Degree of painting tolerance on an AGS000?

[Firechase]

Hello,

It's nice to be back from the darkness...I've missed the forum since Snowtober knocked the power out!

I'm getting down to the wire on a decision and could use some help. I know a helium scan is a good way to determine painting, but that's not readily available for many otherwise good prospects. Can it be assumed that an AGS000 is going to be within the tolerances that would make the most discerning comfortable? With the jeweler's blessing, I plan to purchase 3 stones to compare in the lighting situations that I live in, and return the runners-up. (Even my old dud looks sparkly in the jewelry store!)

I have an AGS000 (H VS2 .6, D - 61.5, T - 55.9, CA - 35.1, PA - 40.7) in my possession that I know has some moderate painting and am within the return period. In some lighting it is quite stunning, but in certain normal lighting it appears dark or, conversely, when it is lighting up it sometimes appears almost as though it is just under water - not quite "crisp". I'm hoping to determine if this is just what an ideal will look like in real life or if painting is having a visible effect.

My questions are - for those who don't like the look of painting - most consumers, from what I read here - what is (are) the undesirable visual effect(s) of moderate painting? I've read here that an ideal cut can look dark. How would an average consumer determine if the stone appears dark in some situations because of being ideal or being painted? And can it make the light reflecting from it look almost blurry in some light?

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

This should be helpful:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/Painting/

You'll have ideal scope images, right?

 

[Firechase]

Thanks Diamondseeker. I have actually been all over GOG's site - Love it! Rhino and Co. do a fantastic job of educating, and I love the videos! Unfortunately, all I have is the specs and my "eyeballs" as they say. No idealscope. I did post a computerized ASET that came with this stone and it did show some painting. I'm curious about what someone would see with the naked eye, that would be undesirable. And also, although I know painting won't be specifically pointed out by AGS, would a 000 exclude the degree of painting that some would consider negative to the naked (but very picky) eye! And if not, what visual effects should I expect, if any. Unfortunately, I don't have a dock or benchmark stones to compare to.

 

[yssie]

Your plan of taking three and choosing the one your eyes like best through a variety of lighting types is fantastic - it's the only way to make a truly educated decision.



My 2c on your question: how the big labs, vendors pin down certain "looks" as good, better, best, bestest of the best is something that fascinates and baffles me - I know that my own personal preference is strongly for RBs that don't conform to the guidelines many PS H&A boutique vendors specify for their branded lines, for example (I like stones with super high crowns and fat arrows .

I don't know what "moderate" painting would be... when I think Painted I think Eightstar, which is a more extreme example. I know AGS is more lenient wrt brillianteering (over-brillianteering?) than GIA. The visible effects of painting will also depend on the stone - painting in a shallow stone is a very different beast from painting in a stone w/ deeper crown/pav combo...


Significantly painted stones, like Eightstars, with those characteristic blood red ISs... well, I've discovered that I don't like that look at all. Lots of people obviously do. I see DS linked you to GOG's page, and check these out as well -
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds
And this old - um, discussion - of said article, and the whole topic in general [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-would-anyone-object-to-painting.45579/page-2']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-would-anyone-object-to-painting.45579/page-2[/URL]
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/effects-indexed-upper-half-facets
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/girdle-treatments-cheated-girdles-tweaked-girdles-digging-painting.36102/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/girdle-treatments-cheated-girdles-tweaked-girdles-digging-painting.36102/[/URL]

Basically - thinner girdle at the bezel/main meets//steeper bezel/main angles and shallower upper/lower halves meets, painted crown = reduced angular difference between upper girdle facet/bezel/upper girdle facet trios at the girdle, painted pavilion = reduced angular difference between lower girdle facet/main/lower girdle facet trios at the girdle. I found the Eightstar type boring, personally. I missed the liveliness at the girdle that "normal" stones have - it's especially visible when you rock the stone in diffused lights, I think, and see (or don't see, rather) the changes in contrast. And I dislike knowing that I technically must be missing out on some coloured light return, whether or not I'd actually note a difference IRL! But it definitely looked "brighter" overall to me from arm's length by comparison - like a bright foil circle sticker.

And in any case, I'm quite sure these sorts of visible effects are more extreme than what you're talking about when you refer to "moderate" painting!



