Bad diamond or Idealscope and ASET images?

[mixit]

I received the following Idealscope and ASET images from a dealer and thought that they dont look very similar to the ones I see on Whiteflash, etc. Are these images just bad or is it the diamonds themselves?

 

[skypie]

Bad diamonds. I see light leakage, poor optical symmetry, and some subpar H&A images.

 

[gm89uk]

I suspect the diamonds are good performers and let down by imagining technique. The second one has pretty awesome symmetry for a non superideal.

What are proportions? Is the second slightly steepdeep?

 

[mixit]

I suspect the diamonds are good performers and let down by imagining technique. The second one has pretty awesome symmetry for a non superideal.

What are proportions? Is the second slightly steepdeep?

1st:
Table: 57%
Depth: 62.1%
Crown angle: 35%
P angle: 40.8%

2nd:
Table: 57%
Depth: 61.7%
Crown angle: 34.5%
P angle: 41%

 

[JulieN]

It's just the photography.

 

[pfunk]

Yup... one of the unfortunate things about idealscope and ASET images... great tool, no standardization for capturing the photograph. Companies like Whiteflash invest some money into a photography setup so that they can get those consistent photos. These diamonds are not of the superideal caliber, but they arent as bad as the images show. Second one has better symmetry with some digging on the crown. It probably has more consistent pavilion angles but they are deeper, so it is no surprise it looks to be a little leakier. So the diamonds aren’t bad, and would look even better if the photo taken in the same manner as a whiteflash stone, but they arent the best of what can be found in virtual inventory.

 

[mixit]

Yup... one of the unfortunate things about idealscope and ASET images... great tool, no standardization for capturing the photograph. Companies like Whiteflash invest some money into a photography setup so that they can get those consistent photos. These diamonds are not of the superideal caliber, but they arent as bad as the images show. Second one has better symmetry with some digging on the crown. It probably has more consistent pavilion angles but they are deeper, so it is no surprise it looks to be a little leakier. So the diamonds aren’t bad, and would look even better if the photo taken in the same manner as a whiteflash stone, but they arent the best of what can be found in virtual inventory.

Thanks for the advice! What would be the best way to filter down via virtual inventory to find something better?

 

[pfunk]

It’s pretty hard to find a really great one in virtual inventory, even with applying filters. The ones you have there are pretty darn good, they just have some small defects. Unfortunately most virtual inventory doesn’t have images readily posted and you need to either pay to have the diamond called in or hope that the seller can get images from the diamond supplier. So it takes some time to find a really great one. All you can do is apply the advanced filters to your searches (depth < 62.2%, table 58% or less, etc) to weed out most, then contact sellers for additional info. Don’t be drawn into the ones that look like a steal of a deal. If the price seems low there is probably a reason. Finding a real winner in virtual inventory is difficult, but some enjoy the challenge. Others are happy to pay for one of the branded cuts. Just gotta decide how hard you wanna search and if it is worth the savings. The ones you have there are better than a lot... so you have a couple good ones. Is it possible for them to retake a photo with less backlighting?