Glass-like vs. frosty round diamonds

[clarie]

Thanks for the advice Kenny.

Lucky for me, I will be able to see these diamonds for comparison. I did so for 2 hours several days ago..mostly the 1.7 carat because a PSer had suggested that stone to me in a different thread. Before that I was looking specifically at GIA stones. I'm glad that I was introduced into the world of AGS and ACA...thanks to all the PSer!

By the way, I don't think I will be buying both to test out the conditions hehe..if you had to pick one: the 1.7 or 2.2 for a size 4 ring? Is H VS2 specs for a 2.2 carat too low?

 

[c-k]

Gone fishing...

 

[kenny]

… if you had to pick one: the 1.7 or 2.2 for a size 4 ring? Is H VS2 specs for a 2.2 carat too low?

H VS2 will be too low for some and too high for others.
It all depends on the person.

Some simply must have a DEF and don't mind that it's small for their budget.
Others not only don't mind warmer colors to get a larger stone, but say they even prefer the warmer colors.
Same with clarity.

Even though people vary if you sample enough of them their preferences will form a bell curve.
I think H VS2 (or eye-clean SI1) is near or perhaps at the peak of the preference curve.

Some people take comfort in larger numbers, but those who insist on, say, a D IF or a huge-carat diamond for their budget by going down in color and clarity don't give a hoot about having the same preferences as many others.

I recommend you visit as many places as possible to view diamonds live.
Only look at diamonds graded by GIA and AGS though so your preferences are not skewed by bogus color and clarity grades.
This way you will solidify your own grade preferences.

Size too.
Many want as large as possible.
Others may feel self conscious with a larger stone.
Some want a size similar to what others in their social circle and family have.
Others want bigger.
Nobody's wrong, just different.

Take your time.
Upgrading later is expensive.

 

[clarie]

Oki..thanks so much!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Now I'm also curious whether there could be some correlation.
Of course not that lower HCA scores are whiter or frostier diamonds, but that lower HCA scores indicate the 'mirrors' are angled to reflect back to their camera an area of their photo set up that is more white … perhaps further off-axis or on-axis.
Again this all still indicates nothing about the diamonds and their overall light performance, but about the reflections captured by the photo set up.

I'd love to hear feedback from Whiteflash's boss, Texas Leaguer, on this.
I think I'll email him a link to this thread.
It would be understandable if we don't hear much, if anything from him.
Some Internet diamond vendors are understandable very tight-lipped about their photography set ups and processes.
Revealing much can help their competitors.
I have had photo discussions with a few of them at PS GTGs and they all asked me to keep anything they say private.
Since I'm not selling anything I reveal everything to help improve the photography we enjoy on PS.

Nice sleuthing, claire!

Kenny,
Thank you for the invitation to the thread. We are actually much more concerned about the propriety of commenting in a thread where our diamonds are being considered than we are about revealing any photo techniques!

Your own comments shed a lot of light on the subject (no pun), but the OP does point out an interesting aspect that may contribute to some of the variances that are inevitable in diamond photography.

First let me discuss some of the known variables. And before I do that, I will point out our imaging page at the link below where we describe our various diamond photos, what they are designed to tell you about the diamond, and how to put them together for a comprehensive understanding of the diamond.

http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/whiteflash-diamond-imaging-961.htm

With regard to the magnified image, the intent is primarily to show aspects of cut precision (arrows) and to provide information on the location and nature of inclusions (mainly Si clarities). Trying to read too much into any of the images is not necessarily constructive.

Some of the variables that can give rise to differences between images can be introduced by things such as angle of the light source and size of the diamond, under and over-exposure, as well as certain types of inclusions. Using the term the OP has used for consistency, we do sometimes see the “frosty” look produced by stones in the Si range with certain inclusions that tend to scatter light. However, as we can see from the examples, stones that are almost completely clean can also appear frosty.

This is most likely due to overexposure of the capture. This can be a simple result of shooting a larger diamond returning more light to the lens with the same settings as a previous captured diamond of smaller size.

Having said that, the HCA correlation is interesting. It could be that the underpinnings of the HCA tool tend to favor diamonds with greater brightness. It is possible that diamonds with very low HCA scores could overexpose images taken at settings that are best for diamonds with slightly more balanced proportions. If that is true, and a customer prefers brightness over fire for instance, it might be good to look for frosty images!

However, because of unavoidable variables in capture and editing of any photo, I would again caution against trying to do too much with any one type of image. By far the best approach is to use the collection of images in combination with the AGS certificate data to gain a holistic understanding of the diamond.

 

[clarie]

Hi Mr. Texas Leaguer! I got a similar answer from Bryan at WF. Are you the same person perhaps? Thank you for your inputs on my question and thanks to Kenny also.

I compared the 2 diamonds in person and chose the 1.7 carat. I would have liked to buy the bigger 2.2 carat but the inclusions were quite obvious (almost center of table) at a closer distance required for eyeclean and it wasn't as bright as the smaller stone, perhaps it was due to the lower H color. I'm glad I got to see them in person.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi Mr. Texas Leaguer! I got a similar answer from Bryan at WF. Are you the same person perhaps? Thank you for your inputs on my question and thanks to Kenny also.

I compared the 2 diamonds in person and chose the 1.7 carat. I would have liked to buy the bigger 2.2 carat but the inclusions were quite obvious (almost center of table) at a closer distance required for eyeclean and it wasn't as bright as the smaller stone, perhaps it was due to the lower H color. I'm glad I got to see them in person.

Hi Clairie,
Yes, that's me- one and the same! Thank you for your interesting observations about our images and thank you for visiting our store.

In regards to your observation after seeing the diamonds in person, we quite often hear customers comment that higher colors look "brighter". While most people don't see much difference between G and H, you probably have very keen color acuity. And the larger size in the slightly lower color widens that gap a bit too.