One note on all of this - you say you don't have any real ASET/IS pics, or a full scan, just the AGS ASET simulation... As someone who's spent entirely too long in labs of all sorts, I would strongly caution you against trying to coax minutiae from that simulation pic. The scanners AGS use have angular tolerance of 0.1degree I believe - so margins of +/- 0.1degree on *every measurement*. And that's not considering how/where facets are scanned, which I know there are variations in but don't know enough about to talk about. But ,at the end of the day, there's really no point in discriminating between tiny details and deviations in the simulation, as you'll have absolutely no idea whether they're actually representative of the stone or just artifacts of scanning error...

 

[Firechase]

Wow Yssie, thanks for the tons of good info and sorry for the belated response. My head is just spinning a bit. I rejected the other two stones - a AGS000 "I" that was quite a fireball but had just a tiny bit too much color for my side stones, and a GIA XXX "G" that was bright, but not quite enough fire. So my firey "H" seems like the best of the the three for me, but I'm just trying to decide if I am going to be OK with the darkness in sunlight (and normal indoor spotlighting, like I have in my kitchen - where, unfortunately, I may spend more time than in sunlight. ). This particular stone has no fluorescence, but does have that kind of dirty/hazy look in sunlight that some have mentioned in other threads - the first time I saw it, it made me go back and make sure I didn't somehow miss strong fluorescence on the cert. If all ideals have this look in bright light, I will enjoy it immensely as it is and move on, but if that somewhat dark 'n' dirty look can be avoided, I may go back to square one. (I don't want to wear out my welcome with the jeweler, though... )

 

[yssie]

Wow Yssie, thanks for the tons of good info and sorry for the belated response. My head is just spinning a bit. I rejected the other two stones - a AGS000 "I" that was quite a fireball but had just a tiny bit too much color for my side stones, and a GIA XXX "G" that was bright, but not quite enough fire. So my firey "H" seems like the best of the the three for me, but I'm just trying to decide if I am going to be OK with the darkness in sunlight (and normal indoor spotlighting, like I have in my kitchen - where, unfortunately, I may spend more time than in sunlight. ). This particular stone has no fluorescence, but does have that kind of dirty/hazy look in sunlight that some have mentioned in other threads - the first time I saw it, it made me go back and make sure I didn't somehow miss strong fluorescence on the cert. If all ideals have this look in bright light, I will enjoy it immensely as it is and move on, but if that somewhat dark 'n' dirty look can be avoided, I may go back to square one. (I don't want to wear out my welcome with the jeweler, though... )

I think what you're seeing is unavoidable in a stone w/ lots of light return, if I am properly understanding your description -

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-does-a-diamond-go-dark-in-direct-sunlight.132751/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-does-a-diamond-go-dark-in-direct-sunlight.132751/[/URL]
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-does-my-diamond-do-this-dark-in-sunlight.37481/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-does-my-diamond-do-this-dark-in-sunlight.37481/[/URL]
And Rhino's posts in this one [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-does-my-diamond-go-dark-in-the-middle.156211/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-does-my-diamond-go-dark-in-the-middle.156211/[/URL]

 

[Karl_K]

The biggest effect is scintillation when the diamond or lighting is moving it becomes a bit muddy instead of crisp on/off.
This effects both the moving contrast and moving fire that make up scintillation.
What Yssie is describing above is the lack of moving contrast compared to an unpainted stone.
It also effects fire in much the same way.
imho AGS allows too much in some cases.
That said a 35.1 crown can take a bit of painting before the effects get to bad.

 

[Firechase]

Once again, thanks Yssie, for being all over it! And Karl_K, thank you for addressing the degree of painting re: the proportions of this stone. I think you have also nailed it. There is what I believe to be a great amount of light return and fire, but in many lighting situations, it is more of a glow than a flash, if that makes sense. And I don't know that it is necessarily a bad thing. In some light, the brightness seems to bleed all the way to the edges of the stone, like Yssie described - as a bright foil circle sticker - which is probably the characteristic that attracts those who like painted stones (although this stone doesn't seem to be heavily painted). If only the exact lighting of one office in my workplace was the ligthing everywhere, I would be a very happy camper! Maybe I need to get one stone for sunlight and another for the office, where I spend most of my time!

 

[yssie]

Maybe I need to get one stone for sunlight and another for the office, where I spend most of my time!

Now we're talkin'