Need Help! Idealscope Image

[Leafs]

I am seriously thinking about buying the diamond listed below. I am including the idealscope image. I just want to know if the Idealscope image is very positive? Any feedback or comments are apprciated.

Stone 1 Details
Price $2,053.26
Shape BR
Confirmed H&A
Color Grade G
Clarity Grade VS2
Weight 0.671
Measurements 5.60 - 5.63 x 3.5 mm
Proportions
Depth 62.4%
Table 54%
Girdle 0.9-1.8
Culet PT
Crown Angle 34.0
Pavilion Angle 41.0
Finish Polish IDEAL
Symmetry IDEAL
Fluorescence N

 

[aljdewey]

Gee, it's hard to tell......I suggested this diamond based on specs to someone (maybe it was you?) as a possibility.




I'd get Richard or Dave Atlas or someone to comment on this. To my (very) untrained eye from the picture, it seems to be decent. I do notice that there is some leakage under the table (the pink ring), but I'm not an expert and not imminently qualified to determine whether that would translate to an appreciable difference under normal viewing when set. My amateur opinion......I think it's fine (it just seems a bit less than the red, but not shockingly white which would be serious leakage).




Seems like a decent stone for the money. Anyone else?

 

[wanderlost]

I'd take a look at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp
if you'd like to see how yours compares on the scale of 'excellent cuts'
to 'bad cuts.'

I'm not sure which side of the fence this stone would fall on... it
seems to have many similarities to both the 'worst acceptible Excellent
cut' as well as the solid 'Medium Cut'

 

[magna2]

It is hard to tell from the idealscope image - as aljdewey mentioned that it appears that there is partial leakage in and around the table. This could just be from the way that the picture was taken or from actual leakage. It is best to get an independent assessment if you are indeed serious about this diamond.

 

[Mara]

IdealScope images are so hard to judge..it really depends on the lighting that the diamond was photographed under. Different lighting makes huge differences (Rhino posted on this recently I think) ...and if the user is experienced with the scope, etc. The diamond looks pretty good, there is a little bit of pink instead of red but again, that could be lighting. The leakage on the corners looks pretty typical--maybe a little much?




Hopefully one of the experts can chime in...just from eyeballing the #'s...did you run the HCA on this diamond? The table is very small when combined with the depth.. depth at 62.4% is a little out of what many would consider 'ideal' and the pav at 41 combined with that depth may suggest you are losing a bit of weight in that pavilion with such a small table....but maybe I am wrong.

 

[Leafs]

I did run the HCA and came out with the following.

Total Visual Performance 1.5 - Excellent - within TIC range

 

[Mara]

Eh well then nevermind!

IdealScope image combined with HCA score would suggest that the diamond would look good. I always like having two positive data points instead of just one.

 

[DiamondExpert]

I have struggled off and on for months to get good, reproducible IS PHOTOGRAPHIC images on fantastic, super-ideal cut stones...haven't got there yet!

Small variations in pattern, for me anyway, in using this instrument are meaningless.

I can get pattern changes easily by changing the nature, angle, distance of the lighting, changing angles of viewing, etc....not easy to use reproducibly.

What I would love to see from Garry H.(or anyone who is in a position to do this) is a set of 6 stones, ranked in cut quality from very bad to the best, and have him photograph them with the Firescope, IS, and all the other scopes he can get his hands on.

Inquiring eyes want to see!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

----------------
On 11/5/2003 5:22:32 PM DiamondExpert wrote:

I have struggled off and on for months to get good, reproducible IS PHOTOGRAPHIC images on fantastic, super-ideal cut stones...haven't got there yet!

Small variations in pattern, for me anyway, in using this instrument are meaningless.

I can get pattern changes easily by changing the nature, angle, distance of the lighting, changing angles of viewing, etc....not easy to use reproducibly.

What I would love to see from Garry H.(or anyone who is in a position to do this) is a set of 6 stones, ranked in cut quality from very bad to the best, and have him photograph them with the Firescope, IS, and all the other scopes he can get his hands on.

Inquiring eyes want to see!

