Image / IdealScope / ASET Help

[emmebee]

Hi all! How do the below real image, IdealScope, and ASET look?? I've seen varying IS/ASETs by vendor, so it is hard for me to decipher these ones versus some of the clearer/brighter ones I've seen. Any help in evaluating would be much appreciated!

 

[c-k]

Not the best pictures, seem ok... got the lab report?

 

[Gypsy]

IS is all that matters and it looks fine. You don't need ASET for rounds.

 

[emmebee]

Thanks! Any other opinions?

 

[emmebee]

Gypsy, I'm so sorry, I just re-read my latest post and realized I came off like I didn't appreciate your opinion. I complete apologize for sounding that way! I very much respect your opinion, so thank you very much for taking the time to check it out. Can you please explain why I don't need an ASET for a round? I realize ASETs are best for fancy shapes, but I've also read that they help consumers more easily in some situations to figure out the best light return (with light straight-on =red being the strongest/brightest light).

I know the ASET image I posted is very hard to see, but in my mind it almost looks mostly greenish-black, which worries me. Do you see the same? And therefore, should I avoid this stone?

Thanks so much for your help!

 

[JulieN]

Do you have the lab report/proportion numbers?

 

[04diamond<3]

Asets are used for fancy cut stones (anything but a round) the ideal scope image is used for rounds. The ideal scope image looks good, I'm just not a fan of the first picture...maybe it's a lighting thing..it looks a tad milky. Have you seen this in person? Do they have a good return policy?

 

[spicyitalian]

The ASET image looks good.

 

[emmebee]

Thanks, all. I do have the report, but even though the vendor said it was "on hold", it doesn't look like it on the site, so I'm weary of sharing the report #.

I ran the numbers through the HCA though, and it came out to < 1.0. The depth is between 60.5-61% and the table is between 57-58%.

I haven't seen the stone in person; I'm planning to do all the buying online per everyone's suggestions here. Then I'd want to have it directly sent to VC for his custom settings.

 

[yssie]

Thanks, all. I do have the report, but even though the vendor said it was "on hold", it doesn't look like it on the site, so I'm weary of sharing the report #.

I ran the numbers through the HCA though, and it came out to < 1.0. The depth is between 60.5-61% and the table is between 57-58%.

I haven't seen the stone in person; I'm planning to do all the buying online per everyone's suggestions here. Then I'd want to have it directly sent to VC for his custom settings.

Pics are fine, and we can guess c/p/etc from those pics (based on table size and table reflection) and nothing jumps out at me to flag.
1. How old is the report? Who issued the report?
2. What's the clarity grade?
3. Anything written in the "comments" section?

 

[emmebee]

Pics are fine, and we can guess c/p/etc from those pics (based on table size and table reflection) and nothing jumps out at me to flag.
1. How old is the report? Who issued the report?
2. What's the clarity grade?
3. Anything written in the "comments" section?

1. 2013 from GIA
2. Clarity is SI1
3. The comments say that additional clouds and pinpoints are not shown.

 

[yssie]

Pics are fine, and we can guess c/p/etc from those pics (based on table size and table reflection) and nothing jumps out at me to flag.
1. How old is the report? Who issued the report?
2. What's the clarity grade?
3. Anything written in the "comments" section?

1. 2013 from GIA
2. Clarity is SI1
3. The comments say that additional clouds and pinpoints are not shown.

How big is the stone? Round to the nearest 0.5ct if you don't want to reveal the exact weight... and what is the grade-making inclusion? (What inclusion is listed first on the report)? Wisps/feathers?

 

[emmebee]

The stone is around 3.2ct.

Here are the reference diagrams from the report:

 

[WinkHPD]

To my eye the picture of the diamond lacks clarity and seems almost fuzzy. I do not know if this is from a poor picture or if the cloud in the stone is causing this lack of focus. There appears to be some paddling of the arrow heads in the picture of the diamond and to a lesser degree in both the IdealScope and the ASET images. This may be caused by the camera being too close to the diamond and causing extra obscuration, or it could in fact be that the diamond is cut in such a manner that it does indeed have excessive obscuration.

I would recommend NOT having the diamond sent directly to VC until you have seen it for yourself to see if you like it in real life. It might be an incredible diamond, but if it is as fuzzy in real life as it is in this photo you may end up not liking it much. If it costs you a little extra in postage and insurance it will be worth it for the peace of mind that seeing the diamond will bring.

Wink

 

[emmebee]

Thank you, Wink. By "paddling" do you mean less sharp edges of the arrows? Or do you mean the haziness of the one arrow, and the general fuzziness under the table?

What do you think of this one?
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/3.52-carat-j-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-184984

 

[WinkHPD]

Thank you, Wink. By "paddling" do you mean less sharp edges of the arrows? Or do you mean the haziness of the one arrow, and the general fuzziness under the table?

What do you think of this one?
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/3.52-carat-j-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-184984

Here is what I mean about paddling. The four circled arrow heads look much more like paddle blades, or in this case drill bits, than arrow heads.



You can see some of the same thing in both the IS and the ASET photos.

I think this may just be bad photography, but there is no way I would buy this diamond without the ability to see and return if I do not like.

Wink

P.S. You ask me to comment on the JA stone, but once a diamond is identified to a given dealer we tradespeople are not allowed to comment. I think this is a good policy as it prevents us from potentially bad mouthing a competitor's diamond.

 

[emmebee]

I completely understand your point about the "paddling" now, thank you so much for pointing that out!

Ah, I did not see that, I think that rule makes sense - thank you.

 

[Tekate]

Mr. Wink: thank you so much for your comments.. I am amazed at how much I learn every day here!

 

[WinkHPD]

Mr. Wink: thank you so much for your comments.. I am amazed at how much I learn every day here!

You are so welcome.

Since John Pollard has so much experience taking these difficult pictures I am going to ask him to comment on the images and what they are or are not telling us. I am hoping that he can make time during this hectic time of the year to illuminate this issue even more.

Wink