ASET IMAGES
- Thread starter sambanh
- Start date
Thank you so much ! I thought this thread was not visible so I posted it in a more related forum.
purplesilk
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,175
I don't like them.
Bumping your thread to get more opinions from the lovely diamond experts.
Bumping your thread to get more opinions from the lovely diamond experts.
Thank you very much !!
purplesilk
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,175
@purplesilk
thank you, I just read his comment and it is so very thorough !
I just have another two stones I would love to ask for opinions, though I only have their specifications atm, maybe I'll wait for the ASET images to ask for opinions ?
I just really love to learn
purplesilk
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,175
I' d wait for the next two ASET images.
Did you take the previous ASET images by yourself ?
Or were the ASET images taken by your jeweller?
Did you take the previous ASET images by yourself ?
Or were the ASET images taken by your jeweller?
I took those images myself as no one locally would provide the ASAT images.
I know they are not the best but hopefully I could take better photos next time
purplesilk
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,175
Thanks very much for the compliment, it means alot !
It was my 1st time taking photos of ASET images so I got no idea what to do - youtube was not helpful surprisingly - now, I feel more confident knowing they are not too awful.
I will get some ASET images of the next 2 stones, hope you could share your valuable thoughts on them too !
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,791
I’m short on time. Briefly, one appears to be a 60/60 variant with some leakage. The other has weird proportions that have paddles forming instead of arrows.
Both are likely exaggerated to some degree as the images are tilted but neither gets me excited. I’d hold out for more ideal cut stones if it were my money.
Both are likely exaggerated to some degree as the images are tilted but neither gets me excited. I’d hold out for more ideal cut stones if it were my money.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 18,271
Exactly
@sledge thank you for your valuable opinion. I will hold out for other stones, hope the next ones would be better
@Karl_K the below are the report I received of the 2 stones.
I'm waiting to see and taking ASET images of the new stones whose GIA report numbers are 5221244177 & 2436570139, I hope they are more ideal stones
Attachments
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,685
5221244177 has good angles but the lowers are very long which gives a splintery look that some like but some don't.
GIA gross rounding makes it impossible to tell just how much of an issue it will be.
2436570139 has good numbers.
Images will tell more.
It is harder to find a very well cut IF stone as they are almost always cut for weight.
GIA gross rounding makes it impossible to tell just how much of an issue it will be.
2436570139 has good numbers.
Images will tell more.
It is harder to find a very well cut IF stone as they are almost always cut for weight.
Thanks for the feedback again Karl !
The 2 stones are meant for a pair of earrings so I hope they match ok together.
It makes sense what you said it is harder to find well cut IF stones as we, general people, are just trained to look at the general 4c and how important the weight is ! Luckily I found out there is more than that.
I look forward to seeing the 2 new stones and their ASET images
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,791
Is there a particular reason you are targeting such high clarity for earrings? Even extreme eagle eyes will struggle to appreciate clarity above VS2 without a microscope, even in this larger 2 carat size. That said I would think you could easily consider a VS1, possibly a VS2 and with select stones & vendors even an SI1.
And I concur that weight is a poor metric to use for buying diamonds. We see it happen often where cut quality is sacrificed for the almighty carat weight. Not everyone realizes that weight is a function of volume, which is a function of height, width and length. All the proportions seen on a lab report not only affect how well it does or doesn’t reflect light but it can make for short squatty diamonds (bigger for the same carat weight), or taller yet skinnier (smaller for the same carat weight) or well balanced (ideal size for the carat weight).
Imagine if we bought cars by weight only. You may want a white SUV but end up with a bright yellow Ferrari or brown mini van. All 3 could weigh the same but provide very different performance and personalities.
Diamonds are no different. Not only do those proportions affect how the carat weight is carried but it will determine how they perform.
Speaking of which, if I was looking for earrings I would be trying to find near identical matches in proportions along with the other obvious C’s as that means both would perform more similar to each other.
And I concur that weight is a poor metric to use for buying diamonds. We see it happen often where cut quality is sacrificed for the almighty carat weight. Not everyone realizes that weight is a function of volume, which is a function of height, width and length. All the proportions seen on a lab report not only affect how well it does or doesn’t reflect light but it can make for short squatty diamonds (bigger for the same carat weight), or taller yet skinnier (smaller for the same carat weight) or well balanced (ideal size for the carat weight).
Imagine if we bought cars by weight only. You may want a white SUV but end up with a bright yellow Ferrari or brown mini van. All 3 could weigh the same but provide very different performance and personalities.
Diamonds are no different. Not only do those proportions affect how the carat weight is carried but it will determine how they perform.
Speaking of which, if I was looking for earrings I would be trying to find near identical matches in proportions along with the other obvious C’s as that means both would perform more similar to each other.
