ASET attached- can I please ask for help and opinions from the pros

[diamond911]

Hello- I am wondering if I can get opinions on this ASET image? (& idealscope) Greatly appreciated!!!

 

[stone-cold11]

Looks good.

 

[diamond911]

idealscope pic- any concerns?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/6/2010 6:17:20 AM
Author: diamond911
idealscope pic- any concerns?

Hi 911

It says in the IS image ACA, is it in fact A Cut Above brand?? It doesn't look like it to me, also could be there has been a girdle treatment looking at the images such as painting, this probably isn't an issue but it would be helpful if you could post all the proportions and info you have on the stone please.

 

[diamond911]

Hi

No, it isn''t an ACA- it was brought in for me and was part of virtual inventory. Does it look OK?

 

[diamond911]

Here is the sarin info-let me know if any additional info is required

Color E
Clarity SI1 (eye clean)
Cert: GIA EX EX EX

Average 7.42 mm (min 7.40- max 7.45)
Depth 61.2
Table 55.8
Crown Angle 34.2 (33.9-34.5%)
Crown height 14.9%
Pav angle 41 (40.9-41.2)
Pav depth 43.3%
Culet 0.4%
Girdle 1.6-2.2 (med-sl thick)
Star length 53%
Lower halfs 77%

 

[diamond911]

What is a girdle treatment, can you describe the impact on the diamond for me? Is that a bad thing?

 

[Laila619]

I believe Lorelei is referring to painting or digging of the girdle.

It looks like painting because when you look at the idealscope image, there is virtually no white whatsoever.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 5/6/2010 8:43:02 AM
Author: Laila619
I believe Lorelei is referring to painting or digging of the girdle.

It looks like painting because when you look at the idealscope image, there is virtually no white whatsoever.

There is a lot more than that which is the cause for it not being an ACA.
LGF deviation causing broken arrows would be the main one for me.

There is some girdle variation and crown angle variation as well.
I would want to know what those clear lines are in the ASET at 3 o''clock under table and 9 o''clock outside table are they inclusions?

 

[diamond911]

Hi- it is an eye clean SI1- yes, I believe that those marks are inclusions- are the broken arrows an issue?

 

[Laila619]

Date: 5/6/2010 8:58:25 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 5/6/2010 8:43:02 AM
Author: Laila619
I believe Lorelei is referring to painting or digging of the girdle.

It looks like painting because when you look at the idealscope image, there is virtually no white whatsoever.

There is a lot more than that which is the cause for it not being an ACA.
LGF deviation causing broken arrows would be the main one for me.

There is some girdle variation and crown angle variation as well.
I would want to know what those clear lines are in the ASET at 3 o''clock under table and 9 o''clock outside table are they inclusions?

I was only referring to the girdle treatment Lorelei mentioned and the OP asked about.

But yes, those are things to also consider.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 5/6/2010 6:40:52 AM
Author: diamond911
What is a girdle treatment, can you describe the impact on the diamond for me? Is that a bad thing?

Not necessary a bad thing, just different.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/6/2010 9:15:24 AM
Author: Laila619

Date: 5/6/2010 8:58:25 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 5/6/2010 8:43:02 AM
Author: Laila619
I believe Lorelei is referring to painting or digging of the girdle.

It looks like painting because when you look at the idealscope image, there is virtually no white whatsoever.

There is a lot more than that which is the cause for it not being an ACA.
LGF deviation causing broken arrows would be the main one for me.

There is some girdle variation and crown angle variation as well.
I would want to know what those clear lines are in the ASET at 3 o'clock under table and 9 o'clock outside table are they inclusions?

I was only referring to the girdle treatment Lorelei mentioned and the OP asked about.

But yes, those are things to also consider.

Don't worry Laila, its understood what you meant, thanks for chiming in for me!

Also there are various other reasons why this stone would not be an ACA, but this is moot anyway as we know it is not, and one can see the optical symmetry/ arrows etc aren't up to the standard of the ACA as anyone familiar with the brand standards would know.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/6/2010 9:08:15 AM
Author: diamond911
Hi- it is an eye clean SI1- yes, I believe that those marks are inclusions- are the broken arrows an issue?

Not at all, the optical symmetry although not perfect is good and this is something you aren't really going to notice with the naked eye anyway, it should not affect the overall performance of the stone.

