IS question

[dfm00]

I understand the basics of evaluating an IS image; red/pink=good, large areas of white=bad. But in looking at these two IS images, the second appeals to me much more because of the saturated, uniform red and the dark, crisp arrows. The first seems to be weaker, especially under the table:

1. http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179719.htm
2. http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-70656.htm

Am I just overanalyzing the images? If there are real differences, what is their significance? Photographic technique, light performance, "character" of the stone... They''re both AGS000/ACA so I''d expect them both to be great diamonds, but does the IS tell us anything about how they''d differ in appearance (if size, color, clarity, and $$$ were''t enough differences). Not comparing these for purchasing reasons, just using them as examples to try to learn.

Thanks!
Dave

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The first stone - the 1.5ct does seem to have an off centered culet - which could still show Hearts and arrows.

This stone also probably has a teeny bit of upper girdle digging which makes the outer facets a bit paler in comparison to stone 2 which is probably a new line - or bordering on it - these are painted stones - and have the longer little vee shapes on every second set on the outer region. I quite like a little painting - it makes the stone appear a little larger - but some like Rhino do not like it - although I suspect he has a motive for that that is other than appearance related. Although the examples he uses are definitely over painted and would have lost too much contrast.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 1/12/2007 1:33:37 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The first stone - the 1.5ct does seem to have an off centered culet - which could still show Hearts and arrows.

This stone also probably has a teeny bit of upper girdle digging which makes the outer facets a bit paler in comparison to stone 2 which is probably a new line - or bordering on it - these are painted stones - and have the longer little vee shapes on every second set on the outer region. I quite like a little painting - it makes the stone appear a little larger - but some like Rhino do not like it - although I suspect he has a motive for that that is other than appearance related. Although the examples he uses are definitely over painted and would have lost too much contrast.

Please allow me to clarify Garry, both my motive and also my position on the subject.

Personally or positionally, I don''t have a problem with minor painting or minor digging either. My personal cut offs do fall on the conservative side but when suppliers send me diamonds that exhibit minor painting or digging and it does not impact the optical performance (my interpretation of what I can visually see and assess) and the stone wouldn''t take the hit in the cut grading systems (GIA or AGS for reasons of value) I don''t hesitate to buy. My motive has and always will be consumer preference becuase at the end of they day it is the client who must be satisfied. Approx. 7 years ago when I was introduced to this type of cutting I have shown comparisons to clients all over the country and when the majority of these observers expressed favor towards the non painted, I limited my purchasing of those types for inventory.

You are correct in your statement "Although the examples he uses are definitely over painted and would have lost too much contrast." and it is these types with which my comparisons were conducted over that course of time.

Having said that however I recognize and understand that there are people who prefer this appearance and I totally respect their opinion and personal preference. What you and I may consider over painted, some may not and we have to respect that viewpoint too even if we disagree on a personal level with their preference. Hope that clarifies.

BTW, none of my comments are directed towards the diamonds in this thread so please don''t take my words at being directed towards that.

Best regards,

 

[belle]

the is image on the first stone definitely looks tilted. everything on the side that the stone is tilted towards has gone short and grey indicating tilt. if the stone were centered properly, it would look uniform. but you are right, either would be stunning!

 

[kenny]

Here is another example of how we customers think
quote: "I understand the basics of evaluating an IS image; red/pink=good, large areas of white=bad."

We simplify.

Speaking of painting and digging.
Isn't much of the growth of painting and digging based on consumer ignorance?

Let me clarify.
I don't really mean ignorance in a negative way.
I mean Internet consumers, myself certainly included, make buying decisions based on what we see on our monitors.
We are not walking into a B&M to look at the stones.
We don't have decades of experience looking at thousands of stones.
The advice, "Buy the stone not the paper" is lost on us when we can't see the stone.

Forgive us but we need something to go on.
We love HCA scores and lab grades, or even the idea of rating the labs.

Eightstar came out with a cut that produces a solid blood-red Ideascope image.
Eightstar is very very expensive so this must be the best-looking Idealscope image.
Solasfera did the same thing.
No leakage.
Leakage is bad.
Right?

This easy to understand. Solid red. No leakage. Must be good.

Like most things a better-informed person understands cut evaluation is not so simple.
You can't just say solid red is always better, in every way, no matter what.
The truth is more nuanced and takes more work to understand, and it further complicates the shopping experience.

But, like it or not, Internet customers are looking for the simple.
These blood-red stones will appeal to those who have only learned a little.
(I'm not saying there is anything wrong with these stones.)

That said I did my own 10-day side by side comparison of two ACA stones, a blood-red new line, and a classic, with that classic leakage pattern.
While different in look, both were equally beautiful and I can understand a person may have a preference for either but I can't understand anyone bad-mouthing the other.

