shape
carat
color
clarity

Have I made a huge mistake?

Captainott

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
5
I recently ordered the following stone from 1215. I noticed the blue nuance comment on the igi report and originally thought that since it is graded E color, that any perceived blue nuance would be very slight. I'm starting to worry a little more about it however, and hope I haven't made a huge mistake... Thoughts on this diamond?


 
Last edited:

vintageinjune

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
475
The blue nuance in an E will be so incredibly minimal, that would not concern me at all.

The cut on that diamond however is a different story - I am not a fan. There seems to be leakage under the table and the arrows do not line up well. Could you request Idealscope and ASET images?
 

Captainott

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
5
The blue nuance in an E will be so incredibly minimal, that would not concern me at all.

The cut on that diamond however is a different story - I am not a fan. There seems to be leakage under the table and the arrows do not line up well. Could you request Idealscope and ASET images?

I will try to see if they are available. HCA score came back as a 1.1, although I know that's no guarantee concerning leakage, etc. Glad to hear about the nuance! Thanks for your help!
 

Kim N

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
2,002
I don't really like the look of this one. The 3.15 D VS2 on 1215's site looks like a better choice to me.
 

Natpbm

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 27, 2021
Messages
2
I don't like the black fish eye in the center of the stone. Facets also don't line up well. It would have been a no for me. How's their return policy? That fish eye will suck the life out of your diamond
 

John Pollard

Shiny_Rock
Staff member
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
391
I don't like the black fish eye in the center of the stone. Facets also don't line up well. It would have been a no for me. How's their return policy? That fish eye will suck the life out of your diamond

Hi @Natpbm . Welcome to PriceScope.

This is a good opportunity to illustrate how magnified photography can be a bit deceptive. There's no fish-eye effect in this lab grown diamond. In fact, despite the asymmetrical optical precision, its performance is likely superior to most stones.

For new readers: What's a fish-eye? It when a diamond's proportions are so shallow you start seeing the girdle's reflection in the table, often manifesting as a whitish ring.

RE: The 3.05 E VS1 IGI Ideal LGD posted above

I presume the comment above was made due to the dark asymmetric areas around the center of the diamond's table, seen in the video. I'm with you. Those areas are not very aesthetically appealing. But let's analyze...

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps.jpg

The basic proportions are 58T, 6D, 40.7PA and 35CA (on analysis it's closer to 34.7 but rounded up to 35.0 by IGI).
  1. Those basic proportions are not shallow enough to produce a fish-eye effect.
  2. In fact, they result in a HCA score of Excellent.
  3. They are also predicted to earn AGS 0 in scientific light performance assessment.
Here is the stone, overlaid with wireframe so we can calculate its minor proportions, along with the given majors, above.

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps-overlay.jpg

Calculated: 58T, 40.7PA, 34.7PA, 82LH, 58ST.

Here's the projected Ideal Scope for those parameters. Bear in mind, this projection is a CGI which presumes (impossible) perfect optical precision, but it's still a useful representation of the light return seen in lab grown diamonds with the average proportions the 3.05 has.

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps-idealscope.jpg

So why the dark areas?

They are a table reflection dynamic. The dark lens of the camera is being seen by the table - and the reflection of that table facet appears down in the pavilion of the diamond. Diamond cutters used table reflection to judge pavilion depth for generations; long before precision tools and proportions-scanners existed.

ps-obs-con-table-reflection-with-is-jpg.615691



Table reflection tends to increase as table size or pavilion depth increase. In the case of this 3.05 carat stone it's exaggerated by three things.
  1. The diamond is not cut with the highest level of optical precision. That's typical in larger sizes and - at present - in lab grown productions.
  2. The long lower halves (at 82%) narrow the pavilion mains, thus creating more room in the contrast pattern for dark table reflection to be seen.
  3. I'm not wild about how close the camera is to the stone in this specific video setup. Compared to other photo setups seen around the internet it's creating some over-obstruction in my opinion.
Bottom line: Those dark areas are indeed distracting in the magnified video. But, by the numbers and upon analysis, they will not be a negative factor in normal viewing. IRL this 3.05 should be extremely bright and dynamic.

Hope it's interesting.
 
Last edited:

Natpbm

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 27, 2021
Messages
2
Hi @Natpbm . Welcome to PriceScope.

This is a good opportunity to illustrate how magnified photography can be a bit deceptive. There's no fish-eye effect in this lab grown diamond. In fact, despite the asymmetrical optical precision, its performance is likely superior to most stones.

For new readers: What's a fish-eye? It when a diamond's proportions are so shallow you start seeing the girdle's reflection in the table, often manifesting as a whitish ring.

RE: The 3.05 E VS1 IGI Ideal LGD posted above

I presume the comment above was made due to the dark asymmetric areas around the center of the diamond's table, seen in the video. I'm with you. Those areas are not very aesthetically appealing. But let's analyze...

