Help Evaluating IdealScope and ASET Images

[DSH1313]

I've been doing a lot of research trying to find a diamond for an engagement ring for my girlfriend. I've certainly learned a lot since starting this process with no knowledge whatsoever about diamond basics, let alone finer points like IdealScope images, HCA scores, etc. After a lot of searching and compiling a list of promising diamonds I've found from different vendors, along with their specs and prices, I've identified three that I'm really interested in.

I'm hoping you guys would be willing to give me your impressions of the diamonds -- in particular their IdealScope and ASET images. Right now, I only have the images for one of the three candidates. (I've requested them for the other two and will try to post them as soon as I receive them.) Here are the specs for the first diamond:

Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.19
Cut: Excellent:
Color: J
Clarity: VS2
Measurements: 6.78 mm x 6.83 mm x 4.15 mm
Depth: 61%
Table: 60%
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Medium-Slightly Thick (faceted)
Cutlet: None
Fluoresence: Medium
HCA Score: 2.3 (Very Good on all 4 counts)

I realize the symmetry isn't perfect (which definitely is apparent on the IdealScope and ASET images), but overall, is this a good diamond? I've found it on two different retailers' sites -- one for $4,635, the other for $4,977. It seems like a good value for the price and is within my budget of $5,000.

 

[delight]

I think it looks decent for the pricepoint. If symmetry isn't a big deal for you, (I can see 2 crooked arrows) by all means...

 

[bunnycat]

DSH do you know if it's an actual image or computer generated?

If it's an actual image we're seeing, it looks fine. It's a 60/60 stone, so it may have a slightly different "look" to it than one with slightly different cut parameters and I don't really think IRL you're going to notice the slight flagging on a couple of the arrows. Mostly, that gets lost in overall sparkle.

People see the pretty arrow pics and then wonder why it doesn't look like that when they are looking at their stone, but it's actually a shot you kind of have to set up carefully. If the stone has a good return period on it, or you can get it in to view, it seems like it's at least worth looking at in person (away from special uber-sparkley jewlery store lighting) to see how you like it.

 

[chrono]

I presume it comes with a GIA lab memo? The first one is still pretty if you are not looking for top super duper cut. It is not the usual that many on PS prefer as it is a different flavour.

 

[diamond_concierge]

A J-VS2, over a carat and under 5K is a good deal and this looks like a diamond that will provide a beautiful balance of flash and fire. If you want to get a more thorough understanding of how the ASET and Idealscope images convey variations in symmetry and how those variations impact performance, you are simply going to have to look at more diamonds. Check out websites that offer actual diamond images along with the spectral photography. Many of the variations in symmetry will not have a substantial impact on appearance to an untrained eye.

 

[DSH1313]

bastetcat -- What do you mean by computer-generated vs. actual image? The images are listed on the retailer's site only as the IdealScope and ASET images. (I actually wasn't even aware that there are multiple ways to produce those images.) Also, can you elaborate on what you mean when you say it might have a slightly different "look" as a 60/60 stone?

Chrono -- I've included the GIA report and Hearts and Arrows images at the bottom of the post.

The specs for two other diamonds I'm considering are below. I don't have the IdealScope and ASET images for these yet, but based on this info, for now, what are your guys' thoughts on these vs. the first one I posted?

Diamond #2
--------------
Link to 360 view: http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.16-carat-k-color-vs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-50545
Price: $4,740
Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.16
Cut: Excellent
Color: K
Clarity: VS1
Measurements: 6.68 mm x 6.72 mm x 4.14 mm
Depth: 61.8%
Table: 59.0%
Crown: 34.5°
Pavilion: 40.8°
Girdle: Slightly Thick (faceted)
Cutlet: None
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluoresence: Faint
HCA Score: 1.8 (Excellent on Light Return; Very Good on Fire, Scintillation and Spread)


Diamond #3
--------------
Link to 360 view: http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/1.12-carat-K-color-VVS2-clarity-Excellent-cut-sku-112497
Price: $4,660
Shape: Round
Carat Weight: 1.12
Cut: Excellent
Color: K
Clarity: VVS2
Measurements: 6.71 mm x 6.72 mm x 4.04 mm
Depth: 60.1%
Table: 59.0%
Crown: 34.5°
Pavilion: 40.8°
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Cutlet: None
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluoresence: Medium Blue
HCA Score: 1.6 (Excellent on Light Return and Spread; Very Good on Fire and Scintillation)


Diamond #1 Images
-----------------------

 

[bunnycat]

If you look in this thread all the IS images and ASETs are of the actual stone. I don't have a problem with computer sim images, as they generally don't seem to be too far off, but there's something about the IS image in particular of the stone you are looking at that seems computer generated to me. Do you mind divulging which vendor you are getting this info from?

