Firescope and H&A image analysis

[Tek]

Hi All,

Sometimes it''s very hard for me to determine if a firescope image shows bad leakage or if the image is just a bad photo. Same goes for a hearts and arrows image.

Any thoughts on these?

It has an HCA is 0.7 with EX/EX/EX/VG.

 

[Tek]

Here is the hearts and arrows image. I don't think it's true hearts and arrows but it's very close.

 

[Tek]

Here's my take on the firescope image. I think the inner arrows look very dark and good. The tips also look good, but I am mainly concerned with the white areas in between the tips of the arrows. Are those bad?

Here's more info on the diamond.

Measurements: 7.15x7.17x4.40
Depth: 61.5%
Table: 56%
Crown Angle: 33.9
Crown %: 14.7
Pav. Angle: 40.4
Pav. %: 40.4
Polish/Symmetry: EX/EX
Culet: None
Girdle: Medium, Faceted

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 1/28/2004 10:33:43 AM Tek wrote:


I am concerned with the white areas in between the tips of the arrows. Are those bad?
----------------

No. You are right to say that "white is light loss" on those pictures, but such amount is not a bad thing. There is very little in your stone and few would not even have that. More importantly, you may not want a stone with no such white spots: that will be a very lively one (probably not distinguishable form yours, though) but with less brilliance (play of light). Given the place of the whites- near the girdle - the diamond should have been especially cut to avoid them, this kind of loss is some "structural" miss of the RBC cut (correctable by adapting the cut of minor facets), not a defect of your stone.

Running a search for "tweaked" will produce some further explanation on this from PS history...

 

[Tek]

Thanks for you comments Val. As always, your insight is greatly appreciated.

I'll do a search on "tweak" to see what I can find. Thanks!

I guess it's just so scary for putting so much money into something so small, and I engineer in me wants it perfect

. I don't want to have to get it, not like it, and return it. I feel it's so inconvenient for the vendor, though I know it how the business works.

 

[Tek]

I did the research on "tweaked" and seems then that this firescope looks on par with diamonds that are not "tweaked" to get rid of the white in those areas, so the firescope image looks good.

So, how about the heart shapes? This diamond is not being advertised as a true hearts and arrows. However, the images looks very good to me, but the hearts don't seem to be solid colors. In other images, I see them all one solid white color. This has different shades of white for the hearts. Again, is that just a bad picture or is that because of symmetry?

Thanks in advance.

It's incredible how much you all know about diamonds. When I go to B&M, most of them have blank looks when I ask them technical questions.

 

[caratgirl]

I think the hearts are close enough, if you don't need perfection (which comes with a premium price).

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 1/29/2004 12:17:11 AM Tek wrote:



So, how about the heart shapes? This diamond is not being advertised as a true hearts and arrows. However, the images looks very good to me, but the hearts don't seem to be solid colors. In other images, I see them all one solid white color. This has different shades of white for the hearts. Again, is that just a bad picture or is that because of symmetry?
----------------

The harts are not perfectly identical either. Not sure what makes the "colors" vary, but I would say symmtry too. However, this does not make the diamond a dog at all. I strongly believe that asking for more is aking for a degree of "perfection" that needs a price premium to be "appreciated" and a good amount of paper to stand out

No detraction to this stone, for sure.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have a little doubt that that is a fireScope of the stone with that data, unless the Firescope has been modified.

The stone data and the FS are both excellent - but not matching i think.

To interpret the images go the www.ideal-scope.com and then the reference charts

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 1/29/2004 1:46:15 AM Cut Nut wrote:



The stone data and the FS are both excellent - but not matching i think.
----------------

I know this is a bit much to ask, since this is not my stone... but how can one tell this ? For all I know, I would need to compare the model of a stone with these angles with the actual Scope reading... which I cannot do without the required software. Is there a way to make an educated guess about this match? Or do I need a second job and PhD for that

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The little white dots at the end of the star facets seem big for a shallow stone with that star facet ratio.

i have no doubt that it is a nice stone, and I could be wrong, and this could be an honest mistake.

But if vendors start using file photo's then I think that defeats the purpose.

BTW I could spend 1/2 an hour and find who took the photo - but I have not and do not intend to.

 

[Tek]

Thanks for all your thoughts on the images. I did go to www.ideal-scope.com to look at the chart. Seems this diamond rates fairly high according to the chart. I agree with what you say about the numbers and the Firescope image not exactly coinciding. This is why I thought maybe the photo just wasn't take well. I know photographing diamonds are not easy. I myself haven't interpreted enough of these to fully understand them which is why I came here.

I suppose I should bring the diamond in and look at it myself and getting it appraised by someone with good tools.

 

[Mara]

The FS image looks good and the H&A is close but no cigar...however you probably won't see any sort of NOTICEABLE dimished beauty in the stone, so if you are on a budget then this stone would probably bit the bill pretty nicely.




Interesting on Garry's comments about the stone not matching the image...can you check more into that Tek and see if maybe a mistake was made?




Would definitely second your note on an independent appraisal, only a professional looking at the stone will know for sure. Good luck!

 

[Jim-Schultz]

Hey folks!

Not to let the cat out of the bag, but that diamond belongs to us and I don't mind saying that it's one of the prettiest stones we own!