Some can be suspicious of painting/ girdle treatments as this technique has often been used as a swindling strategy in order to hide weight in the finished stone, however with well cut stones it can be a good method to enhance the desirable visual properties of a diamond and that might be the case here, ask one of WF's experts their opinion on how the stone looks and behaves. This is a very very basic description and not the best analogy but it might serve in order to give an idea of the behaviour of a painted/ non painted stone, but again this is only general and can't be applied to any particular stone. The observation of some that have closely viewed both types of diamond is that a diamond that has benefited visually ( subject to opinion) from a girdle treatment can show a broader slower flash of light, rather like a lighthouse beam if you will. A non painted stone can show a faster sharper flash rather like papparazzi flashbulbs going off. But check with WF concerning this particular diamond.

I think if you aren't looking for cut perfection, WF approve this diamond and will offer the usual benefits package with it, you could definitely shortlist it for purchase.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 5/6/2010 9:52:14 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 5/6/2010 9:08:15 AM
Author: diamond911
Hi- it is an eye clean SI1- yes, I believe that those marks are inclusions- are the broken arrows an issue?

Not at all, the optical symmetry although not perfect is good and this is something you aren''t really going to notice with the naked eye anyway, it should not affect the overall performance of the stone.

Some can be suspicious of painting/ girdle treatments as this technique has often been used as a swindling strategy in order to hide weight in the finished stone, however with well cut stones it can be a good method to enhance the desirable visual properties of a diamond and that might be the case here, ask one of WF''s experts their opinion on how the stone looks and behaves. This is a very very basic description and not the best analogy but it might serve in order to give an idea of the behaviour of a painted/ non painted stone, but again this is only general and can''t be applied to any particular stone. The observation of some that have closely viewed both types of diamond is that a diamond that has benefited visually ( subject to opinion) from a girdle treatment can show a broader slower flash of light, rather like a lighthouse beam if you will. A non painted stone can show a faster sharper flash rather like papparazzi flashbulbs going off. But check with WF concerning this particular diamond.

I think if you aren''t looking for cut perfection, WF approve this diamond and will offer the usual benefits package with it, you could definitely shortlist it for purchase.

We are talking about minor painting here, the visual differences between minor painted stones and classical girdles are small as will be in this one. The biggest appearance difference I could point out between this and ACA would be the length of the arrows and that they start farther from the centre. The rest of these observations are going to be very suttle.
l

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/6/2010 10:10:22 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 5/6/2010 9:52:14 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 5/6/2010 9:08:15 AM
Author: diamond911
Hi- it is an eye clean SI1- yes, I believe that those marks are inclusions- are the broken arrows an issue?

Not at all, the optical symmetry although not perfect is good and this is something you aren't really going to notice with the naked eye anyway, it should not affect the overall performance of the stone.

Some can be suspicious of painting/ girdle treatments as this technique has often been used as a swindling strategy in order to hide weight in the finished stone, however with well cut stones it can be a good method to enhance the desirable visual properties of a diamond and that might be the case here, ask one of WF's experts their opinion on how the stone looks and behaves. This is a very very basic description and not the best analogy but it might serve in order to give an idea of the behaviour of a painted/ non painted stone, but again this is only general and can't be applied to any particular stone. The observation of some that have closely viewed both types of diamond is that a diamond that has benefited visually ( subject to opinion) from a girdle treatment can show a broader slower flash of light, rather like a lighthouse beam if you will. A non painted stone can show a faster sharper flash rather like papparazzi flashbulbs going off. But check with WF concerning this particular diamond.

I think if you aren't looking for cut perfection, WF approve this diamond and will offer the usual benefits package with it, you could definitely shortlist it for purchase.

We are talking about minor painting here, the visual differences between minor painted stones and classical girdles are small as will be in this one. The biggest appearance difference I could point out between this and ACA would be the length of the arrows and that they start farther from the centre. The rest of these observations are going to be very suttle.
l

Don't go solely by images to judge the performance or behaviour of any diamond as this can be misleading. Also FYI that is a basic explanation of the potential differences between a painted and non painted diamond and as I mentioned above is not applicable to any particular stone, including this one.

And also yes, visual differences between many well cut diamonds are going to be subtle anyway.

 

[diamond911]

Is the red centre undesirable in the ASET, I''ve looked at some on pricescope in various threads and it seems like the centre is always green in better cuts? Can anyone comment on this aspect of the ASET? Thanks