Does a Megascope/Firetrace result get much better than this?

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Re: Does a Megascope/Firetrace result get much better than t

Wow, those ASET images are so similar!

As the other trademembers have said it does look "like" an Eighstar in that it has about 2 degrees of crown only painting and near tolk angles, however the thickness of the arrows is quite different.

I would ask your vendor about confirming he associated the correct hearts image, from the sarin report I wouldn't expect such dramatic assymetry in the hearts.

One thing you should know, anything can be inscribed on a girdle and the lab just copies and pastes it into a grading report, it doesn't mean the lab has verified or endorses the comments on the girdle. <Lazare Kaplan symbol>698441 U.S.A. is inscribed on the girdle, I think it would be a good idea to try to contact LK and look up to see if that number matches the specs of your diamond with them.

In any case have a great time with your diamond we all hope you enjoy your purchase.

 

[Serg]

Re: Does a Megascope/Firetrace result get much better than t

I am leaning towards the possibility of an eightstar as well.

Those are horribly taken Hearts and Arrows images and I even question whether they belong to the stone with those ASET and Idealscope images.

If those badly taken images and are of the actual diamond it 100% cannot be an Eightstar or even close.
Eightstar diamonds were cut to a very high optical standards and very tight tolerances, not wonky optical symmetry.
In addition and even more telling the lower girldle facets on an Eighstar are short and in a hearts image there would be no seperation between the V and the tip of the heart.

I don't think he is saying that it IS an Eightstar diamond. I think he is agreeing with Gary that this may look like an Eightstar diamond due to the girdle painting.

This diamond seems to be cut by Lazare Kaplan inc. in early 2006, when painting of the girdle was more popular due to the Eightstar. Reading this article by John Pollard:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds

It appears that "the most common uses of painting & digging are 'swindling strategies' " to save carat weigh to a commercially important value and/or to affect the girdle thickness grading.

However, a third reason is: "Relative to crown-only painting: To acquire desirable visual properties. A measure of crown-only painting on 'superideal' diamonds can improve the diamond's brightness and increase the amount of visible broadfire dispersion."

Since the diamond in question is nowhere near a commercial important point, the first reason to paint seems unlikely. The second reason to paint is unlikely as well since the girdle thickness is nowhere near 'very thick'.

So that leaves us with the last reason, which is to improve the brightness and dispersion. Looking at the microscope pictures of the painted girdles, it appears that only the crown is painted slightly. This leads me to believe that this is the most likely reason for the girdle painting.

I saw this stone with the Diamond Shopper and compared to three other AGS ideal stones and this one sparkles just as much if not more than the others. I think The Diamond Shopper and I really found a 'gem ' here. The price is around $9k USD. For an ideal cut, 'I' colour, VS1 and face up value of 7.25mm, I'm very happy with the find.

Just for an additional peace of mind, this diamond is going to be re-certified by AGS. Thanks for all the valuable input I received on this thread. They were invaluable!

Also a big thank you to The Diamond Shopper. Despite the honest mistake of mixing up the diamond images, he's been very upfront about everything. I felt like he really looked out for my best interests and patiently answered all my questions and concerns.

only digging really helps increase yield. Painting usually decrease yield. Authors did not account rough surface limitations and did not consider real examples.