shape
carat
color
clarity

IdealScope Images - Opinion Needed!

danny_italia

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
75
Hi Everyone,

So i'm in the middle of looking for the perfect diamond for my girlfriend's engagement ring. I requested idealscope images on 3 diamonds from the JamesAllen Site.

Below are the diamonds, email I received and the actual images.

PLEASE NOTE: These diamonds were selected prior to me knowing about the Holloway Cut Advisor.

Your input/opinion would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

Diamond #1 : 1512270
Carat weight: 1.00
Cut: Very Good
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
HCA Score: 3.2
Light Return: Very Good
Fire: Very Good
Scintillation: Good
Spread: Good

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-VS2-Very-Good-Cut-Round-Diamond-1512270.asp
1512270.jpg
*************************************************

Diamond #2 : 1512266
Carat weight: 1.01
Cut: Very Good (on the GIA certificate though it has a cut grade of "Good")
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
HCA Score: 2.0
Light Return: Excellent
Fire: Excellent
Scintillation: Very Good
Spread: Good

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-VS2-Very-Good-Cut-Round-Diamond-1512266.asp
1512266.jpg
*************************************************

Diamond #3 : 1516370
Carat weight: 1.01
Cut: Excellent
Color: H
Clarity: SI1
HCA Score: 1.8
Light Return: Excellent
Fire: Excellent
Scintillation: Very Good
Spread: Very Good

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1516370.asp
1516370.jpg
*************************************************
EMAIL

My name is ### and I work closely with the gemologist over at JamesAllen.com. I just wanted to take this moment to reach out to you with the Idealscope images of the round brilliant diamonds (diamond #’s: 1512270, 1512266 and 1516370). I have attached the image to the e-mail and I am sure that you will be very excited to see it. With Idealscope images you want to see a lot of red/pink in the diamond (this represents direct light return) with little black color (the black is obstructed light) and very little if not any white (which represents light leakage) in the picture. I think that you will agree with me when I say that these images look absolutely gorgeous and are exactly what you want to see in an idealscope image.

Also, with a big important purchase such as this, I took the liberty of having a gemologist look at the diamonds for you and give us some feedback. I am glad to give you the great feedback that the gemologist gave us, as they absolutely LOVED the diamonds! She said that the 1.0 carat-H-VS2 (diamond #: 1512270) was the number one diamond due to it performing the best. It had great light performance and face’s up completely “eye clean”. The 1.01 carat-H-VS2 (diamond #: 1512266) was a close second because it’s light performance was just a hair below diamond 1512270. This diamond will face up completely “eye clean” as well. The 1.01 carat-H-SI1 (diamond #: 1516370) was not recommended due to it having weak light performance and the clouds on the diamond are causing it to appear hazy.
 
I feel a bit uneasy just because he's recommending a diamond with such a deep cut and a lower HCA rating.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.
 
Number two: very high crown, small table, and arrows on the skinny side. Great example of a FIC. Will be a fireball in low lighting. But the spread gets a hit, it will look more like a .95 ct (which I think is very acceptable.)

Number 3 is not recommended.
 
Ok, I'll take a stab at this for you. Your right, the diamond that they are recommending does appear to have some slight leakage under the table although this isn't always visible to human eye. We view things in stereo vision, with two eyes, where as the IS is viewing it with only one. I personally love a high crown small table, these particular proportions tend to produce more fire in more lighting environments than diamonds with larger tables and shallower crown. In this case it could be the GG tends to prefer this flavor of LP as well. I did see where she noted that the second stone was a very close runner up. This particular stone will likely show a balance of white and colored light and be a more traditional ideal cut, again a different flavor. Another thing to consider is that GIA rounds the numbers on their report which can drastically change the output on the HCA, and how the stone will appear.

I can completely understand and appreciate your confusion. I think in this case you really need to consider which type of light performance is more appealing to you. Are you in a position to order both stones and view them side by side? If not I think that I would order the stone that they are recommending since it's difficult to find another stone with these proportions and then take it to a local jeweler who sells GIA or AGS ideal and excellent diamonds and compare it to a few of the more traditional TIC cuts. This will help you determine what your preference is. :))

edit: I have to tell you, I recently went outside of GIA EX to find a stone exactly like the one that JA is recommending to you, specifically because I wanted a stone with lots and lots of fire. I too had to give up a bit of spread to achieve it but to me, it was worth it. I even went down to a J color to get this particular cut. I'm not disappointed! =)
 
JulieN|1345746551|3256037 said:
Number two: very high crown, small table, and arrows on the skinny side. Great example of a FIC. Will be a fireball in low lighting. But the spread gets a hit, it will look more like a .95 ct (which I think is very acceptable.)

