Comments on images

[Hodne]

What can you tell from the images?

 

[Hodne]

2

 

[Hodne]

3

 

[strmrdr]

woof woof
There are better ones out there.
Whats the specs and price?

 

[aljdewey]

Well, I can tell that it's not a "true" H&A stone - clefts in the hearts are pronounced and the arrowheads are not even and uniform.




On the first picture, the circled area appears to be inclusions - from this perspective, they appear white in color. It's hard to ascertain if those would be visible to the naked eye though because they are magnified quite a bit.




The Idealscope image doesn't look to have significant leakage, but it does appear as though the picture was taken with too short a focal length....which may account for the "foggy" appearance surrounding the table.




My take:


If a person considering this stone wants an "H&A", this isn't it.


If the person considering it has other options with a higher probability of meeting expectations, he should probably pursue those first.


If the person considering this stone likes this stone's particular elements and doesn't have a lot of other contenders, then it might be worth getting a look at it in person and perhaps better images.

 

[valeria101]

Despite tilting and what not the Iscope pic looks very red - a good thing. The harts - imperfect as they are - do demonstrate better than average proportions and symmetry. I would assume that the large 'blob' marked in the first pic is the 'grader' - the most prominent inclusion in the stone: it looks like a rather discrete, difuse structure to me: not exactly barking. It may be that this inclusion 'dissapears' completely in direct light, and should not be very obstructive in any case. It is quite strategucally placed away from the girdle (which could becoem brittle if inclusions breack surface on it) and the table (where a superficial blob could more readily show off).

So? A good stone definitely worth considering. Good light return wil make it spectacular and, unless this is really, relaly large, those arrows (probably as approximative as the harts) are not going to jump into sight anyway. There is a price for anything... for better of for worse. In my opinion, this is the point where improvement in cut perfection starts paying off less with each notch

Besides, just look at your avatar for comaparison!

 

[Hodne]

Thanks a lot!

Any other expert opinions out there?

 

[Rhino]

If I may...




In the first picture the object circled IS a reflection of the tweezers that is holding the diamond. I know this for a fact because it's happened to me numerous times.

The 2nd picture ... either the hearts are off or the photographer did not center the stone properly.




The 3rd picture is taken under an 8* FireScope and is badly focused.

 

[valeria101]

Yay! The blue line is the tweezer... I didn't even see it. (on GOG pictures, the reflection appears near the point of contact between tweezer an dstone - but those are more magnified with a coler focus, oups) I wish I saw that stone. Good potential there!

It takes only a set of rules to tell the best of the best apart from everythig else. It take allot of knowledge to tell degrees of perfection apart. This dude gets a really high grade from this admirer of perfection here.

 

[strmrdr]

I agree hearts are off and you can make out that the arrows are too.

Like I said woof woof :}

 

[pqcollectibles]

I'm glad you commented on the "inclusion", Rhino! I thought it was the funkiest looking feather I'd ever seen!!

 

[Hodne]

Thanks Rhino

Can you guess what diamond that is?