion may become visible. Yet, the correct grade is still IF. At some level of magnification something WILL become visible in an IF clarity.

 

[John P]

I think this is an example of relative perfection vs absolute perfection. We are dissecting hugely magnified photos that reveal very small deviations in reflection patterns.

These are actual photos that will look a tiny bit different every time the diamond is re-positioned and re-imaged. Perfect orientation to the lens, at some level, is simply not attainable. As @John Pollard says a light performance photograph is a "semi-structured environment, with fluid mechanics".

It's a little like deciphering between two internally flawless diamonds. The designation is awarded if no inclusions are visible under 10x. At 15 or 20x an inclusion may become visible. Yet, the correct grade is still IF. At some level of magnification something WILL become visible in an IF clarity.

Well said.

 

[Rhino]

I think this is an example of relative perfection vs absolute perfection. We are dissecting hugely magnified photos that reveal very small deviations in reflection patterns.

These are actual photos that will look a tiny bit different every time the diamond is re-positioned and re-imaged. Perfect orientation to the lens, at some level, is simply not attainable. As @John Pollard says a light performance photograph is a "semi-structured environment, with fluid mechanics".

It's a little like deciphering between two internally flawless diamonds. The designation is awarded if no inclusions are visible under 10x. At 15 or 20x an inclusion may become visible. Yet, the correct grade is still IF. At some level of magnification something WILL become visible in an IF clarity.

BANG... that right there.

 

[AV_]

There is no prize for beating this yet.