Image-Scope question

[drdeano]

Edit: Woops.. it's called an IDEAL-SCOPE..My bad

My Ideal-scope arrived on my doorstep yesterday, and I had time to play with it for a little while last night.

A few questions for those in-the-know: (I HAVE read the imagescope webpages)

I'm trying to view mounted stones. They're mounted in a truffle setting and there seems to be enough light able to enter from behind.

How do I know if there is enough light able to enter the back of the stone?

Will viewing a mounted stone give skewed results? Will it block leakage points?

I'm basically looking for white light entering from behind as leakage correct?

How do I know what angle to hold the stone? Some angles show ZERO leakage, some angles show tiny leakage near the girdle.

I'm looking for the areas of light pink that indicate partial leakage... I can't discern between shades of pink.. it's uniform. Would partial leakage "jump out" at me? or is it extremely subtle. Would my backlighting affect this?

If anyone with experience could help with this, it would be most appreciated.

-I wish I would have purchased this tool back when I was looking at stones. To those in the market, I HIGHLY recommend it. IMO $25 pales in comparison to the peace of mind knowing you're getting a good stone. Cheers!

DrD

 

[cmcwill]

drdeano, I just ordered one too. How long did it take to get to you after you got your comfirmation email. To clarify, I bought the Ideal-Scope...is this the same thing as an Image-scope?

Colleen

 

[drdeano]

It's the same.. I'm just dumb and called it the wrong thing.. LOL

I got mine about 2 days after the email. VERY fast. It came from PA, and I live pretty close to there.

Cheers

DrD

 

[valeria101]

Hm... did you see the online tutorial at preciousmetals.com.au and (esp) GoodOldGold? Some of the questions are addressed at length...

Also, 'light lickeage" is not light entering from behind but leaving through the stone from front to back. All the Iscope discussion is about what the stone looks like through the tool when the table is perfectly aligned with the scope: tilting the diamond produces "lickeage" in any diamond, regardless of cut quality - it is suposed to.

There is some intuitive relation between the intensity of "reds" in the Iscope image and the visual effect of light return: so a bit of pink or a few spots of white in the Iscope would not result in some aestetic DISASTER

.

Personally, I found it very handy to look at Iscope images given for diamonds listed online with other tests & comments on light return and cut quality available. For example, on the GoodOldGold site there should be a few dozens of such stones, inlcuding the ones on sale and the 'educational' diamonds, as well described as you might wish for (aside the very useful tutorial).

Still not enough ? The ACA stones at Whiteflash come with simmilar info to complete the data bank, and there might be other such sources, of course.

Again, according to my own experience, this kind of investigation is sure bet for a nice headache

Especially if you take time to chech the spectrum & contrast of those pics... Good Luck!

 

[caratgirl]

----------------
On 3/4/2004 10:14:07 AM valeria101 wrote:


There is some intuitive relation between the intensity of 'reds' in the Iscope image and the visual effect of light return: so a bit of pink or a few spots of white in the Iscope would not result in some aestetic DISASTER ----------------

You, know....I have been meaning to ask this for a while now....why is it that the IdealScope is sold with a bright pink cone, whereas all of the Idealscope images that I see posted from Vendors are red? It makes it kind of hard for new people to understand that bright pink = red (no leakage) and lighter pink = light red (some leakage). Anyone care to comment?

 

[pqcollectibles]

The viewers you are referring to that you see on websites, CG, are probably H&A viewers.

 

[niceice]

It's not really "leakage" at all in the terms of how people generally think about the term leakage, it's actually nothing more than a difference in how the light reflected from the pink cone inside of the ideal scope, fire scope, symmetri-scope, whatever you want to call it... Is reflecting off of the surface of the TOP of the diamond... Change the angle of the cone, change the circumferance of the "leakage" or more correctly the reflection of the light source upon the surface of the diamond... Think about it, if the angle of the cone is 74 degrees plus or minus it is going to have the ability to reflect pink light across a certain range of the surface of the diamond... Change the angle of the cone to 60 degrees and you would change the angle of the reflection and therefore the diamond would appear to "leak" light differently. However in the real world, light is not reflected only off of the surface of the diamond, it is reflected towards all sides of the diamond and the diamond is MOVING and thus the entire point is mute. In other words, if you were to reflect light towards the surface of the diamond from not only the top as all of these devices do, but also direct light towards the side of the diamond while bouncing it off of a pink cone or reflective surface, then there would not be any white space within the diamond except for the areas where the reflection was not reaching a reflective surface of the stone.