Having a hard time reading Aset images. Can you comment on these 2?

[mizzles]

Hello
These are both round ~1 carrot stones. Can you comment on the images please? I can never tell if it's a "bad picture" or bad lighting, or a bad stone.

 

[HappyNewLife]

They’re both really NOT good diamonds. Can you please post your budget, size requirement, color and clarity and we will find something MUCH better. (Those are like, so so bad....)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, it will greatly help if you know what to look for! Not to mention, it will save you time! We can help you, but for your own information, here are some cut parameters.

These are measurements to help you stay in ideal cut territory with a GIA excellent cut stone.

table: 54-58

depth: 60-62.3

crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle)

pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

 

[bmfang]

Neither is good, but if you have to choose between the two of them, the second one is better to my eyes. But good gosh, both of them suffer from the “circle of death” under the table though the first stone certainly looks much darker than the second one to my eyes based on those photos.

 

[yssie]

Thritto... both are pretty dreadful.

You are correct that still photos can be hugely influenced by lighting environment. Fortunately, properly-configured setups for ASET/IS/H&A photography will yield images that are largely lighting-agnostic.

 

[mizzles]

Thanks for your responses. Would you mind telling me why these are so bad? Especially the 2nd one? I'm trying to understand the images. What is the "circle of death?" That is the only specific bad characteristic mentioned in the above posts.

I'm looking for a pair of round diamond studs, total weight about 2 carrots.

Thanks

 

[YoLaL]

Both stones are totaly Bad. Please stay away from this two diamond. Its not worth it. To much light leakages( makes your diamond apear dull and darker due the the circle of death) .. better find another diamonds...
Best proportions below you can follow and it won' go wrong.
Table 54 - 57%
Depth 60.5 - 61.8
Crown Angle 34 - 34.5
Pavillion Angle 40.6 - 40.8
Star : 50 -55
Lower Half : 75-80

 

[tyty333]

The area between the two blue circles is leaking light (not returning light through the top of the stone). If you stick to the numbers DiamondSeeker posted
you should be able to find a stone that is not leaky.

 

[OoohShiny]

Both stones are totaly Bad. Please stay away from this two diamond. Its not worth it. To much light leakages( makes your diamond apear dull and darker due the the circle of death) .. better find another diamonds...
Best proportions below you can follow and it won' go wrong.
Table 54 - 57%
Depth 60.5 - 61.8
Crown Angle 34 - 34.5
Pavillion Angle 40.6 - 40.8
Star : 50 -55
Lower Half : 75-80

These figures are incorrect - the crown angle, pavilion angle, table and depth ranges are too restrictive.

@diamondseeker2006 has posted the correct figures to use.

 

[mizzles]

Thank you very much for your help.

Do ALL these proportions have to match in a single stone? If not, which are the most important "must haves" and which are the least important?

Here are the numbers from the 2nd picture, the one that you drew the circle on. So only the table and pavillion angle are slightly off. To an amateur like me, doesn't seem like a huge difference. Do these small differences make/break the stone?

Table 60 %
Depth 61.9 %
Crown Angle 34.0°
Pavilion Angle 41.8°
Star Length 50%
Lower Half 80%

Miz

 

[pfunk]

What seems “slight” can make a very big difference. For example, the difference between a pavilion angle of 40.8 and 41.8 is a very big difference, even if it is only 1 degree. The facets are like a bunch of mirrors and if they are not aligned properly things dont work. You can find good diamonds outside the strict limits posted, but it is much harder to do buying online, sight unseen. This is why it is recommended to stay within a narrow set of parameters that are likely to result in a great looking diamond that will perform very well across most lighting environments.

 

[tyty333]

If you let us know your budget and specs we can help you look...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thank you very much for your help.

Do ALL these proportions have to match in a single stone? If not, which are the most important "must haves" and which are the least important?

Here are the numbers from the 2nd picture, the one that you drew the circle on. So only the table and pavillion angle are slightly off. To an amateur like me, doesn't seem like a huge difference. Do these small differences make/break the stone?

Table 60 %
Depth 61.9 %
Crown Angle 34.0°
Pavilion Angle 41.8°
Star Length 50%
Lower Half 80%

Miz

Yes, the whole reason I gave you the measurements to aim for above is to show you how to avoid stones that are not well cut. 41.0 would be the absolute max for this crown angle...not 41.1, or 41.2, and definitely not 41.8. This is how you want the images to look.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

And here is what you a great cut diamond looks like on a black background to compare to those in your first post. Please note that the black areas are just reflecting the camera (contrast as shown in the blue on the ASET). They aren't black in real life viewing.

 

[gm89uk]

The small changes in angles make all the difference. It's the different between the mirrors in the diamond reflecting light back at you to keep it bright, compared to leaving the diamond from the sides and making it look dark. Look at the brightness under the table (the middle bit) of the diamond DS posted, compared to the pictures you posted. When you put those diamonds in a finger, they will look like glass and your finger will show through, due to the leakage.

You can't see any black background in the middle of the table in the ideal cut stone (that's not a camera reflection), this appear bright and give off coloured light in the right lighting environment, as opposed to be being a dead spot.

 

[YoLaL]

And why is incorrect?

These figures are incorrect - the crown angle, pavilion angle, table and depth ranges are too restrictive.

@diamondseeker2006 has posted the correct figures to use.

 

[mizzles]

So as a self "training exercise," I found 2 stones to compare. Both satisfiy diamondseekers criteria.

