Help on analysing Ideal scope images

[Zeally]

Hello everyone.
I managed to get the seller to send me ideal scope images of 4 diamonds here (all triple ex or triple 0:
055:
443: graded by AGS, depth: 62.2 Table 54.3 Crown angle 34.7 Pavillion angle 40.8
055: graded by AGS, depth 60.9 Table 56 Crown angle 33.9 Pavillion angle 40.9
814: graded by AGS, depth: 61.4 Table 54.3 Crown angle 34.1 Pavillion angle 40.7.
096: graded by GIA, depth: 61.3 Table 57.0 Crown angle 35 Pavillion angle 40.6

Could you advice on which diamond(s) are the better choices amongst these?

 

[hippi_pixi]

Someone else will chime in with advice on the number but just from the images i'd say the last one appeals to me most

 

[Niel]

I prefer the last if its eye clean. I only say that because I can see that spot in the middle.

 

[bunnycat]

Without knowing anything else about the stones (like clarity grades), I like the idealscope on the last one best. The numbers on it are fine.

What did the gemologist say about the eyeclean part on these and which stone was their recommendation? They all seem to have some inclusions that are showing up at least a little (or a lot in the case of the third one) on the Idealscope image.

 

[Zeally]

Thanks for all the helpful replies!

443: graded by AGS, depth: 62.2 Table 54.3 Crown angle 34.7 Pavillion angle 40.8 (SI2)
055: graded by AGS, depth 60.9 Table 56 Crown angle 33.9 Pavillion angle 40.9 (SI2)
814: graded by AGS, depth: 61.4 Table 54.3 Crown angle 34.1 Pavillion angle 40.7. (VS2)
096: graded by GIA, depth: 61.3 Table 57.0 Crown angle 35 Pavillion angle 40.6 (SI1)

I have included the clarity grades here. The gemologists comments are that all of them are eye clean, and they actually rank them in the following order from best to worst: 443, 055, 081 then finally 096. However, they did comment that all these are beautiful diamonds with great brilliance and fire. I was a little puzzled as their ranking didn't quite agree with the idealscope images.

 

[Niel]

James Allen has recently made a few recommendations that seem to contradict what the idealscope says. Kind of reminds us that idealscope are just a tool, along with everything else. If youre uncomfortable you can ask for another option.

Can you link the stones?

 

[msop04]

Thanks for all the helpful replies!

443: graded by AGS, depth: 62.2 Table 54.3 Crown angle 34.7 Pavillion angle 40.8 (SI2)
055: graded by AGS, depth 60.9 Table 56 Crown angle 33.9 Pavillion angle 40.9 (SI2)
814: graded by AGS, depth: 61.4 Table 54.3 Crown angle 34.1 Pavillion angle 40.7. (VS2)
096: graded by GIA, depth: 61.3 Table 57.0 Crown angle 35 Pavillion angle 40.6 (SI1)

I have included the clarity grades here. The gemologists comments are that all of them are eye clean, and they actually rank them in the following order from best to worst: 443, 055, 081 then finally 096. However, they did comment that all these are beautiful diamonds with great brilliance and fire. I was a little puzzled as their ranking didn't quite agree with the idealscope images.

Hey Zeally!

Like the other posters, I prefer the last one (814), and since it's listed VS2, it should be eye clean... Can you ask about the inclusion right in the middle of the table and make sure it's eye clean?

 

[bunnycat]

Thanks for all the helpful replies!

443: graded by AGS, depth: 62.2 Table 54.3 Crown angle 34.7 Pavillion angle 40.8 (SI2)
055: graded by AGS, depth 60.9 Table 56 Crown angle 33.9 Pavillion angle 40.9 (SI2)
814: graded by AGS, depth: 61.4 Table 54.3 Crown angle 34.1 Pavillion angle 40.7. (VS2)
096: graded by GIA, depth: 61.3 Table 57.0 Crown angle 35 Pavillion angle 40.6 (SI1)

I have included the clarity grades here. The gemologists comments are that all of them are eye clean, and they actually rank them in the following order from best to worst: 443, 055, 081 then finally 096. However, they did comment that all these are beautiful diamonds with great brilliance and fire. I was a little puzzled as their ranking didn't quite agree with the idealscope images.

Yes- I'm not sure what to tell you on that. I've seen that conflicting information come up multiple times with stones from JA so you aren't the first to experience it. My instinct is still for the VS2, since it is VS2 and I still like the IS best....Can you tell us what the lower girdle facet numbers are on the first stone (443)? (That's what makes the arrows thicker or thinner.)

 

[Zeally]

Thanks Bastetcat
443- 164443
055 - 236055
096 - 238096
814 - 73814

Here are the links to the diamonds:
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.52-carat-g-color-si2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-164443

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.51-carat-g-color-si2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-236055

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.57-carat-j-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-238096

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.55-carat-j-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-73814

Thanks

 

[bunnycat]

Thanks Bastetcat
443- 164443
055 - 236055
096 - 238096
814 - 73814

Here are the links to the diamonds:
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.52-carat-g-color-si2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-164443

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.51-carat-g-color-si2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-236055

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.57-carat-j-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-238096

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.55-carat-j-color-vs2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-73814

Thanks

Ok, this put's a different view on things. Based on the images online, taking the gemologist's review in to account and the IS images themselves, I'd probably go with 055 if I had to.

If I DIDN'T have to, I'd look at something like this for just a couple of hundred more. (I'm not sure how tight your budget is, but am basing it approximately on the price of the J. This one has bigger spread, is a good balance of color and clarity and the numbers and IS images are nice. They could probably pull it and review it for you.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2953053.htm