Need help comparing these Idealscopes

[newbie124]

While I'm waiting on the WF diamond, I've continued to look around for other stones online.

I got the Idealscopes for 4 stones from James Allen. Can anyone offer some help comparing these? One of them looks obviously better than the others to me. However, the stone I'm most interested in is somewhere in between...but I'm hoping it might still be good enough to pass the "test."

Thanks!!

 

[chrono]

My favourite is the 1st one on the far left. It looks to have nice symmetry and good contrast, scintillation and hot spots.

 

[newbie124]

Thanks, Chrono. Which would you say is the worst of these?

 

[Jypsie]

I''m a little new to this, but have been studying this sites info diligently.

To me the second on the left looks the least appealing. It doesn''t look horrible, but I see some leakage and there are some details that I like to see dark aren''t there, but I am not exactly sure what it means if they are not there. Like I said, I''m still new to all of this, but I''m sure one of the "pros" will be by soon to explain.

 

[newbie124]

Thanks for your input, Jypsie! Yes, I''m also pretty new to this and am not quite sure what makes a "good" Idealscope image other than that you want to see a lot of darker red versus pinks. And white triangles on the edges are OK/good, but what about the inner ones circling the table?

The last image (on the right) is the stone I was hoping to have a good Idealscope as the rest of the specs and the price are spot on in terms of what I''ve been looking for. But to me it seems like it might be the weakest of these 4. But then I also couldn''t say if it''s still in the "OK" range or not.

Look forward to hearing from some of the more seasoned members soon!

 

[Jypsie]

Newbie124 - Good luck, I can''t wait to see what you pick and what you have it made into! I''ll be lurking on this thread, I need to learn more about interpretting these pics.

 

[HEPennypacker]

I wanna play

. I say the 3rd looks the best from a symmetrical standpoint, but the first might have less light leakage. Is the fourth some sort of modified diamond? The table looks different.

Maybe an expert will come along soon and provide the "right" answer.

 

[WinkHPD]

Experts may not comment on another dealer''s gems. Once you identify the source we are not allowed to play.

At least that is how I understand the rules, I would be happy to be wrong as you have asked an interesting question here.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

They are 2 exellent, 1 vg-ex and one that needs to be retaken.
#4 looks like its titled in the holder or it has some table tilt going on also what are the angles?
Ask that it be redone if thats the one your interested in.
Otherwise 3 and 1 is the strongest, 2 has some slight leakage and likely has a slightly deep pavilion but not too bad(vg-ex).

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/26/2007 4:46:22 PM
Author: Wink
Experts may not comment on another dealer''s gems. Once you identify the source we are not allowed to play.

At least that is how I understand the rules, I would be happy to be wrong as you have asked an interesting question here.

Wink

I was thinking the same but you are correct. It is against the rules for us to play. I have experience with diamonds that display these various images and what one can and can''t tell from them but perhaps another day ... another thread.

Hope you''re having a great holiday Wink.

Kind regards,

 

[newbie124]

Hmm...good question re: the fourth stone. I didn't even notice that until you mentioned it. I'm not sure if it's a modified diamond. They haven't provided me w/ the cert yet, but there's no notation about that on the web page.

I wasn't aware that there might be a rule against naming the source of the stones. If there is, apologies for revealing that!

Well, here is another diamond I found from an "online source" that is graded as Hearts & Arrow. I've copied the inclusion map and dimensions from the GIA cert and also the Idealscope image. It's an S12, but they told me it faces up clean. Is it just me or does the image not look all that impressive for an H&A? The tips of the arrows look hazy and there seems to be slightly more light leakage on one side than the other. Or maybe this is just a bad photo?

Also, when I input the dimensions into the HCA cut advisor, I got 1.7 vg-ex-ex-ex but it was outside of both the GIA and AGS boxes on the graph. What exactly does that mean?

 

[newbie124]

Here''s the Idealscope

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/26/2007 5:13:02 PM
Author: newbie124
Here''s the Idealscope

shallow/shallow with some potentual durability issues, girdle should be slightly thick for that angle combo, 60% table.....
The other ones are better options.

 

[newbie124]

Thanks, strmrdr! I thought something seemed a little off about the H&A.

I've asked for a retake of the Idealscope for stone #4. Unfortunately, they haven't provided me w/ the cert yet so I can't tell you what the angles are. I've asked for those as well and will post as soon as I hear back.

Stone 1 would be my 2nd choice stone, but unfortunately it's at the upper end/just outside of our budget range. The WF stone I've already reserved (see this thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/is-this-diamond-a-good-buy.74782/) seems to have a great cut and specs. But I'm looking for alternatives w/ diameters closer to 7mm. Although maybe 6.83-6.87 will look "larger" than what I've seen at B&M stores when it's a better cut stone?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/26/2007 5:33:35 PM
Author: newbie124
Thanks, strmrdr! I thought something seemed a little off about the H&A.