Number 3 is not recommended.

I'm still quite new to all of this... A quick search turns up that FIC stands for Firey Ideal Cut.. is that a good thing??

What is your opinion on the other 2?
 
FIC will produce more colored light than white light in most lighting environments.

TIC will produce a balance of both white and colored light.

BIC will produce more white light than colored light.


I LOVE colored light, to me that it what make a diamond beautiful, others prefer to see a balance of white and colored and still others want a lot of white light. So it's really a preference sort of thing. Traditional ideal cuts are TICs and produce a balance, like the second stone listed. The third stone should not be a consideration since the GG confirmed that the clouds are affecting the stones LP. It has a nice cut but unfortunately the inclusions are causing it to have poor light performance. So, your real decision is as to which flavor YOU prefer, so you want to see predominately colored light return or a balance of both white and colored light? If you like color then the stone that JA recommended would be the way to go, or you want a balance then the second stone is a winner.

edit
 
I'm still so confused.. I guess that's the issue with shopping online and not being able to see the diamonds in person. Also, being quite new at this obviously doesnt help!

Here are my questions concerns:

Diamond #1:
- Deep Diamond - 64.4
- Not under 2.0 HCA Values

Diamond #2:
- Deep Diamond - 64.4
- Decent HCA score - not so great spread
- Everyone talks about how important CUT is yet this has not so great of a cut. JA states Very Good but on the GIA report it states "Good"

Diamond #3:
- This is where I'm really confused. Number wise this one seemed like it would get the best rating since it has the best HCA score and the depth was closer to 62.
 
Firey Ideal Cut needs to have a crown angle (CA) of at least 36 degrees, and otherwise complimentary proportions. #2 and #3 both have CA of 37.5. They will throw off a lot of fire in low lighting environments. In overhead fluorescent lighting environments, they will look a bit less bright than a stone with a lower CA, but most diamonds are somewhat boring in this environment anyway.

Jon at Good Old Gold makes videos that always show diamonds in different (if not entirely realistic) lighting environments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtASEx9Whpg&feature=player_detailpage#t=22s

Number 1 is out, they said the clouds made it look hazy.
 
JulieN|1345747811|3256047 said:
Number 1 is out, they said the clouds made it look hazy.

Sorry you may have read my first post to early... I had them all labelled as number 1.

It was actually number 3 that they said appeared to look hazy.
 
The HCA is only used as a weeding tool, it helped you determine that these were the three stones you wanted to get more information about. You can forget about the HCA scores now because you have both IS images and a GG evaluation to give you a better perspective of how the stones are performing. The third stone scored well, and probably would have been a contender if the inclusions (clouds) hadn't been interfering with it's light performance. Since this is the case you would want to scratch it off your list. The second stone has a nice IS despite it's depth, so this shows that all the angles are working together to produce nice performance. We do usually suggest that people don't go above a depth of 62.3 because the stone faces up smaller because of hidden weight, and this should be a consideration for you as well. The first stone that they recommended has an IS image that conflicts a bit with the GG report, it appears to have slight leakage under the table, however since you had a GG view the stone for you and confirm that it isn't visible to the human eye, the GGs report trumps the IS image. It's still a bit deep, and because of the higher table it will face up smaller as well, so it too should be considered. Regardless of the third stone having a good HCA and a good IS, the GG reported that the inclusions interfere with performance and her assessment trumps all...well besides your eyes, your eyes will be the final judge.

so in order of importance
1 HCA
2idealscope
3 Gemologist evaluation
4 your assessment

each one trumps the one before it.

BIG EDIT:
My bad, I thought I was viewing stone #2, but in fact I was viewing another stone I had in my tab bar. Julie is correct, both #1 and #2 are FICs and will produce more colored light, none of your choices was a TIC, that's my fault sorry to confuse you. I will now say though that #1 of these three has my vote, the second stones PA is quite shallow and I think that it may cause obstruction issues when viewed from closer distances. So of the three you have selected I would agree with the GG.
 
danny_italia|1345747723|3256046 said:
I'm still so confused.. I guess that's the issue with shopping online and not being able to see the diamonds in person. Also, being quite new at this obviously doesnt help!

