Idealscope Image and opinions please

[MikeC]

I am pretty sure this is the diamond I am going to buy and wanted to hear any opinions you guys might have on it and an Idealsope image if possible. Thanks, Mike

1.01 ct
6.42 x 6.38 x 4 mm
Depth: 62.5%
Table 55%
Crown: 34.9 degrees
Pavillion: 40.8 degrees
Girdle: medium to slightly thich
Culet: None
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Clarity Grade: VS1
Color: F
Fluorescence: None

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hi Mike. Very nice looking stone. An AGS 0, or AGA 1B ideal make, the DiamCalc software produces the following POSSIBLE profile on the stone, along with a POSSIBLE simulated IdealScope image:

Light Return (mono)…...: 1.00 Very Good
Light Return (stereo)…..: 0.98 Very Good
(Non) Leakage (mono)..: 0.96 Very Good
(Non) Leakage (stereo).: 0.94 Very Good to Good
Contrast............................: 0.97 Very Good
(Non) FishEye Effect…...: 1.00 Very Good

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated. The computer generates an image with “perfect” symmetry, which is rare. Also, the star/lower girdle facet lengths may be different from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or Sarin info is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in considering the major light performance aspects..
-----------

 

[MikeC]

Thanks for the image. Any other opinions? Is this a good diamond for $5900, or could I get a better ideal cut stone for this price that leaks less light? Thanks again, Mike

 

[Rhino]

Here are 2 other possiblities. White/light areas indicate leakage. Here is a diamond whose average crown/pavilion angles are 34.9/40.8 degrees also. http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_25ct_f_si1_h&a.htm The minor facets and also the 3 dimensional symmetry of the diamond will play a major role in it's appearance as well so do not assume that the diamond you are inquiring about has the symmetry or minor facet arrangement as this does.

The difference between the 2 examples below is minor facet arrangement. Where your's falls would require a minor facet report for better accuracy.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Look what happens when we have a more symmetrical stone and ALSO when we trim those crown angles to at or below 34.5 degrees. Look under the table now.

 

[barry]

62.5% depth is a little deep.

You can get a much tighter cut stone
that will max out on light output with
minimal light leakage.

Barry
www.superbcert.com

 

[Rhino]

True true. Which reminds me on that last image I decreased the total depth to around 61%.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[barry]

Sweet range on depth %:
60.5 - 61.8
In conjunction with crown angles:
34.3 - 34.7

For starters,ask your jeweller to get you a detailed
MegaScope/Sarin report that will show
the cut parameters for all Crown and
Pavillion facets indicating how tightly
the stone has been cut.

Barry
www.superbcert.com

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Jonathon and Barry you are both behaving in what seems to me to be an inappropriate manner.

You are bagging this diamond when you both stock diamonds of lessor proportions.

The minor facets on your diamonds are not all as they should be Jonathon, you have stones with cheated girdles that have steeper upper girdles than they should.

Barry this stone has your brand attached http://www.superbcert.com/products/index.cfm?Product_ID=237&Product_Subcategory_ID=3&Product_Category_ID=3&Product_Group_ID=1

If I am wrong then say so. If not then do not throw stones at glass houses and talk consumers out of competitors stones.

 

[barry]

Garry;

You are dead wrong; on several counts.

First, the diamond on our SuperbCert website that you refer to is NOT a SuperbCert branded diamond but a Premium make and is clearly listed as such.
(Stock # 1087, 1.53 ct, J/ SI-1).
Premium makes are beautiful diamonds but below the
standard of SuperbCert.

Second, I am not talking Mike out of buying
this stone but directly answering his solicitation
of opinions regarding the diamonds cut and his concern over some light leakage shown by this diamond.

Third, if you are really intent on enforcing the rules,
turn your attention to one vendor who constantly
posts links to his site in the guise of "education"
and a second vendor who posts pictures of their rings
and diamonds.


Barry
www.superbcert.com

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Quote from Superbcert website "This J Color SI1 clarity SuperbCertTM Round diamond comes accompanied by a GIA grading report.

SuperbCertTM is the only online Diamond Company providing you with detailed qualitative and quantitative analyses, demonstrating SuperbCertTM to be the most precision and consistently cut diamond in the world." end quote.

It is only in the small box in the upper corner that you mention "premium"
Product: 1087

VertCert: 274908
Price: $6,502.50
Cut: Premium
Color: J
Clarity: SI1
Carat Weight: 1.53

On the list page it is quoted as
"1087
This 1.53-Carat, J Color SI1 clarity SuperbCertTM Round diamond comes accompanied by a GIA grading report.
Price: $6,502.50"

Some time ago HCA was not accurate on your site, so you pulled it down. You never made it clear the reason was that you had entered wrong data.
It seems to me this stone is rather misleading, as you have developed a brand and a not so careful buyer might not have a clue to read the fine print and find the word premium in one place when they see Superbcert(tm) in 4.