Which of these 2 would you select and why?

Here is the Aset image and link to the first. Don't I still see a "circle of death" as in the images I posted? Could you explain the difference? Is it just not as white as in the pics I posted?

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamo...2-Carat-I-Color-VS2-Clarity-Diamond-7Z71926Z3




Here is the aset image and link to the second:

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamo...3-Carat-I-Color-SI1-Clarity-Diamond-046Z75609

 

[gm89uk]

No circle of death in either of those. The shade of red is always lighter than the edge in a backlit ASET like those are. In the original diamonds you posted there was minimal light return, showing the pure white light behind the diamond. These diamonds are reflecting the red, but the glow from the backlight, make it pink.

Additionally the first picture is poorly taken, and too much light is used. Also the light source is not purely isolated to behind the diamond, so the set up isn't great.

The second diamond seems to have a better image, but there are variations in the LGF and pavilion, leading to reduced light return (but not absolute leakage) at 02:30. These are not H&A stones but are well cut.

If you look at the pictures of your original diamonds, they are totally dead under the table, and will look significantly flatter and lacking is lustre in real life in comparison to the diamonds you just posted.

 

[gm89uk]

And why is incorrect?

Because the values are too restrictive, why are you excluding 35 crown diamonds, 41 pavilion diamond (if lined with 34 crowns) and up to 62.3 depth?

Depth is not absolutely inversely correlated to spread and it is possible to find a diamond with 62.1% depth with larger spread than diamonds with 61.8 depth.

 

[YoLaL]

Ahh Ok thanks. I understand . Thanks

 

[mizzles]

gm89uk - is there a way to get in touch with you? there doesn't seem to be a private message option on this forum.

Miz

 

[gm89uk]

gm89uk - is there a way to get in touch with you? there doesn't seem to be a private message option on this forum.

Miz

Sorry there are no PM options on these forums, but there are plenty of helpful people who will help

 

[OoohShiny]

Ahh Ok thanks. I understand . Thanks

The coloured chart in the HCA tool should help illustrate which angles complement each other, but one needs to take into account fire and dispersion characteristics of different combinations, which informs decisions on crown angle and table sizes.

 

[YoLaL]

Yes and thanks for sharing me about the HCA. Honestly I dont really depend on HCA and I know how it works . I only depend on the scope analysis.

The coloured chart in the HCA tool should help illustrate which angles complement each other, but one needs to take into account fire and dispersion characteristics of different combinations, which informs decisions on crown angle and table sizes.

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Mizzles,

You can actually do better than these by a long way, unless you want size above all else. Even for the intended use of stud earrings, you're losing light with these and as earrings get pretty oily quickly with skin oils, hairsprays and hair products, you want the best cut you can find to offset this.

Are they terrible? No, I've seen far worse and for a ring I'd definitely steer you well clear. But you can do much better for cut quality as the light leakage is evident on the images and in reality, you'll be losing sparkle.

So to sum up, the stones are commercial cut quality, not superideal which will not waste one iota of light return but it depends on what you want and what your priorities are. I'm going to complicate things here by saying a shallower angled cut can be preferable for earrings rather than the steeper pavilioned stones which can leak like the proverbial sieve. Use DS's numbers * waves* to get you closer or at the very least, try to keep your pavilion angle at 41 or a bit below, that should get you closer in the ballpark and of course, the proof of the pudding is in the images to help you decide.

Most people here want the superideal cuts which is fine, if that's not you then that's also fine but continue as you're doing to find the best cut quality you can, that's something you'll never regret about your diamonds and it's of course, the whole point of having them in the first place.

If you'd consider GIA or AGS graded H - J colour for example and verified eyeclean SI clarity ( as confirmed to your expectations by a vendor with the stones in hand), then the good folks can go on the hunt for you once they know your specs and budget if you give them the chance, they're bound to find you two fab stones.

Hope this helps.

 

[mizzles]

Thanks for the comments. Here are 2 more images. I'll make some amateur comments based on the images alone. Thoughts?

First one: Too asymmetrical

Second one: Symmetrical, but too much white (leakage of light). Has the "circle of death." (How do I know if this isn't a bad picture with too much light?)

 

[bmfang]

Number ones scope images don’t seem to correspond with the real life image (which could be affected by lighting.

Agreed that number two is cut a little more symmetrically than number one. The angle combo is likely to contribute to the circle of death seen in the IS, ASET and real life images.

 

[OoohShiny]

Yes and thanks for sharing me about the HCA. Honestly I dont really depend on HCA and I know how it works . I only depend on the scope analysis.

Is that ASETscope?
IdealScope?
Microscope?
Hearts and Arrows viewer / scope?

Each can be used to assess different aspects of diamond performance, which is why Pricescope forum regulars advocate use of as many as possible, to give a complete, empirically-assessed understanding of a stone's performance.

 

[Lorelei]

Is that ASETscope?
IdealScope?
Microscope?
Hearts and Arrows viewer / scope?

Each can be used to assess different aspects of diamond performance, which is why Pricescope forum regulars advocate use of as many as possible, to give a complete, empirically-assessed understanding of a stone's performance.

I think he's in the trade Oosh, probably means a loupe for analysis.

 

[bmfang]

I am guessing that the first stone above is likely to be AGS 1 for light performance. Maybe borderline 0 given how much red is showing up in the ASET.

Stats on both of these would be informative.