IDEALSCOPE Image. What do you think?

[kewlj]

Please let me know what you think of this 0.75 carat diamond based on the attached IDEALSCOPE Image.

thank you

 

[marchesa6989]

looks ideal to me (haha punny joke!)

 

[kewlj]

looks ideal to me (haha punny joke!)

Hi,

thank you for the comment, what did you mean by punny joke ?

 

[marchesa6989]

oh...just me being silly. since it's called an idealscope...and i said it's ideal. yeah in hindsight not very funny *facepalm*

but in all seriousness that idealscope looks spot on. no light leakage, great patterning on the arrows

 

[kewlj]

oh...just me being silly. since it's called an idealscope...and i said it's ideal. yeah in hindsight not very funny *facepalm*

but in all seriousness that idealscope looks spot on. no light leakage, great patterning on the arrows

I see. thank you for your explanation.
Do you think there's issue with pink colour as according to the reference chart from ideal-scope and goodoldgold website:
- Red colour: good light return,
- Pink or light red: indicative of light return being mixed with leakage.
- White: leakage

is it possible that the overall light return is weak because the colour is pink rather than red ?

thank you again

 

[marchesa6989]

nope..that is the correct color. when they refer to pink they mean in comparison to the red. see the reference tables to see what i mean. that stone should perform beautifully!

 

[yssie]

oh...just me being silly. since it's called an idealscope...and i said it's ideal. yeah in hindsight not very funny *facepalm*

but in all seriousness that idealscope looks spot on. no light leakage, great patterning on the arrows

I see. thank you for your explanation.
Do you think there's issue with pink colour as according to the reference chart from ideal-scope and goodoldgold website:
- Red colour: good light return,
- Pink or light red: indicative of light return being mixed with leakage.
- White: leakage

is it possible that the overall light return is weak because the colour is pink rather than red ?

thank you again

No. Different camera setups, different cameras, different types of light... look for variations of colour - dark/light/white - *within* the same picture.
Nothing odd about this IS at all.

 

[Laila619]

oh...just me being silly. since it's called an idealscope...and i said it's ideal. yeah in hindsight not very funny *facepalm*

but in all seriousness that idealscope looks spot on. no light leakage, great patterning on the arrows

I chuckled.

 

[marchesa6989]

oh...just me being silly. since it's called an idealscope...and i said it's ideal. yeah in hindsight not very funny *facepalm*

but in all seriousness that idealscope looks spot on. no light leakage, great patterning on the arrows

I chuckled.

thanks laila! makes me feel a little less lame

 

[chicam]

Marchesa your joke was spot on and easy to appreciate. My suprise was the OP that did not get it.

To OP, it will be a beautiful stone.

 

[kewlj]

hi Everyone,

thank you for your reply and comments. Much appreciated.

I have another question, how do you perform brilliance, fire, and scintillation test as per below picture?

 

[kewlj]

oh...just me being silly. since it's called an idealscope...and i said it's ideal. yeah in hindsight not very funny *facepalm*

but in all seriousness that idealscope looks spot on. no light leakage, great patterning on the arrows

I chuckled.

thanks laila! makes me feel a little less lame

hi Everyone,

I have put together few idealscope for comparison. Please let me know what you think is the best performer in order of sequence, for example - 3,2,4,1 ....

 

[stargurl78]

looks ideal to me (haha punny joke!)

 

[Deeper13]

The arrow shafts don't line up with the heads in every position except 11 oclock. If you can live with that it looks pretty good for light return.

 

[tyty333]

hi Everyone,

thank you for your reply and comments. Much appreciated.

I have another question, how do you perform brilliance, fire, and scintillation test as per below picture?

Those pictures are taken with different lighting on the diamonds. Whoever has the stone(s) would have to do that
and I only know of one (maybe 2) place(s) that do it...GOG and I think ERD.

 

[tyty333]

on the idealscopes I would sort of lump 2 and 4 together as better looking images
and 1 and 3 together as not as good of images as the other 2. Whether
there is really enough leakage to make a difference I'm not so sure.

Do you have any regular images of the stones you can post? (or links?)

 

[kewlj]

The arrow shafts don't line up with the heads in every position except 11 oclock. If you can live with that it looks pretty good for light return.

Does this misalignment affect the quality of light return?

 

[kewlj]

on the idealscopes I would sort of lump 2 and 4 together as better looking images
and 1 and 3 together as not as good of images as the other 2. Whether
there is really enough leakage to make a difference I'm not so sure.

Do you have any regular images of the stones you can post? (or links?)