I wasn't sure, however, why Gary thought the Firescope image didn't match the specs. For that reason I rephotographed the diamond using our Firescope (original version - not the newer ones) and also using an Idealscope we got from Garry. I also rephotographed the Hearts as well. I'm interested as to what you all think. Should we do away with the Firescope images and start using the Idealscope? It seems like our camera gets a much sharper focus with the Idealscope anyway. Also, what can be gleened from these pics? Which scope is giving better information?

Attachments to come...

 

[Jim-Schultz]

Firescope

 

[Jim-Schultz]

Idealscope

 

[Mara]

One thought about Fscope vs IdealScope is that it seems more of the other online vendors use IdealScope. In terms of keeping things consistent for the consumer, possibly using IdealScope is better? It seems from both types of images I have seen that the differences in the two types of images (e.g. color differences) can be confusing to the average viewer. Obviously IS depends on lighting as well in terms of color saturation...but just a thought.




Jim, do you have an IdealScope? Possibly photograph the stone with IS and FS and compare?




This 2nd Hearts image looks way better than the first! How can that be? Better stone alignment for the 2nd picture?

 

[Jim-Schultz]

Mara,

We actually did just what you suggested - the first red photo is the firescope, the second the idealscope.

As to the hearts image, I simply spent the time needed to perfectly position the diamond prior to snapping the camera. In real life the hearts are WAY better than even this photo captures! I will start doing that for every diamond if I think it's worth the extra $$$ I'll need to charge for each diamond.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 1/29/2004 2:40:49 PM Mara wrote:







One thought about Fscope vs IdealScope is that it seems more of the other online vendors use IdealScope.
----------------

That may be because the Firescope (and Symmetriscope) is a great deal more expensive.

 

[Tek]

Hi Jim,

Wow, those images you took look much nicer. I honestly think the Idealscope image is far nicer than the Firescope image. It makes the reds and pink stand out much better.

So I was right that the hearts image was just a photograph issue. Those hearts look much better.

Thanks for your help!

 

[Mara]

I also think the IS looks easier to interpret for me ....possibly because I have seen more IS images than FS images. From what I have seen of the FS images...it seems to almost only do red and black and white. IS seems to get more ranges of pinks in there. Maybe this is just the images I have seen but FS almost seems misleading at times for me....because the ones I have seen are usually only strong red or white. Making it very obvious what is light return vs what is not. But obviously we all know there are nuances in each stone (e.g. paler pinks) that the FS may not be picking up. Quite possibly the IS gives a better comprehensive picture? I guess it would be objective.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 1/29/2004 4:15:56 PM Mara wrote:







I also think the IS looks easier to interpret for me ....possibly because I have seen more IS images than FS images. From what I have seen of the FS images...it seems to almost only do red and black and white. IS seems to get more ranges of pinks in there. Maybe this is just the images I have seen but FS almost seems misleading at times for me....because the ones I have seen are usually only strong red or white. Making it very obvious what is light return vs what is not. But obviously we all know there are nuances in each stone (e.g. paler pinks) that the FS may not be picking up. Quite possibly the IS gives a better comprehensive picture? I guess it would be objective.

----------------

There has been some published data on that:

http://www.austgem.gil.com.au/ab21-10.html (scroll to the bottom)

...but note that they misspelled Garry's name.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks fopr clearing that up Jim - as you can see the little white bits are bigger on the FS images than the IS images. After years of using both i never noticed that little difference.
And it certainly is a nice stone.

Meanwhile we are still working on the perfect set up.

The perspex tray prototype is fabulous and will be so fast for ordinary and ideal-scope pics.

We are about to make 20 first run - there will be different holes sizes and rotating - all wizz bang - dealers and labs they will be around $40 plus P+H
email me if you want to know more
and if you are buying a camera make it a canon G2 - get one secondhand - they are a bargain

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And Jim is that IS pic the $25, $120 or just the pink insert and the camera macro (recomended) ?

 

[Tek]

I think the Idealscope images is by far better. Also, I'll agree with Mara about it becoming an internet norm. I see alot more Idealscope images than I do Firescope. I actually bought one from www.ideal-scope.com and can't wait to get my diamond to play with it! Though once it's set, I won't have that luxury any more so maybe I'll have to get a very small .40-.50 carat one so I can have a fun diamond

 

[strmrdr]

Between is and fs imho 6 of one half dozen of another it really depends on the setup and the picture quality.

imho both are good for showing if its a quality stone and weeding out the duds but I find the photos less usefull for picking between 2 high quality stones.
There is just too much differences from vendor to vendor in the images.
Even from the same vendor the photos often dont show enough contrast to tell anything but gross leakage which is often too close to call between 2 very well cut diamonds.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Your comments are things we are addressing Strmrdr.

How good would it be if all the photo's were the same from different sources, and the same stone could be photographed on different days, or in different places, and look the same?

That is our aim.
And as you can guess it takes a bit of work.

We will also have a standardised normal photo.
Some of the images can be seen in an old thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-photography-competition.9751/ in the photo section - first post / pic

 

[strmrdr]

Thats kewl Cut Nut cant wait to see it in action.

 

[Mara]

That will clear up alot of problems Garry...consistency amongst the IdealScope images is a huge issue right now when people post stones from different vendors for comparison.

 

[elmo]

----------------
On 1/29/2004 7:14:49 PM Cut Nut wrote:

The perspex tray prototype is fabulous and will be so fast for ordinary and ideal-scope pics.----------------

Did you say what I think you said Garry? After all the poop about trays vs tweezers?