----------------

Firstly this is a great stone!
The photo has been taken in a very fair manner with plenty of light, so there is some very slight inner table leakage and that is always there if the back light is strong as it is here.
There are vendors using their own systems that would show different results for the same stone and we are not happy about this.

Gary you will be pleased to know that we are working on a solution to your problem. We have had lots of developmental problems but we have decided to call in the BIG GUNS!

We have commisioned Sergey and the OctoNus DiamCalc team to develop a photographic capture system for a Canon camera.

We have found that this camera has the easiest software for auto capture and we will soon be trialing a lab / vendor system that makes the whole photography process very simple.
Auto cropping, 300dpi and 72 dpi version and the full works. We will have to charge for this software, but it will raise the bar as far as ease of use, reproducability and comparitive accuracy.
If any vendors want to know more then email me on [email protected].

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/diamond-photography-competition-t9751.html
this long thread has some very interesting photo's

 

[solange]

I know the stone is not hearts and arrows and most idealscope images I have seen are hearts and arrows.This is GIA graded symmetry very good, and it is an AGS0 cut, .6 on the HCA scale. I am trying to learn how to interpret an image like this and would appreciate some help or information.

 

[solange]

Sarin on the above.

 

[valeria101]

I really think both images on this thread are "textbook cases". Maybe not straight forward to interpret (as in "red good - white bad"). But there is enough "literature" and examples between PS posters (the sellers and Garry that is) to go by.

You may find that the fingerprint image of your stone comes close to some of the refference pics on Ideal-scope.com (not the easiest to use guide, since examples associate symmetry and light return) and with that get in the hot middle of a PS debate about wether all that black in an Iscope pic is good or bad to have. Definitely the "hair splitting" region of the chat.

That was the point where Garry and Jonathan somewhat disagree on what those "reflector" (black under Iscope) areas do and are good for - if you have lots of patience and a big, empty folder waiting to be filled with diamond aestetic minuatia, go for it, by all means

There is definitely lots of black in the respective pic - so the predicted "look" of the stone according to the Iscope immage could be (according to this author, of course): "this stone would act as a mirror - with the center either reflecting light flash in strong light or whatever there is around in lower light conditions". The red under the scope should represent the areas that deliver sparkle the most in all but dim light.

Also, the black areas should make a difference for the best viewing position of the stone - this one would look best at arm's length - whenever the viewer doe not block light comming from above the stone. In normal conditions (with multiple light sources around that is) this would mean that the ring looks much better when you do not insist to shadow it when looking.

All in all: according to this reader of Iscope, your stone is a light catching device

good for blinding people when moved a bit to catch light and flash it back.

You have the diamond... does this sould familiar?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yes this stone would look better from more than 12 inches from your head.
There is little or no leagake but a little too much black inside the table.
The light return is slightly reduced from the darkness, but slightly enhanced from the lack of leakage. It will however be quite firey because of the additional darkness (which will be where you see the fire

).

The reason for these unusual effects is that the top and the bottom facets are not aligned well.
Overall it is an example of a stone that will have a very nice appearance on your hand, but should have recieved a lower grade for symmetry (according to the rules of most labs) but it is an example of a type of symmetry defect that can improve a diamonds appearance.

 

[valeria101]

So... I said there are too sides to the "is there too much black debate". Here's the other

Check out the two "non H&A" example on THIS page at Good Old Gold. The symmetry of your stone dictates a different pattern of blacks, but the *quantity* is no that far.

Again, most examples associate symmetry and light return - so finding one "dead on" your case wasn't easy, since both had to be matched. For light return alone, you may want to consider the relative size of total red, black and pink/white in the picture. 3D symmetry forms the distributon of patterns (arrows or not arrows, whatever).

 

[valeria101]

(this went posted in the same time with Garrys' post..)

Below are the images I used for ref.

I am quite curious, Solange, if you find the GemAdviser model of the stone from GOG (the left-hand one) representative for the sparkling thing on your finger

Sure do love to see lots of dispersion from diamonds (otherwise those Indian mirror rings would do just fine), and yours should have it twice over (ok, you have Garry's opinion, this post is redundant).

