Down to 2 ... take a look & help me decide!

stone-cold11 · Jul 16, 2009

Ya, #3. IS let''s you double check and I think it is a free service from WF. Good also as extra documentation for your insurance too. But if it is the newer report with the computer generated ASET image, probably quite safe.

Ellen · Jul 16, 2009

Date: 7/16/2009 7:33:30 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Get the Idealscope image anyway. You might be able to see inclusions and their effect on optics better under the lighting and magnification of the US. The AGS image on the report is generated so its always better to get an actual image.

An IS is really only good to determine light return. While they may help inclusions show up, it really doesn't mean anything. Each stone has to be looked at in person to be evaluated on inclusions and their possible affects. I've seen stones that I swore would be eyeclean when they weren't, and vice versa. You just can't go by pics for even that, much less optics. And at VS2, there are not going to be any affects on optics anyway. SI1 and down is where that would possibly play a role.

I agree number 3 looks like a winner. As Lorelei said, I doubt you'd find any big surprises on light return with these numbers/stats, but, they are always nice to have.