Finally you say you were helping the cliennt by warning him about leakage, but you did not bother to answer his price question - since your comparable stones are more than 1K more.

Now I am not going to waste anymore of my time on this with you

 

[Rank Amateur]

Garry - Have the wife get a set of needlenose piers and pull that burr out of your butt.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Gary,

I was just responding to Mike's request in his initial post. "I am pretty sure this is the diamond I am going to buy and wanted to hear any opinions you guys might have on it and an Idealsope image if possible. Thanks, Mike"

That's all I was doing and giving a response to my interpretation of the images being that I work with these technologies on a daily basis.

In response to "The minor facets on your diamonds are not all as they should be Jonathon, you have stones with cheated girdles that have steeper upper girdles than they should."

Of the plethora of diamonds featured on our website how many have these "cheated upper girdles"? I ran into "1" in the past year which I used to help you and Sergey in your studies of the upper girdle facets and now you're going to blast me for that "one" diamond which is no longer in our inventory?

I'm not bagging the diamond inquired from Mike, but I'm not going to give him a dishonest assessment either. In the end I would suggest a professional 2nd opinion since the comments offered by myself and Rich are only "speculation" and are "possibilities" as we clearly state so in our response. Our specualations are by no means conclusive since we do not see the diamond or have it to appraise.

Barry ... "turn your attention to one vendor who constantly
posts links to his site in the guise of "education".

Don't be ridiculous. It's funny how in the past if I would post a link to superbcerts we used to purchase there was no problem but now you complain WHEN THE FACT REMAINS THAT MY LINKS ARE RELEVANT TO THE ANSWERS PEOPLE ARE SEEKING? Case in point this thread. Mike is inquiring about a diamond with 34.9 degree crown angles with 40.8 pavilion angles. My link is not a baseless advertisement to an irrelevant diamond. My link is precisely to a diamond with the EXACT angles that Mike is inquiring about and I'm only stating that this is a possibility. My link is in fact educational to the subject matter but you being a seller see it through colored glasses. My intent in all my answers, posts and links are that of helping people through both simulated and real life examples that pertain TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. You will never find one post here where I baselessly make advertisements to my product.

Rhino

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I think I'll just slip in here for a moment between these heavy artillery rounds being lobbed back & forth-

-----------
Is this a good diamond for $5900, or could I get a better ideal cut stone for this price that leaks
less light?
-----------

$5900 for this diamond is an excellent price, Mike.

I think you would probably have to pay a little more for an "ideal cut stone that leaks less light". Usually you have to pay for what you get. Maybe not though. You might get lucky.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

OK Rhino, but please realise that as a vendor you must not be on just good behaviour and fair, you must always be on exceptional behaviour and be more than fair.
The stone scores 1.6 on HCA but is being penalised by .3 for the slightly thick girdle. Lots of us sell diamonds with leakage that comes in stones that comes in at 1.3.

We know nothing more about this stones symetry - neither vendors told Mike to get it apraised; I view that as you guys not wanting to suggest he buys it - which would be my advice, unless he has bought the emotional H&A's story.

Now if I have over reacted it is because of not just this thread, but that this thread displayed symptoms that have egun to show their head again. Call it a 'burr in butt' behaviour if you like, but we will not let vendors post here unless they help people.

 

[Rhino]

Thanks for clearing that up Gary. Helping people is what it's all about. Please understand that when I am responding on this forum it is done with the purest intentions and in the spirit of helping and for better understanding. I was trying to find yet another example with different optical results to show another example of what those angles could possibly produce and found this one (crown 35/pavilion 40.9) http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_253ct_j_si1__h&a.htm which proves it is indeed very possible the stone has excellent light return. Best advice is to always have it double checked. Rich Sherwood is one pro I would not hesitate to recommend if you really want to know the details Mike.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Gary,

I would like to know your thoughts on the 2 examples given in this thread. The 1.25ct F SI1 has 34.9/40.8 angles and has more leakage the 1.25ct J SI1 has 35/40.9 degree angles and has less leakage. This is clearly seen in both LightScope images and B'scope results.

What's your theory as to "why"? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

I believe it is due to one of 2 factors or perhaps both. The lower girdle facet length on both are clearly different. I can post DiaVision files if necessary.

Either ...

a. lower girdle facet length or
b. lower girdle facet twist or
c. both

Look forward to your response.

Peace,
Jonathan