 

[solange]

Dear Valeria,
Your quote was far from redundant and I certainly appreciate the efforts you went to to get the comparisons.
I am also very grateful to Garry for his input. I am only on Pricescope a short time but learned enough to buy what I think is a lovely stone. Had it not been for Pricescope I would have bought from someone's favorite, most honest and reliable dealer in the Diamond District--I had a list of those and wasted a lot of time looking at what I now realize were inferior stones at high prices, plus tax.
There is so much to learn. Garry's commentr that the symmetry on my ring is overgraded but makes for a nice look is so interesting.
I really am not discerning enough to tell whether my stone looks as you describe it should but I am very happy with it. I hope to learn more as the subject is so interesting and there is so much to know.
Thank you to the both of you for your input. I already have the ring but I was curious about the strange pattern. Now I know.
This is such a wonderful site with such helpful people and i appreciate the valuable knowledge I have gained so far.

 

[solange]

I had some other questions. Would the extra black in the idealscope make my stone look darker than the I color it is? Also would these factors have anything to do with increasing or decreasing any yellow tones? I don't see any yellow but maybe I do not have sufficient basis for comparison. I assume that Garry's evaluation of the symmetry would have affected the HCA score of .6.
I am thrilled with the ring and am certainly not questioning whether I should have bought it. I think Lesley at Whiteflash did an outstanding job of finding me a completely eye clean SI 2 combined with excellent proportions in this size at a great price. I love investigating things and am interested in any information that is available from all.

 

[solange]

I want to wish Leaf luck with his purchase. It sounds like you picked a beautiful stone. I hope you got all the information you needed before I added my information. If you did not then I am very sorry.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 6/1/2004 11:53:14 AM solange wrote:



#1: Would the extra black in the idealscope make my stone look darker than the I color it is?

#2: I assume that Garry's evaluation of the symmetry would have affected the HCA score of .6.

----------------

Thanks

I'll try my hand at this. Since there are few AGS0 non-H&A stones posted with such detail, this is interesting for me too

#1: "dark" here does not mean dark color tone - and has really nothing to do with the color grade. I guess the word refferes to the black on the Ideal Scope (black = dark). Since each bit of diamond lighth on and off as the stone moves, it is not easy to define "dark" and "bright" for any of it.
The respective bits of facets would light up under direct light providing "flash" or reflect the surrounding objects when no direct light hith them under diffuse light conditions). Under such diffuse light, the facets appearing red under the Iscope should outsparkle the "black" areas - which appear RELATIVELY DARKER for the respective fraction of second and thus provide contrast for the light flash and dispersion to catch the eye. This is not "dark" as in "pitch-black-back-of-drawr-dark".

No idea how you could get intense, diffuse light to experiment this... but a sheet of paper hung infront of a reasonably strong light would probably do. Jonathan reffers to such light conditions as "shaddow on a sunny day". Got any?


#2: No. the HCA cannot read symmetry (and this is why it's got the Iscope as brother in arms). It does model a virtually perfectly symmetrycal stone (approximating reality). This is written on top of the HCA page: "The result is for a symmetrical diamond with a medium girdle and very good polish"... same message, no matter what the number one types in reffer to. The same average numbers could describe an AGS0 or an stone with "fair" symmery, obviously.

I think Garry meant "the relative arrangement of facets" (something that various sellers reffer to as: "optical symmetry" or "internal symmetry" or "3D symmetry"). It doesn't help that the same thing gets many names... I guess all these describe the relation between corresponding crown and pavilion facets that build up the H&A pattern (or any other "pattern" as a matter of fact).

It is the very existance of a regular pattern (such as ISee2 measures symmetry) that demonstrates great 3D symmetry (just picked up a term from the list above). H&A just happened to be the one meaningful shape among all possible patterns - one can just wander what other symbols RBC symmetry can generate

Hope this helps. I wish there were more stones like this talked about around here

 

[Superidealist]

----------------
On the dark areas of an Ideal-Scope image, valeria101 wrote:

The respective bits of facets would light up under direct light providing 'flash' or reflect the surrounding objects when no direct light hith them under diffuse light conditions).
----------------

I've never been completely comfortable saying that black and dark red indicate regions of greater light return. It certainly could be the case that the darkness is due entirely to lens reflection, but a possibility that I've never seen raised is that it may instead indicate a region of poor light return and minimal leakage.

