Painted Girdle = Bad? How to spot an AGS painted ideal?

[snowstorm]

There is a general feeling that painted girdles are regarded as undesirable (e.g. http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/). GIA will not allow a painted girdle to make EX but AGS will allow it to make ideal. How can someone spot a AGS ideal that has a painted girdle?

I am particularly interested in the following stone from James Allen, found it through search on this site , but am rather hesitant because I am afraid it might be a AGS painted ideal. Can someone shed light on how to spot a painted girdle and if you think the following stone is painted?

AGS cert: http://www.jamesallen.com/certs/T10-222CER.JPG
Ideal scope pic: http://www.jamesallen.com/_images/idealscope/T10-222ID.jpg
Visual pic: http://www.jamesallen.com/diampics/T10-222PIC.JPG

You think this stone is OK?

 

[Mrs W]

that stone is not painted bc it would all red, even at the edges

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Gorgeous stone with no concerns whatsoever! Hope you have it on hold!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/7/2008 10:18:28 PM
Author:snowstorm
There is a general feeling that painted girdles are regarded as undesirable (e.g. http://www.goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/Painting/). GIA will not allow a painted girdle to make EX but AGS will allow it to make ideal. How can someone spot a AGS ideal that has a painted girdle?

I am particularly interested in the following stone from James Allen, found it through search on this site , but am rather hesitant because I am afraid it might be a AGS painted ideal. Can someone shed light on how to spot a painted girdle and if you think the following stone is painted?

AGS cert: http://www.jamesallen.com/certs/T10-222CER.JPG
Ideal scope pic: http://www.jamesallen.com/_images/idealscope/T10-222ID.jpg
Visual pic: http://www.jamesallen.com/diampics/T10-222PIC.JPG

You think this stone is OK?

Two clarifications...

1. GIA will allow painting or digging if it is minimal and doesn''t impact face up optics that they could determine in their studies.
2. Not everyone''s reflector images convey how much or little a diamond is painted or dug. What one websites image shows as easy to determine anothers can make it look different. I''ve shown this before with IdealScope images.

The most accurate way of determining is with a Helium Scan which shows the precise amount of painting/digging.

Peace,

 

[snowstorm]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.
There''s so much to know... this is pretty overwhelming.

"2. Not everyone''s reflector images convey how much or little a diamond is painted or dug. What one websites image shows as easy to determine another can make it look different. I''ve shown this before with IdealScope images."

Does that mean if you can''t see the difference in a reflector image, then it won''t be detrimental to the optics?
What''s the best way to see the effects of painting / digging in an optical picture or ideal scope image?

 

[strmrdr]

I gotta disagree properly taken an IS/ASET image is perfect for telling if a diamond is painted or not.
In my opinion near tolk enough to close the contrast spots at the point of the stars in the IS image is to much. (~2 degrees)

 

[strmrdr]

The diamond in question is fine.
It has little to no painting.
Pretty much every diamond has some painting or digging just from the cutting tolerances and it isn''t an issue until it gets to the level of to much.

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 12/8/2008 3:11:06 AM
Author: strmrdr
I gotta disagree properly taken an IS/ASET image is perfect for telling if a diamond is painted or not.
In my opinion near tolk enough to close the contrast spots at the point of the stars in the IS image is to much. (~2 degrees)

That''s rather the point, isn''t it?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/8/2008 4:08:12 AM
Author: oldmancoyote

Date: 12/8/2008 3:11:06 AM

Author: strmrdr

I gotta disagree properly taken an IS/ASET image is perfect for telling if a diamond is painted or not.

In my opinion near tolk enough to close the contrast spots at the point of the stars in the IS image is to much. (~2 degrees)

That''s rather the point, isn''t it?

It is easy enough to tell if it is properly taken with some experence.
I have read enough of them that they don''t even have to be that good to get useful data from them.

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 12/8/2008 4:13:17 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/8/2008 4:08:12 AM
Author: oldmancoyote

Date: 12/8/2008 3:11:06 AM

Author: strmrdr

I gotta disagree properly taken an IS/ASET image is perfect for telling if a diamond is painted or not.

In my opinion near tolk enough to close the contrast spots at the point of the stars in the IS image is to much. (~2 degrees)

That's rather the point, isn't it?

It is easy enough to tell if it is properly taken with some experence.
I have read enough of them that they don't even have to be that good to get useful data from them.

Are you an average consumer? Or even an average pricescope member? Don't think so.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 12/7/2008 10:18:28 PM
Author:snowstorm
There is a general feeling that painted girdles are regarded as undesirable.

Snow, I think I'd qualify this a bit more. Painting done beyond a certain degree can be bad, but painting that is done minimally (within proper tolerances) is not only not "bad", it can actually improve the face-up appearance of a diamond.

If a diamond has reasonably earned the AGS0 grade under the current system, there's no need to split hairs about whether or not the stone is painted. In fact, I know several people who actually prefer the look of slightly painted stones and specifically look for those.