Comparing idealscope images

[SHOWBIZ]

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the following three diamonds:
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.90-carat-g-color-si1-clarity-very-good-cut-sku-144473


http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.90-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-241379


http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.90-carat-f-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-224493


Which one has a better idealscope?

Overall, how would you rank the three diamonds?

Thanks!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I actually do not like any of them. #1 is very good cut and apparently has painting. If you are curious about that, you can read here:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds

#2 and 3 appear to have leakage and I am not crazy about the inclusion under the table on #3, either.

I think you can do better.

 

[JulieN]

I'd want to see an ASET of #1.

IS images for #2 and #3 seemingly look worse than I think they would.

 

[SHOWBIZ]

Does it make any difference if I found an old idealscope for the second diamond in an old thread:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/please-help-me-rate-these-diamonds-thanks.192537/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/please-help-me-rate-these-diamonds-thanks.192537/[/URL]

 

[JulieN]

It looks completely different.

 

[yssie]

1. (144473) Apparently if cut grade is docked for other reasons (thick girdle) GIA skips the "Cut Grade affected by Brillianteering" notation? I'm pretty confident that degree of painting would've have resulted in a cut grade demerit without other cause... I don't know that the board experts are able to comment on specific stones from a specific vendor though

In any case this is a "must see in-person" type of stone for me. DS' link is a great read.


2. (241379) I dunno what the heck is going on with that photography but there is NO WAY that combo of proportions yields non-obstructing mains face-up when longer LGFs are barely "leaking" and optical symmetry isn't dreadful.

3. (224493) Another whackadoo IS pic. Pic on JA's site looks promising though - get the report and post the report number.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Those are awful IS images for sure. I don't like the IS of #2 in the old IS, either. Try to keep your HCA scores under 2.0.

 

[SHOWBIZ]

2. (241379) I dunno what the heck is going on with that photography but there is NO WAY that combo of proportions yields non-obstructing mains face-up when longer LGFs are barely "leaking" and optical symmetry isn't dreadful.

3. (224493) Another whackadoo IS pic. Pic on JA's site looks promising though - get the report and post the report number.

Sorry, can you elaborate what you mean for #2? What are LGFs? Are you saying based on the diamond specs the IS should be much better than the photo they provided me?

For #3, here is the certificate number 6157423648:
http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pagename=GST%2FDispatcher&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=6157423648

If these idealscopes from JA aren't any good, perhaps I should go for ones like this from WF?
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3022060
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3022068

Thoughts?

 

[JulieN]

The IS pictures are not good, the diamonds are fine.

Just go with the JA gemologist suggestion.

 

[Karl_K]

1. (144473) I'm pretty confident that degree of painting would've have resulted in a cut grade demerit without other cause... I don't know that the board experts are able to comment on specific stones from a specific vendor though

I can say your correct.
As far as what gia does your guess is as good as anyone's.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Those links aren't working for the WF stones.

 

[SHOWBIZ]

Sorry, here they are:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3022060.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3022068.htm

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Those are much better stones as far as I am concerned. I prefer G VS2 but the other is fine if eyeclean. The good thing about WF is the trade-in policy if you ever decided to upgrade in the future (which I am sure is the last thing on your mind right now!). The .90 range is a smart buy!