 

[kenny]

Johnathan, or anyone:

Would you say the Eightstar is painted just a little, or a lot?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Sorry all; the first diamond is tilted in both reflector images (which can happen if left in the same holder).Please refresh the images for the H SI2 a bit later, they will be redone.

One of the hardest things about diamond photography is adjusting such a tiny object so that it's perfectly level with the lens.Mere microns make a difference.Nevertheless, these photos represent multi-thousand-dollar items & we realize their importance.

The volume of diamond & jewelry photos we’re doing each day is formidable and planning is an interesting dynamic.Sometimes diamonds are up for less than a day.Others are sold while still at the lab.Once they return we work to provide images as fast as possible, but photos of finished pieces for paying customers take priority.We appreciate your understanding of the occasional tilt.

Thanks for the observations.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/12/2007 11:42:28 AM
Author: kenny
Johnathan, or anyone:

Would you say the Eightstar is painted just a little, or a lot?

A lot
Anytime the white spots are closed its a lot. (57 facets cuts)

 

[kenny]

So everyone, even GIA now, says a little painting and digging is okay, but too much is bad.

Then how is it a *heavily* painted and dug brand is getting away with prices up there with Tiffany, or above?

Something doesn't make sense.

And why don't more cutters do this?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 1/12/2007 11:33:39 AM
Author: kenny
Here is another example of how we customers think
quote: ''I understand the basics of evaluating an IS image; red/pink=good, large areas of white=bad.''

We simplify.

Speaking of painting and digging.
Isn''t much of the growth of painting and digging based on consumer ignorance?

Let me clarify.
I don''t really mean ignorance in a negative way.
I mean Internet consumers, myself certainly included, make buying decisions based on what we see on our monitors.
We are not walking into a B&M to look at the stones.
We don''t have decades of experience looking at thousands of stones.
The advice, ''Buy the stone not the paper'' is lost on us when we can''t see the stone.

Forgive us but we need something to go on.
We love HCA scores and lab grades, or even the idea of rating the labs.

Eightstar came out with a cut that produces a solid blood-red Ideascope image.
Eightstar is very very expensive so this must be the best-looking Idealscope image.
Solasfera did the same thing.
No leakage.
Leakage is bad.
Right?

This easy to understand. Solid red. No leakage. Must be good.

Like most things a better-informed person understands cut evaluation is not so simple.
You can''t just say solid red is always better, in every way, no matter what.
The truth is more nuanced and takes more work to understand, and it further complicates the shopping experience.

But, like it or not, Internet customers are looking for the simple.
These blood-red stones will appeal to those who have only learned a little.
(I''m not saying there is anything wrong with these stones.)

That said I did my own 10-day side by side comparison of two ACA stones, a blood-red new line, and a classic, with that classic leakage pattern.
While different in look, both were equally beautiful and I can understand a person may have a preference for either but I can''t understand anyone bad-mouthing the other.

I wish it were that easy/simple Ken. Thing is it isn''t. I read your thread when you were doing that comparison. A question I had poised which was never answered in that thread was the degree of painting had never been determined so there may have been little difference if any. We just don''t know. I''m totally with ya though ... nobody should be bad mouthing any of them. A person''s personal preference should never be criticized. There are certain types of stones I personally don''t prefer but to bad mouth a product or the person liking it would be in bad taste.

Take Garry''s preference for shallow angled diamonds for example. They have solid red/black IS images yet I have a combo here we recently inspected that gets an AGS "5" in light performance and doesn''t meet my quals for "ideal light performance" yet Garry rates it as a 1.5 on the HCA. It is not my job to critcize a persons preference, I do however make it my point as an appraiser/gemologist to try to understand the differences between personal preferences and what the labs regard as top makes and how they determine this. The 2 must not be confused.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 1/12/2007 2:28:28 PM
Author: kenny
So everyone, even GIA now, says a little painting and digging is okay, but too much is bad.

GIA, since the release of their cut grading system has always emphasized that they do not mass grade all painting and digging. Perhaps there may have been some misunderstandings about this earlier last year but I think everyone is clear on it here for the most part. I''ve stated it a few times in past threads on the subject. AGS, in their new cut grading also disqualifies painting and digging but allow for greater tolerances in painting. Regarding digging, both appear to be on the same page.

Hope that helps.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/12/2007 2:28:28 PM
Author: kenny
So everyone, even GIA now, says a little painting and digging is okay, but too much is bad.

Then how is it a *heavily* painted and dug brand is getting away with prices up there with Tiffany, or above?

Something doesn''t make sense.

And why don''t more cutters do this?

8* is all about the arrows.
They cut to c/p angles that make them stand out, very short lgf% to make them huge then in an attempt to get some brightness back paint the girdles.
Makes for a fiery diamond but not very bright and under the table they look way too dark to me in diffused lighting conditions due to the huge arrows.
In direct lighting where the fire comes into play they are pretty but in my opinion they sacrifice too much in other lighting.
They charge high prices cuz your buying into the cult of 8* not a diamond.