These are actually present from an old member of my family. She wanted to give the best stones to pass onto the generations to come, plus she loves high quality stones. I fortunately get to see what are given 1st and choose.
@momofive I unfortunately only get to choose what are given as these are from an old family member who wants pass those on generations to come
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,791
Are the 2 stones you already took ASET's of and the two you gave us lab report numbers on the only 4 stones in play?
Looking at proportions only, these last 2 stones offer a higher probability of being better cut. As pointed out by @Karl_K the 2.03 E/IF has amazing proportions and one I'd seek myself. Proportions are within ideal range. It will boil down to cut precision and actual values (as opposed to the averaged & rounded values shown on GIA lab reports).
Most of the proportions of the 2.01 E/IF work well also. Small 55 table with 34/40.8 combo. Where I get concerned are the 85 LGF's. As noted, those are going to be skinny arrows and may provide a more splintery appearance with higher white light return (as opposed to bold rainbow flashes). I think in a side-by-side comparison you would see how the 2.03 outperforms the 2.01 in regards to fire assuming both are cut reasonably well and actuals fall properly.
One thing to keep in mind, with GIA rounding & averaging, the lower girdle facets (LGF's) are reported to the nearest 5%. The 2.03 has 75 LGF's and that means the averaged actuals can fall between 73-77. The next step that GIA reports is 80% LGF's with actuals between 78-82. Finally you get to the 2.01 stone with 85% LGF's and those actuals could range between 83-87.
The higher the number, the smaller the arrows. This can provide less contrast in the stone. Also it changes the behavior of the light return.
These visual effects are further compounded by the difference in table sizes. If you pretend for a second that both stones would have perfect 75 LGF's, the arrows on the smaller 55 table will appear slightly fatter than the arrows on the 56 table. So as the table size increases, the same size arrow has a slightly different look. Rather or not your eyes can detect those nuances is another matter altogether. But again, in your specific case, not only do you have a small variance in table size but the variance in LGF's may be considerable. It really depends where the actual LGF values fall. You could be looking at 73 vs 87 worst case, or 77 vs 83 best case. I think both will be noticeable but the latter will be less noticeable (again, assuming both are well cut).
Are the 2 stones you already took ASET's of and the two you gave us lab report numbers on the only 4 stones in play?
Looking at proportions only, these last 2 stones offer a higher probability of being better cut. As pointed out by @Karl_K the 2.03 E/IF has amazing proportions and one I'd seek myself. Proportions are within ideal range. It will boil down to cut precision and actual values (as opposed to the averaged & rounded values shown on GIA lab reports).
Most of the proportions of the 2.01 E/IF work well also. Small 55 table with 34/40.8 combo. Where I get concerned are the 85 LGF's. As noted, those are going to be skinny arrows and may provide a more splintery appearance with higher white light return (as opposed to bold rainbow flashes). I think in a side-by-side comparison you would see how the 2.03 outperforms the 2.01 in regards to fire assuming both are cut reasonably well and actuals fall properly.
One thing to keep in mind, with GIA rounding & averaging, the lower girdle facets (LGF's) are reported to the nearest 5%. The 2.03 has 75 LGF's and that means the averaged actuals can fall between 73-77. The next step that GIA reports is 80% LGF's with actuals between 78-82. Finally you get to the 2.01 stone with 85% LGF's and those actuals could range between 83-87.
The higher the number, the smaller the arrows. This can provide less contrast in the stone. Also it changes the behavior of the light return.
These visual effects are further compounded by the difference in table sizes. If you pretend for a second that both stones would have perfect 75 LGF's, the arrows on the smaller 55 table will appear slightly fatter than the arrows on the 56 table. So as the table size increases, the same size arrow has a slightly different look. Rather or not your eyes can detect those nuances is another matter altogether. But again, in your specific case, not only do you have a small variance in table size but the variance in LGF's may be considerable. It really depends where the actual LGF values fall. You could be looking at 73 vs 87 worst case, or 77 vs 83 best case. I think both will be noticeable but the latter will be less noticeable (again, assuming both are well cut).
@sledge thanks for very detailed thoughts on all the stones. It was extremely informative and I learnt alot from that.
I just learnt today that there is 1 more pair (very last one), the report numbers are 5222511591 and 2225571650. I looked at their proportions and it looks like they are abit out range for the ideal cut and not better than previous ones - but I could be wrong. I hope I will get to see them in person, take ASET images and select the best pair very soon !
Last edited:
Based on the proportions of the 3 pairs , which one in your opinion is the best pick ?
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,685
As long as they are well executed these 2
5221244177 2436570139
If they can find a 3rd stone thats similar but with shorter lgf% than the 85 one that might be an option..
It depends on the images and the 85lgf% may not bug you at all.
Thanks @lovedogs !
I got a short video of all t stones together under indoor light, just incase it is helpful.
New video by Sam Banh
photos.app.goo.gl
300x240.png)