If a region of a diamond were to have no leakage and yet return no light to the veiwer, that region would appear black in the diamond's Ideal-Scope view. So it is not necessarily the case that black indicates light return. In practice, I doubt this case actually occurs, though.

 

[Mara]

black areas in the idealscope show contrast, correct? if so, a good mixture of red and black would seemingly show great scintillation and that great mix of dark and white sparkle?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Ana and everyone.
Welcome back Mrs Mara

Black in an ideal-scope = black when you hold the stone face up 12 inches from your head.
Black is black.
Black = 0.00000000 light return.
full stop.
People who talk about hot spots and intense light return have not got a clue. It is real simple.
If the Idealscope lens blocks light from the pink reflector - your head will block lights from the environment, and unless you put your fingers in a power socket (or you have a very bright face and blonde hair) the black lokks black.

 

[solange]

I am really confused about information provided by the Idealscope. There has been much discussion and difference of opinion on images that are supposed to be hearts and arrows or one of the other brands.
However I could find little information on Idealscope images of stnes that are of Ideal proportions but not hearts and arrows. How much value should one put on the Idealscope image in making a decision since there is not a general consensus as to how much black is acceptable?
I am grateful to Garry for all the information he provided but am also confused about the fact that, although my stone is overgraded by the GIA as very good symmetry, this defect may improve the appearance of the stone. Is this 3D symmetry as opposed to regular symmetry? I would be very curious to see how this image would rate on one of Jonathan's machines as to the three areas he tests for.

 

[solange]

I am hoping that there will be additional information from those who attended the Las Vegas Conference and that there will be additional information as to how to interpret and Idealscope image of non hearts and arrows stones and how much it means in determining whether you should purchase the stone.
There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether some extra black in the image adds or detracts from the stone.
Also, if, as in the case of my stone, the overgraded symmetry may have made for a better looking stone, how much does symmetry mean in determining the value of the stone?

 

[antigoon]

----------------
On 6/1/2004 7:40:39 PM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:

Thanks Ana and everyone.
Welcome back Mrs Mara

Black in an ideal-scope = black when you hold the stone face up 12 inches from your head.
Black is black.
Black = 0.00000000 light return.
full stop.

People who talk about hot spots and intense light return have not got a clue. It is real simple.

If the Idealscope lens blocks light from the pink reflector - your head will block lights from the environment, and unless you put your fingers in a power socket (or you have a very bright face and blonde hair) the black lokks black.----------------

So when you first get engaged, and are showing your engagement ring to your friends, and they take your hand up close, and look at the ring with their head < 30 cm away, yes indeed they will see dead spots in the diamond as their heads block the light.

Then, for the rest of your life, when people rarely see your ring from less than 1 meter away (often across the table or the room), and they are not looking directly 90 degrees down on your diamond, the areas of firescope black will be areas of perfect reflection and will look fantastic.

Am I wrong in my thinking?

Steve

 

[Rhino]

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 6/8/2004 7:50:07 PM antigoon wrote:


So when you first get engaged, and are showing your engagement ring to your friends, and they take your hand up close, and look at the ring with their head < 30 cm away, yes indeed they will see dead spots in the diamond as their heads block the light.

----------------

A sheet of paper is 11inch long... who gets that close to a ring? And that may not block light after all - you need to actualy block the main light source for that. This is not very easy in the typical room with multiple light sources and the ring being held up on your hand, not placed on a table below the viewer's head.

Is it more to those Ideal Scope immages than judging how black the arrows are? Or wasn't that supposed to be a good thing about H&A diamodns after all...

 

[solange]

delete. Sorry. I posted it on the wrong link. It was meant to be a PM.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

how come all the deleted posts?