 

[dfm00]

Thanks everyone. Especially nice to listen in on discussions among the heavyweights here. I didn''t mean this to be a vendor vs. vendor issue, glad no one took it that way.

John, thanks for chiming in. I have come to respect the ACA designation, and assumed the stone was tilted. Didn''t mean to apply otherwise, but appreciate your confirmation.

Kenny: I remember your experiment with the two stones, very interesting. I agree that I was simplifying; that''s why I emphasized "basic" and the point of my post was to try to understand some of the intricacy. Regardless, in general I think we''re smart to make use of what data we can over the internet, including the input of a handful of ultra-reputable internet vendors. Based on my limited experience with B&Ms I’ve decided that’s definitely the way to go for me. I also have to remind myself when I’m agonizing over tenths of degrees that we’re most likely discussing subtle nuances among the most beautiful 1% of diamonds in existence. Important perspective for me to keep in mind.

Thanks again,
Dave

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/12/2007 2:38:45 PM
Author: Rhino


Take Garry''s preference for shallow angled diamonds for example. They have solid red/black IS images yet I have a combo here we recently inspected that gets an AGS ''5'' in light performance and doesn''t meet my quals for ''ideal light performance'' yet Garry rates it as a 1.5 on the HCA. It is not my job to critcize a persons preference, I do however make it my point as an appraiser/gemologist to try to understand the differences between personal preferences and what the labs regard as top makes and how they determine this. The 2 must not be confused.

Peace,

I know which Stone Rhiino is referring to and uses as an example to show that HCA does not work has:

1. very bad symmetry
2. very low clarity
3. and is shallow AND painted which has the effect of making the stone even shallower.

Also
AGS do not have a policy on painting. They run their software and let the stones light performance according to their software make any decisions.

If you are going to practice demagogy Rhino, then please do it on your website and not here.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/12/2007 2:46:06 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 1/12/2007 2:28:28 PM
Author: kenny
So everyone, even GIA now, says a little painting and digging is okay, but too much is bad.

GIA, since the release of their cut grading system has always emphasized that they do not mass grade all painting and digging. Perhaps there may have been some misunderstandings about this earlier last year but I think everyone is clear on it here for the most part. I''ve stated it a few times in past threads on the subject. AGS, in their new cut grading also disqualifies painting and digging but allow for greater tolerances in painting. Regarding digging, both appear to be on the same page.

Hope that helps.

Consumers and newbies, this post will seem like a flaming and ofensive attack. I am sorry for that. But there have been several incidents that have led to the need to clear the air.


When did GIA "emphasize that" Rhino?
Are you being a demagoge again?
You have not clarified anything about GIA''s approach to painting and digging.

There are several threads where John Pollard discussed this issue at the GIA presentation with Peter Yantzers brother who runs the west coast GIA lab at Vegas last year that I overheard, and we know that WF people worked privately on this subject with GIA after wards as reported by JP.

The outcome has been discussed here:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-would-anyone-object-to-painting.45579/page-7 (6/2/06 – 12:37PM)

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/some-movement-on-gia-painting-%E2%80%9D.47447/ (7/1/06 – 5:53 PM)

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gemex-vs-idealscope.47816/ (7/15/06 – 7:51PM)

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ideal-scope-image-request-greatly-appreciated.49628/ (8/21/06 – 12:32 PM)

All this and more has been said in several threads, some in which you, Rhino, have been directly involved in.

As I understand it the painting/digging values they’ve arrived at are applied to all proportion combinations ''blindly'' and I personally asked "do you examine diamonds in Diamond Dock or any other lighting for their face up appearance. Phil Yantzer told me "the only examination is for giirdle thickness to assess actual thickness as we do not trust the Sarin scanner for this" "otherwise we use the scanner results to assess the level or amount of painting or digging and apply that grading."

We were told in Vegas in June 2006 that there were glitches in Report Check that needed correcting and that earlier grading of painting/digging had been “fine tuned” since launch.

AGS judges on a diamond-by-diamond basis. In fact, they don’t and have never “disqualified” painting at all: Certain configurations are allowed more significant amounts because those diamonds still earn all numeric values required for the ideal grade. You will find shallower stones do worse, and around Tolkowsky and slightly deeper can do OK.


So please do not beat your chest so loudly. It makes a lot of disturbing noise.

There are consumers who take that noise as fact, and we can acept that on Pricescope.

 

[pricescope]

to avoid another painting-related flaming this thread is closed. For more info on painting, see links above or search the board.

couple of more long threads for the reference:
GIA Ex: The Consumers Perspective and the Technologies
Differences in Sarin and AGS???