Is this Ideal Scope really ideal?

[daisygrl]

As some of you might know, I have an eye on the stone: 1.61ct, round cut, VS1, G, 3X, Table: 57%, Crown: 35, Pavilion: 40.8, Depth: 61.8, and about $14,700 (HCA 1.4 - all excellent). I thought she was "the one!" Then I received her Ideal Scope and I am not so sure anymore... What do you, guys, think of her ideal scope?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Probably just a lighting issue. There is a little misalignment also contributing. In real life this is a keeper.

 

[daisygrl]

Probably just a lighting issue. There is a little misalignment also contributing. In real life this is a keeper.

Thank you for your prompt response! I have just thought the same exact thing!!!.... it seems misalign on the left - it appears they were not able to keep the diamond straight.
Thanks again! Much appreciated!

 

[lovedogs]

Glad that @Garry H (Cut Nut) pointed out the misalignment. I was suspecting that, since it almost looks like there are 2 halves of 2 different stones in this pic. Makes sense that the L side is just misaligned. I think it will be gorgeous IRL!

 

[daisygrl]

Glad that @Garry H (Cut Nut) pointed out the misalignment. I was suspecting that, since it almost looks like there are 2 halves of 2 different stones in this pic. Makes sense that the L side is just misaligned. I think it will be gorgeous IRL!

You are right! I can see it now, after you pointed out, that the scope looks like two different stones. I wish they had been able to take a better scope image - I would not have freaked out . Oh well... I cannot wait to receive it, however. Once I do, I will definitely post the images.

Thank you all so much!

 

[Karl_K]

The longer arrow shafts point to the direction of tilt.
Easy test, if the arrow shafts are different lengths most likely it is tilted relative to the scope and camera.
In rare cases it would also be the pavilion is actually tilted relative to the table of the diamond but that is not very common to this extreme in modern production.

 

[Serg]

Probably just a lighting issue. There is a little misalignment also contributing. In real life this is a keeper.

Hi Garry, please clarify your statement about "a lighting issue"

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Garry, please clarify your statement about "a lighting issue"

Sometimes I see this effect when too much light is coming from one side Sergey - see the light globe on the opposite side. However usually the main facet would light up silvery too.

 

[daisygrl]

Sometimes I see this effect when too much light is coming from one side Sergey - see the light globe on the opposite side. However usually the main facet would light up silvery too.

If any of you are curious, this is what the ideal scope image of the same diamond looks like when facing straight up (no tilting.) I have just received the corrected image. It is more even now.

 

[Karl_K]

The back light is over bright.
Every diamond has very minor leakage of some sort and a RBs is in the center and besides the arrows, the exact pattern varies by the specific combination but it looks something like this.
The bright dots are normal fairly strong leakage that is part of the design.
But the area under the table shows very minor leakage.
So if the back light is over bright it shows these as more serious leakage when they are not. So what I do is consider the lightest area of the center circle to be the reference standard for leakage anything near or more color than that is good.

 

[daisygrl]

The back light is over bright.
Every diamond has very minor leakage of some sort and a RBs is in the center and besides the arrows, the exact pattern varies by the specific combination but it looks something like this.
The bright dots are normal fairly strong leakage that is part of the design.
But the area under the table shows very minor leakage.
So if the back light is over bright it shows these as more serious leakage when they are not. So what I do is consider the lightest area of the center circle to be the reference standard for leakage anything near or more color than that is good.

As scientific as it sounds, I wish I could apply all you wrote into my ideal scope - as I understood none of it. My specialization is in something completely different and I "collect" diamonds just for fun. It seems like this is your passion, Karl_K. I am interested in what you meant by your comment and at the same time I am very content with Garry's response of the diamond being "a keeper."

 

[Karl_K]

As scientific as it sounds, I wish I could apply all you wrote into my ideal scope - as I understood none of it. My specialization is in something completely different and I "collect" diamonds just for fun. It seems like this is your passion, Karl_K. I am interested in what you meant by your comment and at the same time I am very content with Garry's response of the diamond being "a keeper."

Garry is right except im not spose to say what he said. rules and all....

Basically if the light behind the diamond is over bright when it is in an Ideal scope it changes the appearance of the image in a way that could be taken as a problem with the diamond but its not a problem with the diamond its a problem with the back light.

 

[Karl_K]

Let me try that again:
If the back light is to bright it can create a false negative that can be accounted for by a more detailed assessment of the image.

Or just what Garry said and skip the details :}

 

[daisygrl]

Let me try that again:
If the back light is to bright it can create a false negative that can be accounted for by a more detailed assessment of the image.

Or just what Garry said and skip the details :}

Got it! And it also makes sense.

 

[lovedogs]

As scientific as it sounds, I wish I could apply all you wrote into my ideal scope - as I understood none of it. My specialization is in something completely different and I "collect" diamonds just for fun. It seems like this is your passion, Karl_K. I am interested in what you meant by your comment and at the same time I am very content with Garry's response of the diamond being "a keeper."

Here's my poor paint attempt to show you what @Karl_K is saying. Yes, it's a keeper!

 

[Karl_K]

Here's my poor paint attempt to show you what @Karl_K is saying. Yes, it's a keeper!

That is a very good job is it ok if I steal it?

 

[lovedogs]

That is a very good job is it ok if I steal it?

yes! I'm honored that you would want to, since you are the only reason I know to look at the center circle in order to determine "true" leakage!

 

[daisygrl]

Here's my poor paint attempt to show you what @Karl_K is saying. Yes, it's a keeper!

Oh no, not "poor attempt" at all! The drawing was really very helpful and appreciated. I am a visual learner and, at first (a month ago), I was very self-conscious to attempt to "read" the ideal scope. I am googling/learning in conjunction with this forum... I might even know what I am seeing. (jk, actually I know a lot more than I thought I would a month ago.) Thanks to this forum as well!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here's my poor paint attempt to show you what @Karl_K is saying. Yes, it's a keeper!

Well done Karl and LoveDogs.
Here is an example with 4 times more intense light from behind the diamond:
(you might like to use this art LD?

 

[lovedogs]

Well done Karl and LoveDogs.
Here is an example with 4 times more intense light from behind the diamond:
(you might like to use this art LD?

oh that's awesome! So helpful!

 

[Karl_K]

Well done Karl and LoveDogs.
Here is an example with 4 times more intense light from behind the diamond:
(you might like to use this art LD?

The funny thing is I have seen images a vendor supplied to a client that looked just like the one on the right posted on here a time or 2 over the years.

 

[Serg]

Well done Karl and LoveDogs.
Here is an example with 4 times more intense light from behind the diamond:
(you might like to use this art LD?

Garry,
Pavilion main facets on the left image have brightness 56, same facets on the right image have brightness 105.
Red crown facets have brightness 255( overexposure images)
it is clear proof that on the right image bottom light is too bright.
but in original IS image main facets have brightness just 25-30 when red crown facets have brightness 150-160. it has same ratio as on your left Diamcalc image.

So I do not see a reason for statement about wrong bottom light

 

[AV_]

It really is astonishing to me that anyone cuts diamonds any more precisely than this.