Does this diamond have painting/digging?

[Medical]

The videos have been produced and are available for viewing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLIAkbuOh0s&feature=youtu.be

You may find it difficult to see the differences between the two diamonds in terms of the painting. As our informal office poll suggests, some people can see no difference in real life, others state a visual preference for one or the other. It is also consistent with the pricescope article referenced in this thread that shows crown-only painting to be very hard to discern in this range of 6-7dgrees.

To a certain extent, it is like differences in other cutting specs within the superideal category. You could have a 34 crown or a 35 crown, a 55 table or 57 table, 76 or 80 LGFs, etc and some might have a preference for one or the other. Many won’t be able to see these small differences. Once you are at the level of Ideal light performance and super ideal faceting precision, further differences get extremely nuanced.

One way to look at the issue is through the lens of craftsmanship. There are only a few factories in the world specializing in ultra precision diamond cutting. In these factories there are extremely talented cutters – elite artisans if you will. Each of them has developed their skills and specialties and each may have a preferred way to approach a given rough and each may use personal judgment in the way a given diamond is fine tuned.

Another way to look at it is through a lens of ranges and tastes. Every polished diamond is unique in some way or ways. GIA EX represents a wide range of well cut diamonds, allowing for many different looks. AGS Ideal is a narrower range of cut quality. A “super ideal” is a subset of AGS0 within a narrower range still. Yet, it is still a range and on some level still offers different tastes for different buyers.

As the pricescope article on painting and digging out points out (and demonstrates), crown only painting should be evaluated on its own merits on a stone by stone basis, and not lumped in with other painting and digging out techniques intended to accomplish other purposes.

Not only can some additional brightness be brought out of the stone, but as the article suggests possibly some additional fire as well. “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.”

The question becomes, if there is some scintillation lost by eliminating the leakage, is that more detrimental visually than the increased brightness is a benefit? Our internal poll has been inconclusive, with some having a preference for one or the other and some seeing no appreciable difference.

What do you think?

Wow, to my (very uneducated) eye it is quite hard to tell any difference in that video. Thanks for all the educational material/hard work on this, TL! You and the folks at WF are amazing.

I didn't know what painting/digging were so I'm going to leave this link here for anyone else who has no idea:
http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

So one thing I can't understand is how were you all able to tell if the diamond was painted just from the pictures? It seemed that there was a pretty quick response confirming it, and after staring at both side by side for a long time I have no idea what the tells are.

Edit: Just saw John's article, also extremely helpful! Thanks!

Another question: do these things also occur in fancy cuts, and if so, how do you recognize it when it is detrimental?

 

[pfunk]

After viewing the video, I have decided that I will be happy to take the painted one off your hands. It obviously makes for an ugly diamond.

Kidding aside, those are both gorgeous diamonds and I would be happy to own either. I'd be lying if I said I could pick out any major difference there. Thanks TL for posting up the video. Hope the OP checks it out.

 

[Karl_K]

What do you think?

I think I can just barely pick up the difference in the video much less so than I remember with similar stones in person viewing.
I expected that as it is hard to see in video.
I would take such a stone over many gia EX stones with in my opinion proportion issues.
Neither one is a bad diamond but because GIA gives the painted one a very good grade the market position bugs me.
Is a stone that is both gia VG/AGS0 that gia specifically penalizes for painting that causes a some penalty in scintillation that some will not like the same value as a stone that is both gia EX/AGS0 without painting?
There are some markets where gia is demanded where there would be a large difference in value.
I think its something that in the end the buyer will have to make an informed decision for themselves.

 

[JL321]

Thank you for the video. That's an amazing comparison video and can barely tell the difference. If I had to choose, I actually prefer the painted one. The only problem is the general view is like what Karl mentioned, that GIA would frown upon it. Although I dont plan on selling or upgrading, it would bother me.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thank you for the video. That's an amazing comparison video and can barely tell the difference. If I had to choose, I actually prefer the painted one. The only problem is the general view is like what Karl mentioned, that GIA would frown upon it. Although I dont plan on selling or upgrading, it would bother me.

I agree that this is a logical position to take. I can't fault the thought process.

It is unfortunate that the existence of a less sophisticated grading system that does not evaluate the light performance of the individual stone in its reporting, and therefore unfairly penalizes a stone that has been precision cut in this way, would be the reason that someone would reject a stone like this. But that is a testament to the dominance that GIA enjoys in the market.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

T

Wow, to my (very uneducated) eye it is quite hard to tell any difference in that video. Thanks for all the educational material/hard work on this, TL! You and the folks at WF are amazing.

I didn't know what painting/digging were so I'm going to leave this link here for anyone else who has no idea:
http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

So one thing I can't understand is how were you all able to tell if the diamond was painted just from the pictures? It seemed that there was a pretty quick response confirming it, and after staring at both side by side for a long time I have no idea what the tells are.

Edit: Just saw John's article, also extremely helpful! Thanks!

Another question: do these things also occur in fancy cuts, and if so, how do you recognize it when it is detrimental?

Medical,
First of all, thank you for your kind words.

Regarding your questions, the folks here are used to looking at alot of Ideal Scope and ASET images and picking up on small differences. If you look at the side by side IS and ASET images I posted earlier you will see in IS that the painted stone has less white leakage spots around the perimeter. In ASET you will notice that the green triangles coming in off the girdle have grown.

Painting and digging can be done on other shapes as well. To determine if it is detrimental you would generally have to obtain light performance information and also be assured that the weight ratio is within proper range. That is, the painting and or digging out has not been used to retain unnecessary weight. Having the stone evaluated by a competent gemologist is another way to fully understand the stone, and a worthwhile practice with any significant diamond purchase.

 

[JL321]

Thank you for the video. That's an amazing comparison video and can barely tell the difference. If I had to choose, I actually prefer the painted one. The only problem is the general view is like what Karl mentioned, that GIA would frown upon it. Although I dont plan on selling or upgrading, it would bother me.

I agree that this is a logical position to take. I can't fault the thought process.

It is unfortunate that the existence of a less sophisticated grading system that does not evaluate the light performance of the individual stone in its reporting, and therefore unfairly penalizes a stone that has been precision cut in this way, would be the reason that someone would reject a stone like this. But that is a testament to the dominance that GIA enjoys in the market.

That's exactly my thought too. Had all factors been considered in their grading system, I would have bought the ring and it would probably be in its processing stages already. It's incredible how many different things you have to consider when purchasing a diamond...and sometimes it all comes down to timing too.

I really appreciate you taking the effort to do this and it speaks volumes about your level of service. I've already referred many friends to WF.

 

[Andelain]

Great video and thread! As for that stone, if I was in the market I might snap that one up. It's beautiful!

 

[nojs]

The diamond in question has an AGS cert. Why does it matter how GIA might rate it? Surely people buy other diamonds, without painting, with AGL certs and those never obtain GIA certs either. If that would be the case, why would anyone ever buy anything other than GIA certed stones to beginwith? Or am I wrong?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The thing is, if whoever buys this diamond ever wants something else, all they have to do is upgrade it with WF. What GIA would say would have no bearing on my decision to purchase an AGS ideal cut stone, as long as I loved the diamond.