IS 1
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VVS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1418757.asp

IS 2
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-IF-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1317073.asp

IS 3
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VVS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1391322.asp

IS 4 attached

 

[slg47]

is there a reason you are going with very high clarity? you could go down to VS1-VS2 and still not see any inclusions and likely get a larger stone. however if you prefer VVS that is fine too

 

[marchesa6989]

may i ask, what is it you're looking for in a stone? ideal/excellent cut will give great performance no doubt and create sparkle and brilliance. but you don't need hearts and arrows to do that (unless you are looking for those specifically). also those are some very high clarity diamonds there - when you're at a size under 2cts unless you have a specific preference, it can be better to go down to VS or SI1 (sometimes even SI2 depending on what type of inclusions there are). the clarity grading is based on a ratio compared to the size of the stone so if you're looking for eye clean (i.e. noone can see it unless looking under a loupe or microscope) then we can find some bigger/cheaper but equally beautiful stones for you.

 

[Rockdiamond]

hi Everyone,

thank you for your reply and comments. Much appreciated.

I have another question, how do you perform brilliance, fire, and scintillation test as per below picture?

Those pictures are taken with different lighting on the diamonds. Whoever has the stone(s) would have to do that
and I only know of one (maybe 2) place(s) that do it...GOG and I think ERD.

The diamonds are placed on a GIA Diamond Dock- although they are lying in between the holes, so pretty much any white piece of plastic with a "trow" will work.
By changing the lighting, you get different effects- this affect the way the camera "sees" the diamonds, and in turn, the way the photo looks.
For example, although it's the same piece of plastic below the diamonds, you can also see that it is a different color in each of the photos.

Since there is no "right" or wrong' way to photograph diamonds, you'll see different results from nearly every site that features photos of diamonds.
The net result is that you can use a given vendor's photos to compare against each other- but not really against other vendors using different methods.

 

[kewlj]

may i ask, what is it you're looking for in a stone? ideal/excellent cut will give great performance no doubt and create sparkle and brilliance. but you don't need hearts and arrows to do that (unless you are looking for those specifically). also those are some very high clarity diamonds there - when you're at a size under 2cts unless you have a specific preference, it can be better to go down to VS or SI1 (sometimes even SI2 depending on what type of inclusions there are). the clarity grading is based on a ratio compared to the size of the stone so if you're looking for eye clean (i.e. noone can see it unless looking under a loupe or microscope) then we can find some bigger/cheaper but equally beautiful stones for you.

I'm looking for a diamond with excellent light return. Does H&A have any effect on light return? or any non H&A may perform better than H&A?

 

[kewlj]

is there a reason you are going with very high clarity? you could go down to VS1-VS2 and still not see any inclusions and likely get a larger stone. however if you prefer VVS that is fine too

VS1 - VS2 is good enough

 

[kewlj]

hi Everyone,

thank you for your reply and comments. Much appreciated.

I have another question, how do you perform brilliance, fire, and scintillation test as per below picture?

Those pictures are taken with different lighting on the diamonds. Whoever has the stone(s) would have to do that
and I only know of one (maybe 2) place(s) that do it...GOG and I think ERD.

The diamonds are placed on a GIA Diamond Dock- although they are lying in between the holes, so pretty much any white piece of plastic with a "trow" will work.
By changing the lighting, you get different effects- this affect the way the camera "sees" the diamonds, and in turn, the way the photo looks.
For example, although it's the same piece of plastic below the diamonds, you can also see that it is a different color in each of the photos.

Since there is no "right" or wrong' way to photograph diamonds, you'll see different results from nearly every site that features photos of diamonds.
The net result is that you can use a given vendor's photos to compare against each other- but not really against other vendors using different methods.

Do you know what light setting they use for each test?

 

[marchesa6989]

hearts and arrows does not equate to light return and performance. it refers to a particular patterning that comes from symmetry in the diamond. it has been branded and marketed as a symbol of true love since the diamond has hearts in it but does NOT affect the performance.

although most H&A are ideal cut and thus WILL perform well, not all diamonds that perform well are H&A.

i ran these through the HCA calculator and they scored under 2:
0.8 H VS2 http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1440106.asp
0.8 H VS2 http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1442306.asp
0.81 G VS1 http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1390714.asp
0.91 H SI1 http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1408021.asp (i couldn't help listing this one as it's bigger and looks eye clean, although it is a little more expensive)

you can ask James Allen to get the idealscope on these and for their gemologist to review them and compare them to each other to see which is best.

i think going up to 0.8 compared to that original 0.71 provides >0.3mm in each direction, which when you think about the area of the diamond compared to finger size will provide a noticeable increase in finger coverage.

 

[chicam]

Can the experts please answer the question above? ie is idealscope image 3and 4 for example superior to say 1 and 3, and why or why not?I have always wondered how an idealscope can show so much leakage as evidenced by the whites around the perimeter and also quite a few inside the stone, and still be judged as idealby AGS and excellent by GIA? Anyone?