Eliminate this diamond based on IS / ASET?

[emmebee]

Hi all! Have an IdealScope/ASET interpretation question for you - would you eliminate this stone based on the attached IdealScope and ASET? I was told the cut was basically as good as its going to get for a GIA Ex Ex Ex, but it looks to me like there is leakage under the left hand side of the table. Is this something to worry about, aka should I eliminate this stone from contention?





All advice appreciated - thanks!!

 

[WinkHPD]

Hi all! Have an IdealScope/ASET interpretation question for you - would you eliminate this stone based on the attached IdealScope and ASET? I was told the cut was basically as good as its going to get for a GIA Ex Ex Ex, but it looks to me like there is leakage under the left hand side of the table. Is this something to worry about, aka should I eliminate this stone from contention?





All advice appreciated - thanks!!

I doubt that it will pass the sight test. Ir leaks badly. I have seen MANY MANY GIA graded diamonds with triple X grades that have MUCH MUCH better IdealScopes and ASET images. Who ever told you that this was as good as it gets is sadly mistaken. Just one more reason that you MUST see it to believe it. Never buy a diamond sight unseen without a strong return policy so that all you ever risk is your postage.

Wink

 

[emmebee]

Thanks, Wink. Disappointing to hear, as it looked beautiful from the video Also, I'm a sucker for symmetry!

Do you think it has something to do with the depth? (62.3%) It has a deep crown as well (36%), but I like that look. The HCA score was 1.8, so I guess that is why it is important to get the IdealScopes to test for this sort of thing!

 

[WinkHPD]

Thanks, Wink. Disappointing to hear, as it looked beautiful from the video Also, I'm a sucker for symmetry!

Do you think it has something to do with the depth? (62.3%) It has a deep crown as well (36%), but I like that look. The HCA score was 1.8, so I guess that is why it is important to get the IdealScopes to test for this sort of thing!

For all I know it could be beautiful. The idealscope does not lead me to believe this, nor does the ASET. How do you know you like this look though if you have not seen the diamond? Knowing that it has a deep crown and a deep depth does not give me even a hint at the pavilion angle, although I suspect it is fairly shallow because of all the leakage.

As far as the idealscope and ASET go, this is no where near "as good as it gets" for GIA XXX. I could show you dozens that are better at the drop of a hat.

Wink

 

[emmebee]

I like the "high crown" look because I like that chunkier/thicker look at the top rather than flat. The pavilion angle is 40.6.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think there is a huge amount of light blasting at both the Ideal-scope and the ASET.
Note that even the very center of both stones are pale.
I would not reject the stone.

 

[JulieN]

I don't think it is as bad as it looks. Usually you will see more things wrong with it if there really is a problem.

 

[WinkHPD]

I think there is a huge amount of light blasting at both the Ideal-scope and the ASET.
Note that even the very center of both stones are pale.
I would not reject the stone.

I reiterate:

For all I know it could be beautiful. The idealscope does not lead me to believe this, nor does the ASET. How do you know you like this look though if you have not seen the diamond?

I do not like either image, but would rely on seeing the diamond to confirm this. I would be VERY surprised however if this stone stands up to visual inspection beside a top of the line cut diamond.

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

I think there is a huge amount of light blasting at both the Ideal-scope and the ASET.
Note that even the very center of both stones are pale.
I would not reject the stone.

I agree with Garry the back lighting is way too bright throwing off the images.
I would not reject the stone solely based on those images.
Return policies are important so be careful to check the vendors policies.

 

[emmebee]

Thank you all SO much for your help! Seriously, you guys really know your stuff.. super helpful for someone like me who is just learning.

If it helps further, here are the specs:
Table: 55%
Depth: 62.3%
Crown angle: 36
Pav angle: 40.6

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think there is a huge amount of light blasting at both the Ideal-scope and the ASET.
Note that even the very center of both stones are pale.
I would not reject the stone.

I reiterate:

For all I know it could be beautiful. The idealscope does not lead me to believe this, nor does the ASET. How do you know you like this look though if you have not seen the diamond?

I do not like either image, but would rely on seeing the diamond to confirm this. I would be VERY surprised however if this stone stands up to visual inspection beside a top of the line cut diamond.

Wink

Hi Wink, Merry Christmas (we still say that downunder).
I know that this backlight is too strong because the center of the table - light exiting via the table - should be green but the 11% leakage thru the pavilion means the light from down there is about 6-10 times too strong.
Who-ever has that set up needs this one: http://www.lexusindia.in/products/gb-dibox.aspx
It is now the industry standard (I add that I have an interest in this project)

 

[emmebee]

Am I crazy for liking the diamond on the left better than the one on the right? To my untrained eyes, it seems like the right one would probably be deemed a better cut, but I'm stuck on the fatter arrows of the left one, which I know is a preference. What do you all think?

 

[JulieN]

the left one looks better.

 

[Laila619]

Personal preference. I like the one on the left better too, and it looks like it has a smaller table.

 

[emmebee]

Thank you both so much! Getting excited to hopefully see this in person

 

[emmebee]

... and the saga continues! I received an updated ASET for the stone on the left, and an ASET for the stone on the right. Would you still pick the one on the left?

Left:


Right:

 

[WinkHPD]

I think there is a huge amount of light blasting at both the Ideal-scope and the ASET.
Note that even the very center of both stones are pale.
I would not reject the stone.

I reiterate:

For all I know it could be beautiful. The idealscope does not lead me to believe this, nor does the ASET. How do you know you like this look though if you have not seen the diamond?

I do not like either image, but would rely on seeing the diamond to confirm this. I would be VERY surprised however if this stone stands up to visual inspection beside a top of the line cut diamond.

Wink

Hi Wink, Merry Christmas (we still say that downunder).
I know that this backlight is too strong because the center of the table - light exiting via the table - should be green but the 11% leakage thru the pavilion means the light from down there is about 6-10 times too strong.
Who-ever has that set up needs this one: http://www.lexusindia.in/products/gb-dibox.aspx
It is now the industry standard (I add that I have an interest in this project)

Merry Christmas to you too Garry. I still say that in Idaho as I am politically broken, not correct in any meaningful way, or so I have been frequently told.

I called my friend Garry to yank his chain a little yesterday. I wanted to know how he could create a useful instrument and then get away with calling it the industry standard. We had a good chuckle and enjoyed a conversation for a while then both of us had to get back to work.

I can tell you this, I want one of those wonderful tools, industry standard or not.

For those who might want to see how quickly a good set of photos can be taken, literally in only a minute or two, including set up and stone cleaning, here is a quick video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_ift331-Uk

If any body cares, I want one for Christmas.

Wink

 

[emmebee]

Hope you find that under your tree, Wink

Does anyone have any new opinions based on the two ASETs posted?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You are a dag Wink

The stone on the left is balanced and will likely have more fire.
the right stone will be a bit brighter but have less contrast and possibly less scintillation.
(It is slightly painted)

 

[emmebee]

Thank you, Garry!