How do I interpret Mega and Ideal Scope?

[KTM300]

I am looking at a diamond from an online retailer. They have sent the Mega and Ideal scope to me, but I do not know what I am looking for or how to read, specifically in the Ideal scope.

I have both images and can attach them.

The stone has these properites? Are they ideal?

0.927 carat
62.3% depth
63.5% table
29.6 crown angle
9.0% crown height
51.1 Pavil depth
35.9 Pavil angle
2.2% girdle thickness.

Any opinions?

Thanks,
smh

 

[belle]

what shape is this?

please do attach the images.

 

[KTM300]

Jeeze the most important thing I forgot! Radiant!!

 

[belle]

now those numbers make more sense!

let''s see the idealscope image

 

[KTM300]

Ideal scope

 

[KTM300]

Mega Scope

 

[KTM300]

Image

 

[jaz464]

Not in love with the ideal-scope

 

[KTM300]

Explain....I am trying to figure this out.

Thanks,
smh

 

[jaz464]

Well even though radiants will not have the crisp Idealscopes that rounds do, I like to see more dark areas. Too much white around the edges for me (light leakage). Not terrible but I think you can do better.

 

[KTM300]

bump - anyone else?

 

[coda72]

I personally don''t think idealscope images are that useful for radiants because most radiants don''t look good under an idealscope. Pictures of the actual stone are much more useful, and from the picture you posted it looks like it''s a pretty nice stone. The only thing that concerns me is the crown height only being 9%. That makes the crown height a 2B on the AGA chart, and drops the stone down to a maximum of 1B. That''s not so bad as there aren''t that many 1A and 1B radiants out there, but it would be better if the crown height were just a bit higher.

One other thing is that this stone will appear rectangular and I thought you wanted a square stone. I myself prefer square radiants. If you want a stone that will appear more square you should keep the length to width ratio under 1.10. Mine has a 1.07 l to w ratio, and it still appears square.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

the ideal-scope looks pretty good to me for a radiant - but I prefer to look at the stone and rock it from side to side with the ideal-scope for most fancy shapes.

I do not see anything to wrong with it.

 

[KTM300]

Thanks, I''m gonna keep looking, but will still consider this one.


smh

 

[coda72]

Here''s one more stone to help you out.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=517986&aff_id=ps621

I don''t know how low in color you''re willing to go, but this one could be a winner if you''re willing to buy an H. The table is less than the depth which means there''s a good chance the crown height is over 10%. This one will appear very square with a length to width ratio of 1.02. It could be eyeclean; you''d have to have the vendor call this one in and check it out.

I hope this helps.

 

[KTM300]

Thank you for the suggestion, that is definatly worth checking out. Should I be get hung up on the Good rating for polish and sym?

Thanks,
smh

 

[jaz464]

I prefer VG or higher polish/symmetry but really that's most likely all in my head. I doubt I could ever really tell the difference, unless we were discussing rounds, which I think are easier to spot symmetry problems. I wouldn't let that stop you from checking it out.

 

[KTM300]

That''s what I was thinking, but I guess the reality unless it is looked at under a microscope everyday, I guess it does not really matter as long as it performs well, which I don''t know how to judge, so I''ll have to trust an expert. It still seems to fall under the 1A or 1B category.

smh

 

[KTM300]

Oh and when it comes down to color, will an H apprear colorless when mounted and not next to a D?

 

[jaz464]

Will you be setting it in WG or platinum? If so, and it is a great cut, it should indeed face up very white.

 

[KTM300]

Ultimatly platinum, bjut might be in WG at fist then pick out a setting together. The setting is the hardest part for me. So many to choose from!!!!!!!!

smh

 

[coda72]

According to most experts on this forum, most people not in the jewelry business cannot tell the difference between good and very good and excellent polish and symmetry. The only reason you would have to be worried is if it''s fair or poor. My radiant has good polish and symmetry and looks fine.

 

[KTM300]

That stone is out for review elsewhere. However I found this one.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?item=518008&cid=56


What do you think?

 

[coda72]

That stone looks like it could be a good possibility. Have James Allen call it in and check it out for you. If the other stone turns out not to be sold, you could have them call that one in for you too.

 

[Lorelei]

I agree with Coda, good polish and symmetry and above will apparently look the same to the untrained eye.

 

[KTM300]

Thank you for helping me so much. The funny thing is, I was looking at stones I had saved on my wish list a few weeks back and compared them to what I am looking at now, and WOW!!!!!!! I could have made a huge mistake, they were priced low for a reason.

I have about 4 stones I think are good candidates. I am really worried about SI1, I don't want my gf to be able to see an inclusion, with the naked eye. I made that mistake with a pair of earrings once. Also I noticed that Extremely Think Girdle falls into the 4A-4B category, is this a concern?

Here are the finalists

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?item=517986&cid=131

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?item=518008&cid=131

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?item=524036&cid=56http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?item=518008&cid=131

https://www.whiteflash.com/radiant/Radiant-cut-diamond-2037241.htm ????Maybe


Thansk,
smh

 

[Lorelei]

I know what you mean, once you get going you realize there is so much to learn and how easy it is just to buy a diamond because it is a carat, or it''s a VS1 or a D etc, thinking that is sufficient for a fab stone

The only thing I can add is that with an SI1, especially in a fancy shape CAN show inclusions more easily than rounds, however this isn''t always the case. Let your vendor know your definition of eyeclean is that you don''t want to see any inclusions - does this apply for you only face up? That is how clarity grading is done, a clean face up appearance might possibly have a small visible inclusion through the pavillion, so know exactly what is acceptable to you. With the SI1 diamond, get the vendor to have a good look at it for you, they are honest and will let you know if it fits your idea of eyeclean or not, so don''t rule this one out yet, it might be a Bobby Dazzler!

However I don''t mind a small visible inclusion as long as it isn''t easy to see, it is a handy birthmark which means I always can identify my diamond. Opinions differ however so get what is the best fit for you and your GF! You are doing a great job BTW!

 

[coda72]

The stones you picked out look like good possibilites, but with radiants it''s hard to judge them by numbers. You can use numbers to rule out certain ones, but once you''ve narrowed them down by the numbers you have to have them checked out by the vendor and/or an appraiser. Also, it looks like your second and third link point to the same stone.

As far as an SI1 goes, as always you will have to have the vendor check to see if it''s eyeclean. I know radiants actually tend to hide inclusions better than other fancy shapes because of their cracked glass nature. I have looked at a few radiants in jewelry stores that were gorgeous SI2''s. You could barely see the inclusions even under a loupe. So, I doubt if you have to worry about getting an SI1, but check with the vendor to make sure.

Also, here''s a few more stones that look like good possiblities just in case all of the ones you picked out are sold.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=524035&aff_id=ps621

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=172498&aff_id=ps621

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=524036&aff_id=ps621

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=545149&aff_id=ps621

 

[KTM300]

How about this one?

I have the megascope, but cannot seem to attach it.

Report: GIA
Shape: Radiant
Carat: 1.00
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 61.6
Table: 68
Girdle: VTN-TK
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 5.96-5.58X3.44
Length/Width: 1.07


Thanks,
smh

 

[KTM300]

Megascope