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps.jpg

The basic proportions are 58T, 6D, 40.7PA and 35CA (on analysis it's closer to 34.7 but rounded up to 35.0 by IGI).
  1. Those basic proportions are not shallow enough to produce a fish-eye effect.
  2. In fact, they result in a HCA score of Excellent.
  3. They are also predicted to earn AGS 0 in scientific light performance assessment.
Here is the stone, overlaid with wireframe so we can calculate its minor proportions, along with the given majors, above.

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps-overlay.jpg

Calculated: 58T, 40.7PA, 34.7PA, 82LH, 58ST.

Here's the projected Ideal Scope for those parameters. Bear in mind, this projection is a CGI which presumes (impossible) perfect optical precision, but it's still a useful representation of the light return seen in lab grown diamonds with the average proportions the 3.05 has.

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps-idealscope.jpg

So why the dark areas?

They are a table reflection dynamic. The dark lens of the camera is being seen by the table - and the reflection of that table facet appears down in the pavilion of the diamond. Diamond cutters used table reflection to judge pavilion depth for generations; long before precision tools and proportions-scanners existed.

ps-obs-con-table-reflection-with-is-jpg.615691



Table reflection tends to increase as table size or pavilion depth increase. In the case of this 3.05 carat stone it's exaggerated by three things.
  1. The diamond is not cut with the highest level of optical precision. That's typical in larger sizes and - at present - in lab grown productions.
  2. The long lower halves (at 82%) narrow the pavilion mains, thus creating more room in the contrast pattern for dark table reflection to be seen.
  3. I'm not wild about how close the camera is to the stone in this specific video setup. Compared to other photo setups seen around the internet it's creating some over-obstruction in my opinion.
Bottom line: Those dark areas are indeed distracting in the magnified video. But, by the numbers and upon analysis, they will not be a negative factor in normal viewing. IRL this 3.05 should be extremely bright and dynamic.

Hope it's interesting.

While I appreciate your very analytical response, the picture says more to me than number. If you said it's not a fish eye, sure, let's go with "table reflection".

However we call it though, the dark ring at the center of this stone takes away light return and is something I personally cannot overlook. It would bother me every time I look at the ring. If I spend so much money on the stone, why not go for a better one? It's not like we are in any kind of lab diamond shortage.

If you like it and think that it's not a big deal and recommend OP to go with it, your call and I respect your individual opinion
 

John Pollard

Shiny_Rock
Staff member
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
391
However we call it though, the dark ring at the center of this stone takes away light return and is something I personally cannot overlook. It would bother me every time I look at the ring.

I clarified the post above as an opportunity to illustrate how photography can be deceptive but I may not have underscored a major reason for that dark ring very well. It's a function of the photography setup - reason #3 at the end of my post.

Light from high above usually illuminates the lowest facets on the diamond (the pavilion mains on a round brilliant). When a diamond is being photographed the camera itself blocks light from the highest angles and the lowest facets are darkened, reflecting the black of the camera lens. This creates a contrast pattern which can be useful for assessment.

However, the closer you bring the lens to the diamond, the greater it blocks light which would normally enter and reflect back to the viewer. The effect is called over-obstruction. Logically it's exaggerated in photos because the diamond "sees" the dark black of the lens. In normal viewing it "sees" a person's face (at a farther distance).

pricescope-education-008-diamond-performance-brightness-contrast-camera-e1619024802970-1024x576.jpg


In my opinion - and based on having seen hundreds of diamonds which have these approximate "near-Tolkowksy" proportions - that darkness won't be an issue in actual viewing - unless you brought your head within a few inches of the stone - a circumstance in which all diamonds get darker.

More info on this page.
 

Captainott

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
5
I clarified the post above as an opportunity to illustrate how photography can be deceptive but I may not have underscored a major reason for that dark ring very well. It's a function of the photography setup - reason #3 at the end of my post.

Light from high above usually illuminates the lowest facets on the diamond (the pavilion mains on a round brilliant). When a diamond is being photographed the camera itself blocks light from the highest angles and the lowest facets are darkened, reflecting the black of the camera lens. This creates a contrast pattern which can be useful for assessment.

However, the closer you bring the lens to the diamond, the greater it blocks light which would normally enter and reflect back to the viewer. The effect is called over-obstruction. Logically it's exaggerated in photos because the diamond "sees" the dark black of the lens. In normal viewing it "sees" a person's face (at a farther distance).

pricescope-education-008-diamond-performance-brightness-contrast-camera-e1619024802970-1024x576.jpg


In my opinion - and based on having seen hundreds of diamonds which have these approximate "near-Tolkowksy" proportions - that darkness won't be an issue in actual viewing - unless you brought your head within a few inches of the stone - a circumstance in which all diamonds get darker.

More info on this page.