Here are my questions concerns:

Diamond #1:
- Deep Diamond - 64.4
Depth doesn't affect beauty
- Not under 2.0 HCA Values
Complimentary angles does. The Ideal Scope shows some slight/moderate leakage, it is not a trainwreck, but not my first choice with number 2 around. What's the price difference between the two?

Diamond #2:
- Deep Diamond - 64.4
- Decent HCA score - not so great spread
A diamond with more area will cost you more. You are getting an appropriate discount that takes the spread into account. A "standard" 6.45 mm 1 ct diamond with ideal cut will cost you 500-$1000 more.
- Everyone talks about how important CUT is yet this has not so great of a cut. JA states Very Good but on the GIA report it states "Good"
The GIA system dings it for its proportions. I like this one most of the three. #1 is not cut as well as #2, but it gets a GIA Very Good, because GIA will ding if the Pavilion Angle is less than 40.5, which is why #2 got a Good grade. But as you can see from the Ideal Scope, the higher crown angle needs a lower pavilion angle to complement it.

Diamond #3:
- This is where I'm really confused. Number wise this one seemed like it would get the best rating since it has the best HCA score and the depth was closer to 62.
Hazy
 
Julie: will number two have obstruction issues with the 40.2 angle? I know it's difficult because GIA rounds and it really depends a lot on which way the numbers went.


Danny: I know number three looks like a winner and it has almost the exact same proportions as my stone, it's disappointing that the clouds are affecting it's brilliance or I think it would have been a real winner.

If your concerned about the other two options we can make some recommendations for you.
 
Christina...|1345748393|3256051 said:
BIG EDIT:
My bad, I thought I was viewing stone #2, but in fact I was viewing another stone I had in my tab bar. Julie is correct, both #1 and #2 are FICs and will produce more colored light, none of your choices was a TIC, that's my fault sorry to confuse you. I will now say though that #1 of these three has my vote, the second stones PA is quite shallow and I think that it may cause obstruction issues when viewed from closer distances. So of the three you have selected I would agree with the GG.

Ideal Scope color map:
Red/pink=light return
White=leakage
Black=obstruction

#1 IS shows more black than #2 (arrows are fatter.)

That is why I said the skinny arrows are a good thing in this case, less obstruction.

Yes, shallow angles can cause obstruction issues. Here is what that looks like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtASEx9Whpg&feature=player_detailpage#t=22s In a round, in an ASET or IS, the arrow "points" will become paddle shaped.
 
I'm not sure if people do this at all, but I was thinking of posting some of my preferences and my budget and see what others can come up with. I'm new to the forum and was curious if this was acceptable?

The 3 I have selected dont necessarily mean i will be choosing one of those 3. I had selected those 3 prior to learning about HCA and as you can see.. The first stone has an HCA value of great then 2.0.

I was actually wondering, since diamond #1 has a HCA rating of 3.2, shouldn't it be crossed off the list?
 
We need your budget and your thoughts on carat weight, color, and clarity.
 
Thanks Julie! :wavey:

You can definitely post stones you want to consider and have others make recommendations for you. I think that the process would be easier for you if you only considered GIA and AGS ideal cut stones. They will have more optimal proportions and therefore better light performance typically. That doesn't mean that you can't find a beautiful stone in the VG range, it just means that you will have to look a lot harder and will want more guidance. Basically we recommend creating a short list of potential candidates by using the HCA as a weeding tool and crossing off stones that score over 2, however many feel that under 3 is worth consideration and investigating further. Once you find a few stones that score well, you can post them here and people will be happy to comment and make other suggestions within your budget.

I know this can be super overwhelming so I'm happy that you found PS. I'm sure that you will be a pro in no time! =)
 
You guys are all so helpful, something that's not always the case on other forums!
 
Here were the pricescope prices of the 3 diamonds:

Diamond #1: 1512270
$5150.00

Diamond #2: 1512266
$5200.00

Diamond #3: 1516370
$5230.00
 
Just wondering if anyone could comment based on diamond specs, images, performace and the price?

Is #1 still worth pursuing, or should I continue to look?
 
I really liked the options that Julie posted for you in the other thread, and it appears that you liked two of them as well? I think your best bet would be to ask JA to compare your first stone to two from Julies list that you liked and offer their opinions based on those three. The prices are all reasonable.

edit: Also you should compare the mm size of the stone instead of comparing ct weight. Because of the high crown and depth of your first choice it is facing up smaller than the .94 that Julie suggested. SO keep that in mind as well. :))
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top