shape
carat
color
clarity

Opinions of this Idealscope?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

mski3812

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
25
I have found a diamond I really like and would like some opinions of this IS. Thanks in advance.
Matt

IS_AGS-6550404.jpg
 
Well, I can guess where that one is from
2.gif


Matt, that''s a nice image and thats what you can expect from any ACA stone.
There will be some slight variation between stones but any ACA is going to provide similar, superior light return.

Keep in mind that for a stone becomes an ACA selection it must first be graded AGSL000 (Ideal) - what most consider the highest laboratory standard.
The ACA designation means that it has passed additional standards determined by the vendor. The vendor will be happy to explain.

Good Luck!
 
Thanks for that info. I know that ACA diamonds are some of the best for the money when it comes to superideals. The other ACA that I found had white spots in the IS image. Are these white spots light leakage? Is there a link that explains different IS images?
Thanks
 
Looks like a beautiful one to me but I'm not an experienced viewer. I am interested in the ACAs though. Have you asked them if this is a New Line or a Classic ACA? You tend to see more white spots around the edges in the Classic which I believe contribute to increased contrast. This image seems to be more uniformly red suggesting it is a New Line. However, I thought that about one of the stones I am interested in and they said that particular IdealScope image was taken at a different time with slightly different settings which is what made it look darker. On the Whiteflash website, they mention that neither New Line or Classic is "better", both are beautiful (of course) and its just a matter of personal preference. You might want to inquire about it (if you don't already know) and see which you may prefer.

Here is an email from Whiteflash with examples:

Re: the new line - honestly the only way you can tell the difference is from the idealscope. The classic line has an idealscope like this (click on idealscope):

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-160981.htm#

The new line has an idealscope like this:

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-55356.htm#

We have more classic line than new line in the inventory.
 
I just read your recent post where you were asking about this. There is some info on it on Whiteflash''s website, and you can also search on New Line Classic Whiteflash on this forum and read up on it.
 
Thanks for that info. I had no idea about the classic and new line ACA. The one I am looking at must be a new line because the other similiar diamonds had an idealscope like the classic one you showed me. Thank you so much for the examples.
I am going to e-mail too make sure but I really think it must be a new line.
 
You're welcome. I don't know if it is possible to tell which either of us would prefer without seeing them. Reading only goes so far. But all the ones in my parameter range are Classics so it hasn't been an issue for me.
 
The link is in the toolbar at the top under "TOOLS" or here

Some white,in the correct places, is normal.

Speculating....I think the differences may be related to the photography process.... note that I am not saying post-processing like photoshop but the actual difficulty and variations in photographing at 40-60 times size. That''s just my half-educated guess. I recommend asking WF directly to clarify the differences you see.

I can appreciate the desire to find the perfect stone, maybe more than most. I spent a LOT of time looking at certs, IS images and the like before picking a stone.
However, in retrospect, I think I put too much time into that aspect of it. Any ACA, with the trade-up policy, is going to be tough to beat.


I''m not sure I know how to explain this right, but since I just spent a couple of hours on Monday examining 4 ACA''s up close I''ll give it a try...
Considering the exacting nature of the specs for a stone to become an ACA, and allowing for differences in size, color and clarity, you are very unlikely to see a difference in any two. There is not a lot of ''wiggle room'' in ACA specs - a stone either is or it isn''t. I don''t think there are good ACA''s and great ACA''s... just ACA''s.

If you have decided to go with an ACA (which I did) you have already taken care of the biggest C - cut. You can then use your preferences for the other C''s - including cost - to help you pick the right ACA.

I don''t mean to sound like a commercial for WF or ACA, but for myself, both were the right choice. I live in Houston so I was blessed with the opportunity to meet with Brian Gavin personally and review my final 4 selections. Obviously, I was impressed and in the end, I chose the same stone that I would have purchased online based on the ''other'' C''s.

I hope that helps!
 
Ah, I get corrected while typing....

I had forgotten about the 'Classic' and 'New Line' stuff. My brain became overloaded with diamond dust about a week ago and is just starting to clear
2.gif


EDIT:

Its mentioned that you're not sure which you would prefer without seeing them.
I just re-checked the stones I reviewed the other day and found that 1 of them was a 'New Line'. I wouldn't have been able to pick it out from the others - but that's me.

Also, just a thought.... keep in mind the size of the IS images compared to the actual stones.
1.gif
 
I will tell you waht man, that has VERY little light leakage along the girdle. especially at the arrow tips--reminds me of when I was reading up on 8* diamonds. Also, I am PRETTY sure that the white dots you see are actually dust that was on the diamond and were thus preventing the light from returning. Which if I am correct goes to show you just how important it is to keep those little guys clean. If they aren't kept clean we are just wasting our time with all of this work....

I actually met some of my relatives this last weekend and we talked about diamonds. One of them had a 1.3-1.4ct she said (which I think was really shallow, it was facing up like a cruise liner 1.5+ for sure
2.gif
and didn't have much depth at all, but I didn't tell her that ) and she asked me what I thought about it, so I told her--I have no idea, it is way too dirty. But I am sure it would be pretty if it were cleaned.

She told me that she never cleans it because she knew somebody that lost hers once and so she felt it was better to just never take it off than to take it off to clean it...I guess to each their own, but man, is she missing out.

Anyway, I am tired...the point was that dirt and dust blocks light, thats probably what you are seeing, but maybe john or someone else can chime in and let us know for sure.
 
I prefer a little leakage, gives it nice contrast and sparkle.
 
This definitely looks like a New Line going by the IS, beautiful image!
 
Date: 6/27/2007 12:22:49 PM
Author: JohnQuixote



When I see dust in photos it’s usually larger, but maybe that’s b/c we’re in TX.
2.gif

I like that one
1.gif
 
It''s a beautiful image!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top