I appreciate your analysis on this! Based on your response, I think I'll just wait for it to arrive and see how it looks in person. I will have 30 days to return it if I don't like the performance.
 

John Pollard

Shiny_Rock
Staff member
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
391
I appreciate your analysis on this! Based on your response, I think I'll just wait for it to arrive and see how it looks in person. I will have 30 days to return it if I don't like the performance.

Cool. There is nothing is more decisive than in-person viewing. Be sure to examine it through a range of lighting. If you want to get really nerdy about it (that's a good thing IMO) here are some setup tips for your exam.

If you have time, for the purposes of this thread, it would be awesome if you could take a few photos with your phone - or camera if you're old school haha - and post them here. If you have an area with diffused lighting that would be best.

One photo up-close (3-4"). Another 25cm away (10"). Another at arm's length. No need if you don't have time - but I believe it would be useful for future readers if you do.

Since you asked about the 3.15, here are some notes. By the numbers this one also passes the sniff tests.
  1. The basic proportions are great, as with the 3.05.
  2. It also scores HCA Excellent, as with the 3.05.
  3. It's also a candidate for AGS 0 light performance, as with the 3.05.
  4. The TN-MD girdle also gives it great physical spread for its weight.
What's missing, in a comparative sense, is a spin-video or images. Is there a link? Unfortunately IGI doesn't currently include minor facet information (lower halves & stars) which are critical to meaningful analysis, especially as it relates to obstruction.
 
Last edited:

Captainott

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
5
Cool. There is nothing is more decisive than in-person viewing. Be sure to examine it through a range of lighting. If you want to get really nerdy about it (that's a good thing IMO) here are some setup tips for your exam.

If you have time, for the purposes of this thread, it would be awesome if you could take a few photos with your phone - or camera if you're old school haha - and post them here. If you have an area with diffused lighting that would be best.

One photo up-close (3-4"). Another 25cm away (10"). Another at arm's length. No need if you don't have time - but I believe it would be useful for future readers if you do.

Since you asked about the 3.15, here are some notes. By the numbers this one also passes the sniff tests.
  1. The basic proportions are great, as with the 3.05.
  2. It also scores HCA Excellent, as with the 3.05.
  3. It's also a candidate for AGS 0 light performance, as with the 3.05.
  4. The TN-MD girdle also gives it great physical spread for its weight.
What's missing, in a comparative sense, is a spin-video or images. Is there a link? Unfortunately IGI doesn't currently include minor facet information (lower halves & stars) which are critical to meaningful analysis, especially as it relates to obstruction.

" Play Video"
https://www.1215diamonds.com/lab-diamonds/#:~:text=Play-,Video,-$11,340
 

DejaWiz

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
1,247

John Pollard

Shiny_Rock
Staff member
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
391
That link doesn't work.
Here is the diamond that you are asking about:

Thanks @DejaWiz -

This is actually perfect to illustrate how one photo setup varies from the next. The first one stages the camera closer than we're accustomed to from the most popular internet diamond sellers. The second stages it farther away.

Invoking this illustration again.

pricescope-education-008-diamond-performance-brightness-contrast-camera-e1619024802970-1024x576.jpg



3.05 setup (IGI): The lens is rather close to the subject diamond. Too close, in my opinion, exaggerating table-reflection.

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps-jpg.863432


3.15 setup (Retailer): The lens is farther away from the subject diamond. Far enough that the stone's expected contrast pattern (see top right of first illustration above) does not fully resolve.

1638040700831.png

I'll check the minor facet details on the 3.15 - slightly shorter lower halves are obvious - but I believe, and supported by the numbers, they're essentially in the same performance category.
 

John Pollard

Shiny_Rock
Staff member
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
391
Parameters comparison:

3.05 ct
58T, 61.0D, 40.7PA, 35.0CA (rounded), M-STK, N
9.21 mm average physical spread. Estimates: 34.7 actual CA, 82LH, 58ST

3.15 ct 56T, 60.9D, 40.9PA, 34.5CA (rounded) TN-MD, N
9.51 mm average physical spread. Estimates: 34.6 actual CA, 81LH, 48ST

Both HCA Excellent. Both AGS0 Light Performance candidates.

By the numbers, both have near-Tolkowsky proportions with great light return. Both should display a nice balance of brightness, fire and contrast in performance. The 3.05 may have slightly more brightness than fire through certain lighting conditions, based on crown configuration & minor facets. The 3.15 has great physical spread and appears to have nice optical precision, but we'd need to see them in a structured light environment (ideal-scope, aset or H&A) to draw meaningful conclusions in that area of nuance.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
17,011
While I appreciate your very analytical response, the picture says more to me than number. If you said it's not a fish eye, sure, let's go with "table reflection".

