Calling all Ideal Scope experts!

[bcr83]

Hi All,

I recently purchased a 1.51 G VS2 RB of which I was supplied IS images as well as the stone image.

The stone on paper appears to have great proportions, I am very aware that they are just averages though and deviation across facets throughout could lead to leakage etc.

Numbers:

Depth 61.6 %
Table 56 %
Crown Angle 34.5°
Crown Height 15.5%
Pavilion Angle 40.8°
Pavilion Depth 43.0%
Star Length 50%
Lower Half 80%
Girdle Thin to Medium, Faceted, 3.0%
Culet None



I have attached the IS images and what appears to be a darkish ring under the table is there not white or grey as such - now I have read several PS posts around getting the right image and taking window light, backlight,lens distance,tilting into account as that could affect the image... I guess without having an IS and reviewing myself I will never know however I am very keen to see what the experts think and if there is anything out of tune here??

The lens looks to be away from the scope itself however I have no idea how much effect that really has?

Interested to hear your thoughts!

 

[Karl_K]

The image is not well taken, the diamond is not centered in the scope and the camera is not level and centered over the scope and is too far away.
However it is good enough to say the diamond is just fine and what your seeing is whats normal over emphasized as a result of how the image is taken.

 

[bcr83]

The image is not well taken, the diamond is not centered in the scope and the camera is not level and centered over the scope and is too far away.
However it is good enough to say the diamond is just fine and what your seeing is whats normal over emphasized as a result of how the image is taken.

Thanks Karl, it is hard to determine how well the stone will perform with these images (for me anyway).

Is anything else noticeable either good or bad that I've missed?

Thanks

 

[Karl_K]

Is anything else noticeable either good or bad that I've missed?

Thanks

If its sold as a h&a diamond you should get heart images, but otherwise everything looks good that can be told by the data provided.

 

[bcr83]

Its interesting you say, in my search I found the stone across a few vendors with no mention of H&A etc as it was virtual inventory.

One site actually had an asterisk near the stone labelling it as a hearts and arrows however there was no big spiel about it just a label near the stone on the page - I didn't buy expecting it to be a true H&A but had a feeling it would present well due to the proportions?

I forgot the ASET and copied in two IS images by accident not sure if this throws up anything different

Thanks

 

[Karl_K]

Aset looks good even for not being properly taken.
The only way to reliably judge hearts is a hearts image.
If a premium is being applied for it they should prove it to you.
Good proportions does not mean it will gave a good heart image.

The most important thing is to view the diamond in as many lighting conditions as possible within the return period and make sure it appeals to you.

 

[bcr83]

Aset looks good even for not being properly taken.
The only way to reliably judge hearts is a hearts image.
If a premium is being applied for it they should prove it to you.
Good proportions does not mean it will gave a good heart image.

The most important thing is to view the diamond in as many lighting conditions as possible within the return period and make sure it appeals to you.

Thanks Karl, no premium on the H&A it was just a little higher priced in the 1.5 G vs2 range which I think may be due to the propertions vs some of the others I was seeing (listed at $12800 usd if I recall). Never advertised as H&A I actually only by chance stumbled across it on another site when searching the GIA report and the site listed as a H&A. On another major site the same diamond was not listed as H&A.

I guess I'll just to have to see how it plays out, agree on the light price although my untrained eyes will just see sparkle :$