I've asked for a retake of the Idealscope for stone #4. Unfortunately, they haven't provided me w/ the cert yet so I can't tell you what the angles are. I've asked for those as well and will post as soon as I hear back.

Stone 1 would be my 2nd choice stone, but unfortunately it's at the upper end/just outside of our budget range. The WF stone I've already reserved (see this thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/is-this-diamond-a-good-buy.74782/) seems to have a great cut and specs. But I'm looking for alternatives w/ diameters closer to 7mm. Although maybe 6.83-6.87 will look 'larger' than what I've seen at B&M stores when it's a better cut stone?

depends on what stones you have been looking at.
Compared to most it will look bigger but if you have been looking at ags0's or GIA stones that are very well cut or something like hearts on fire then it would be simular in size.

 

[newbie124]

Sigh...Unfortunately, I only learned recently (after researching on PS) that I should be paying attention to diameter not just carat weight. So while I''ve seen a lot of stones, I only remember them by carat weight and not actual dimension.

This past weekend we did go to a B&M store just to compare sizes in particular. She showed a 6.79, a 6.85, and a 7mm stone. The 7mm definitely looked larger next to the other two. They were roughly "good - very good" in cut grading. The specs for my reserved WF stone are better than the ones I saw in the store. I guess I''ll just have to see when we have it in hand...

Oh, and here''s the magnified image for stone 4 from the Idealscopes in case it helps at all...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/26/2007 5:47:42 PM
Author: newbie124

Oh, and here''s the magnified image for stone 4 from the Idealscopes in case it helps at all...

Im getting the impression that its a cutting issue and not an image issue with that stone.
Still would like the angles for it.
So far my opinion is either 1 or the WF stone would be the best bets based on the info so far....

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 12/26/2007 4:59:29 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 12/26/2007 4:46:22 PM
Author: Wink
Experts may not comment on another dealer's gems. Once you identify the source we are not allowed to play.

At least that is how I understand the rules, I would be happy to be wrong as you have asked an interesting question here.

Wink

I was thinking the same but you are correct. It is against the rules for us to play. I have experience with diamonds that display these various images and what one can and can't tell from them but perhaps another day ... another thread.

Hope you're having a great holiday Wink.

Kind regards,

Great and I hope you are too. While I enjoy jousting with you from time to time it is good when we are also in agreement!

Wink

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/26/2007 5:55:02 PM
Author: strmrdr
So far my opinion is either 1 or the WF stone would be the best bets based on the info so far....

What's wrong with #3? (going left to right)

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/27/2007 4:40:44 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 12/26/2007 5:55:02 PM
Author: strmrdr
So far my opinion is either 1 or the WF stone would be the best bets based on the info so far....

What''s wrong with #3? (going left to right)

price is out of range by the sounds of it, otherswise the IS image is kicken.
I may be reading it wrong but thats what I get from what was said with 1 being the other top pick.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/27/2007 4:45:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/27/2007 4:40:44 PM
Author: Ellen

What''s wrong with #3? (going left to right)

price is out of range by the sounds of it, otherswise the IS image is kicken.
I may be reading it wrong but thats what I get from what was said with 1 being the other top pick.

Oh, ok. I just thought maybe I was missing something, and couldn''t figure out what.

Thanks strm.

 

[newbie124]

Good timing b/c I just got the Sarin and GIA cert for Stone #3!

Depth: 61.9%
Table: 56%
Crown angle: 35
Pavilion angle: 40.8
HCA: 1.6 (ex-ex-ex-vg)

Stone #3 has sort of now become my 3rd option (it was originally the one that I, with my amateur eye, thought had the best Idealscope). The price is in between the WF diamond and Stone #1. I''m having such a hard time deciding which to go with!! I''m attaching the comparisons for the now 4 diamonds I can''t decide between.

Diamond 2 below is the WF stone. Diamond 3 below is also stone #3 from the Idealscopes. Diamond 4 is another one I found online today (no pictures yet avail). Diamond 5 is stone #1 from the idealscopes.

Diamond 2 is definitely a good bargain, but after comparing sizes in a retail store, I''m now tempted to go w/ something slightly larger around 7mm. Diamond 5 (Idealscope #1) is the one that''s on the border of our price range.

Then again stone #3 seems like it might be a good compromise??

What would you guys do? The practical side of me says go w/ the original WF stone...it''s well cut, a bargain and even at 6.85 avg diameter, it will still be a nice stone. But then there''s the little devil that''s saying if you''re going to buy a diamond go for the bigger one w/ that will have the "wow" factor!

My aunt''s advice was to buy the best diamond you can afford w/o going into debt. I definitely don''t think we''d be going into debt w/ any of these, but I guess I keep thinking the $3000 we could save could go towards something else, even though our original budget was for $10,000.