However we call it though, the dark ring at the center of this stone takes away light return and is something I personally cannot overlook. It would bother me every time I look at the ring. If I spend so much money on the stone, why not go for a better one? It's not like we are in any kind of lab diamond shortage.

If you like it and think that it's not a big deal and recommend OP to go with it, your call and I respect your individual opinion
Nat John went to great lengths to calculate and explain the darkness which is not table reflection at all.
John is ok n the money.
The stone will be incredibly bright but have a tiny bit less fire.
 

John Pollard

Shiny_Rock
Staff member
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
391
Nat John went to great lengths to calculate and explain the darkness which is not table reflection at all.
John is ok n the money.
The stone will be incredibly bright but have a tiny bit less fire.
Thanks @Garry H (Cut Nut). The dark lens of the camera is the source of the reflected darkness. It's why a qualified the dark areas between the mains as a TR dynamic.
 

vintageinjune

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
475
Hi @Natpbm . Welcome to PriceScope.

This is a good opportunity to illustrate how magnified photography can be a bit deceptive. There's no fish-eye effect in this lab grown diamond. In fact, despite the asymmetrical optical precision, its performance is likely superior to most stones.

For new readers: What's a fish-eye? It when a diamond's proportions are so shallow you start seeing the girdle's reflection in the table, often manifesting as a whitish ring.

RE: The 3.05 E VS1 IGI Ideal LGD posted above

I presume the comment above was made due to the dark asymmetric areas around the center of the diamond's table, seen in the video. I'm with you. Those areas are not very aesthetically appealing. But let's analyze...

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps.jpg

The basic proportions are 58T, 6D, 40.7PA and 35CA (on analysis it's closer to 34.7 but rounded up to 35.0 by IGI).
  1. Those basic proportions are not shallow enough to produce a fish-eye effect.
  2. In fact, they result in a HCA score of Excellent.
  3. They are also predicted to earn AGS 0 in scientific light performance assessment.
Here is the stone, overlaid with wireframe so we can calculate its minor proportions, along with the given majors, above.

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps-overlay.jpg

Calculated: 58T, 40.7PA, 34.7PA, 82LH, 58ST.

Here's the projected Ideal Scope for those parameters. Bear in mind, this projection is a CGI which presumes (impossible) perfect optical precision, but it's still a useful representation of the light return seen in lab grown diamonds with the average proportions the 3.05 has.

0305-e-vs1-lgd-ps-idealscope.jpg

So why the dark areas?

They are a table reflection dynamic. The dark lens of the camera is being seen by the table - and the reflection of that table facet appears down in the pavilion of the diamond. Diamond cutters used table reflection to judge pavilion depth for generations; long before precision tools and proportions-scanners existed.

ps-obs-con-table-reflection-with-is-jpg.615691



Table reflection tends to increase as table size or pavilion depth increase. In the case of this 3.05 carat stone it's exaggerated by three things.
  1. The diamond is not cut with the highest level of optical precision. That's typical in larger sizes and - at present - in lab grown productions.
  2. The long lower halves (at 82%) narrow the pavilion mains, thus creating more room in the contrast pattern for dark table reflection to be seen.
  3. I'm not wild about how close the camera is to the stone in this specific video setup. Compared to other photo setups seen around the internet it's creating some over-obstruction in my opinion.
Bottom line: Those dark areas are indeed distracting in the magnified video. But, by the numbers and upon analysis, they will not be a negative factor in normal viewing. IRL this 3.05 should be extremely bright and dynamic.

Hope it's interesting.

Thank you so much for this detailed and incredibly informative response! This is some of my favorite type of content to be found on Pricescope. <3

@Captainott , please do share your thoughts when you receive your diamond. It's nice to know the darnkess (and likely what my brain interpreted as mis-aligned arrows) was really just due to less than ideal photography/videography.
 

John Pollard

Shiny_Rock
Staff member
Premium
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
391
Thank you so much for this detailed and incredibly informative response! This is some of my favorite type of content to be found on Pricescope. <3

@Captainott , please do share your thoughts when you receive your diamond. It's nice to know the darnkess (and likely what my brain interpreted as mis-aligned arrows) was really just due to less than ideal photography/videography.

Thank you for the comment - I'm glad it's useful perspective and hope @Captainott is able to report back.

RE mis-aligned arrows: We're somewhat spoiled in that sense on PriceScope, thanks to the efforts of vendors selling natural diamond brands curated for top optical precision (aka crisp Hearts & Arrows cutting goals). To that end it's worth mentioning that super high levels of optical precision are not found everywhere - and are even more scarce in the lab grown sector at this time.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Jewels of the Week: November 2021
    Jewels of the Week: November 2021 - 11/26
    Throwback Thursdays: November 2021
    Throwback Thursdays: November 2021 - 11/25
    Black Friday and Cyber Monday 2021 Sales
    Black Friday and Cyber Monday 2021 Sales - 11/24
Top