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/comparing-5-diamonds-aset-and-idealscope-images.191037/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/comparing-5-diamonds-aset-and-idealscope-images.191037/[/URL]

A 60/60 stone is one where table and depth are both around 60 and it can give a slightly different look than a more ideal cut stone. It's not bad, just a different flavor. It will probably be very bright! And generally you get a little more spread for weight in a 60/60 stone.

 

[DSH1313]

The images are from its listing on B2C Jewels. I also found it on Brilliance.com (but for ~$350 more and without the accompanying images).

 

[bunnycat]

I thought that might be the case. I finally found one of John Pollard's computer Idealscope simulations and will post them here so you can see how different it looks. I hope he doesn't mind me using one of his computer models as an example. From what I understand of the computer generated ASET or Idealscope images, I hear they aren't too far off from real life, but if it were me, I'd want an actual for purchasing consideration. I'd also want a simulation labeled as such so people don't confuse actual with computer generated simualtion, but that is just me.

 

[DSH1313]

I requested a copy of the IdealScope image from Brilliance.com as well. The one they sent me is below. I asked specifically whether it is an image of the actual diamond or a computer-generated simulation, and they told me it's of the actual diamond. Does that change your opinion of the diamond at all?

 

[bunnycat]

I requested a copy of the IdealScope image from Brilliance.com as well. The one they sent me is below. I asked specifically whether it is an image of the actual diamond or a computer-generated simulation, and they told me it's of the actual diamond. Does that change your opinion of the diamond at all?

My opinion kind of remains the same. It could be a nice stone. It's probably going to have a little different look than today's more "ideal cut" stones and lean towards white light return. I'm just not entirely convinced that image is not computer generated but I am not an expert. I think it would be a good question to ask the diamond cutters here like John Pollard or WInk who might have ways of telling of it's generated or photo edited. Its just my instinct on it. Or, wait until you get the info from JA, and you will need to make up your own mind on that score.

 

[DSH1313]

I've received a copy of the IdealScope image of the second and third diamonds from James Allen that I mentioned previously. The first image below is for the 1.16-carat, excellent-cut, K, VS1 diamond. The second is for the 1.12-carat, excellent-cut, K, VVS2. Thoughts on these vs. each other and also vs. the original diamond I posted?

 

[Dreamer_D]

All three diamonds are worth further consideration in my opinion.

As you know, the HCA and ideal scope are rejection tools. From what you have posted, I see no reason to reject any of those three stones.

As to selection, there is a trickier way to go. I am a little concerned about the J VS2 because the price seems so much lower that similar comps. Often that means there is some issue with the stone that cannot be determined from the information we have. Or it might be a lucky find that is lower for some other reason -- wholesalers sometimes have a stone they want to move for whatever reason.

The K color stones are a safer bet in terms of cut and overall characteristics.

All that said: how does the intended wearer feel about tint in diamonds? And is there a reason you selected diamonds with such high clarity?

 

[bunnycat]

I've received a copy of the IdealScope image of the second and third diamonds from James Allen that I mentioned previously. The first image below is for the 1.16-carat, excellent-cut, K, VS1 diamond. The second is for the 1.12-carat, excellent-cut, K, VVS2. Thoughts on these vs. each other and also vs. the original diamond I posted?

I like the IS on 112497 best. Can you see how different style-wise the actual IS images look from the super bright not quite real images posted earlier??? The images from the first stone just look "printed" to me. It could be they are real images that have been doctored or not, but I like the numbers best on 112497 anyway as well as the idealscope and it's an idealscope that LOOKS like a real idealscope to me so I honestly can't make a comment on the IS of the first stone you posted, just my .02. The other question you have to ask yourself on those is how you feel about color. It's a very personal choice, no right or wrong. Everyone has their own tolerance levels.

 

[DSH1313]

Thanks for the input! I totally see what you mean about the IS images #2 and #3 looking quite different from #1 in terms of brightness and crispness.

As for clarity, I wasn't necessarily shooting for a stone at VS2 or higher. I just happened to find these three, which seemed to be good deals. For diamonds at SI1 and below I wanted the ability to see an image of the physical stone, so when searching for that clarity level I focused on sites that include photos. I didn't find many, if any, SI1/SI2 stones that looked eye clean and also fit the budget, color, size and cut parameters I'm looking for.

I looked at a few K diamonds in different lighting at physical jewelry stores and honestly couldn't tell much difference between K and even G. I've also read where medium blue fluorescence can help a slightly tinted stone look whiter, so that seems to be a bit of an extra positive for the diamonds #1 and #3.

Finally, I got an actual image of diamond #1 (the J):

 

[Dreamer_D]

The J looks good to me. The IS is fine the image looks good. Ask the vendor about transparency or any other "bad things" that could be affecting price.

All else equal I would recommend going for better color. Once you drop below the color grade of J the grades get wider, so you can have whiter and more tinted Ks. Its a little more of a crap shoot. And I am not sure where you looked at color, but across lighting a K stone will look quite different than a G. I am not pooh poohing a K color stone. But it is safer to stick to J or better color for an engagement ring.