What would you guys advise??

 

[newbie124]

Also just want to note that the SI1 stone''s inclusions are all on the edge. They said there is one white inclusion that is visible to the eye, but that it''s near the girdle so would probably be covered by the prongs.

The 1.308 ct stone''s inclusions are right in the middle of the table. However, since it''s graded VS2, I''m assuming it''s eye clean?...

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/27/2007 5:30:01 PM
Author: newbie124
Also just want to note that the SI1 stone''s inclusions are all on the edge. They said there is one white inclusion that is visible to the eye, but that it''s near the girdle so would probably be covered by the prongs.

The 1.308 ct stone''s inclusions are right in the middle of the table. However, since it''s graded VS2, I''m assuming it''s eye clean?...

Should be, but every so often one isn''t. Just ask.

Boy, I dunno. The difference in size between all these is not much, I really can''t see spending the extra $ for so little....

I think I''d go with the WF stone.

 

[strmrdr]

Id go with the WF stone and take the $3.5k saved and put some nice side stones next too it in a 3 stone plat setting.
Id use sapphires but diamonds would be in the budget.

 

[HEPennypacker]

I''m with the others...in order to justify the price difference, I''d want a noticeable size difference, and I don''t think you will get that without 4 or 5, which will almost blow your budget. I''d stick with the WF one and get a nice setting.

 

[newbie124]

Thanks, everyone.

Yeah, it's kind of hard b/c when we were at the B&M store comparing a 6.85mm to a 7mm, the 7 did look bigger to us although the 6.85 was the prettier diamond.

The setting I want is a micropave halo around the center stone w/ diamonds part way down the band. I know the halo will help make the diamond look bigger, I'm just kind of afraid of the halo dwarfing the center stone if it's not big enough. I guess it also didn't help that the store's model of a halo setting had a 2 ct diamond in it, which looked quite nice on my hand

The local place where I'd like to have the setting custom made previously gave an estimate of $1,400 for platinum (about half that for white gold).

So it sounds like the consensus is that even though we set a budget of $10,000, for what we'd be getting for the money the WF stone sounds like the best deal? Man, if Pricescope members are telling me to go w/ the smallest stone, maybe it is the right move!

If you were in my position, would you just pull the WF stone and get that appraised and if all looks good go for it and not even bother seeing any of the others? I guess the danger of seeing the WF stone and no. 5 next to each other is that I'd probably automatically be drawn to the bigger stone...Maybe this is a case when ignorance would be bliss!

 

[HEPennypacker]

Well if you really want #5, I say go for it...for the extra money, you're getting better color, clarity, weight, and diameter. As along as you're comfortable with the price and everything else checks out, I don't think it's a "worse" deal than the WF stone you have now.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/27/2007 4:31:59 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 12/26/2007 4:59:29 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 12/26/2007 4:46:22 PM
Author: Wink
Experts may not comment on another dealer''s gems. Once you identify the source we are not allowed to play.

At least that is how I understand the rules, I would be happy to be wrong as you have asked an interesting question here.

Wink

I was thinking the same but you are correct. It is against the rules for us to play. I have experience with diamonds that display these various images and what one can and can''t tell from them but perhaps another day ... another thread.

Hope you''re having a great holiday Wink.

Kind regards,

Great and I hope you are too. While I enjoy jousting with you from time to time it is good when we are also in agreement!

Wink

Amen to that. You are a good person to talk with. Have a grand and happy new year.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/27/2007 9:37:01 PM
Author: newbie124
Thanks, everyone.

Yeah, it''s kind of hard b/c when we were at the B&M store comparing a 6.85mm to a 7mm, the 7 did look bigger to us although the 6.85 was the prettier diamond.

The setting I want is a micropave halo around the center stone w/ diamonds part way down the band. I know the halo will help make the diamond look bigger, I''m just kind of afraid of the halo dwarfing the center stone if it''s not big enough. I guess it also didn''t help that the store''s model of a halo setting had a 2 ct diamond in it, which looked quite nice on my hand

The local place where I''d like to have the setting custom made previously gave an estimate of $1,400 for platinum (about half that for white gold).

So it sounds like the consensus is that even though we set a budget of $10,000, for what we''d be getting for the money the WF stone sounds like the best deal? Man, if Pricescope members are telling me to go w/ the smallest stone, maybe it is the right move!

If you were in my position, would you just pull the WF stone and get that appraised and if all looks good go for it and not even bother seeing any of the others? I guess the danger of seeing the WF stone and no. 5 next to each other is that I''d probably automatically be drawn to the bigger stone...Maybe this is a case when ignorance would be bliss!

A micro pave halo won''t dwarf it. In fact, this is a great size to halo.

It will make a stunning ring!

And in light of this news about the halo, I definitely wouldn''t spend the extra money for a smidge more size. I''d grab the WF stone and get to setting!