Pictures and Idealscope of Stone I''d Been Considering -- Opinions?

[jbernste]

I''d been considering the following stone:

Price: $11,357.00
Report: AGS
Shape: Round
Carat: 1.740
Color: H
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 61.6
Table: 56
Crown angle: 34.3
Pavillion angle: 41.0
Pavillion depth: 43.3%
Crown height: 15.1%

Girdle: M-
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 7.74-7.79X4.78

In an earlier thread, the predominant view was that the stone could be a great one, but that the 41.0 pavillion angle might cause some trouble. I just got photos and an Idealscope from WF for this stone. To my untrained eye, it looks like there is slight-moderate leakage on the periphery of the stone. Also, I''m concerned that the arrow in the 4:00 position seems off.

Thoughts?

 

[jbernste]

Here's a picture of the stone.

 

[Tek]

First off, is this suppose to be a H&A stone? It certainly doesn't look like one of their A Cut Above lines. If this was touted as a H&A, then I would be concerned about the Arrow in the 4 o'clock position. If it's not a H&A, then it's a very good diamond that displays H&A like symmetry, but not perfect.

The IdealScope image isn't bad, but not great either. It looks to have minor leakage at the center of the diamond. Go to this link, https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp, to read more about how to understand IdealScope images. The diamond will still be quite a sparkler. As for the outter edges, that's normal. Unless the diamond has tweaked minor facets, this will always be the case. Most ideal scopes will have that outter edge leakage. However, if you look at their A Cut Above line, they have a completely red image because they cut their facets to not leak light in those areas.

 

[Mara]

I am really not loving this stone.




The IdealScope looks somewhat leaky to me. There's a white in the table that speaks of leakage and it seems like slightly more than usual along the edges. To me this is not a very well-cut stone.




I would keep looking...though I am not sure what your priorities are...cut first or size or ?




Did you look at the 1.84 J VS2 I noted this morning that WF has in their expert selection? The numbers look very nice and they have it in-house, get some pix of that thing. Med blue fluor will make the J appear whiter, more like an I. Note my other comments in the other thread.

 

[jbernste]

I share the same concerns y'all voiced. No, it's not being sold as an H&A, and it plainly isn't. I spoke with Brian from WF about it today and he compared it to another stone I'd been looking at, an 1.65 H SI1 GIA. Brian's preference was for the 1.65 ct stone -- he said it faced up both whiter and bigger.

I feel like someone knocked the wind out of me. I'd really been hoping that the 1.74 ct. stone was going to be the right one. Looks like it isn't.

 

[Mara]

I saw the 1.65 H SI stone too...I would not be surprised if that was a knockout in person!!! The numbers were very good and the IS image was an eyepopper. Compare that IS to this one and you will see huge differences.




I would pass on this stone. Consider the 1.65 and also have him compare the 1.84 to the 1.65. See what he thinks. Brian's eyes are top-notch.




Good luck!

 

[valeria101]

Hm... I have a hard time comparing the two IS pictures. The one on the thread is very detailed, while the other one quite hazy. Neither is of the deepest red, byt this one (as oposed to the pic for the 1.6) at least shows allot of detail. I would qualify the leackage under the table as minor: it appears only on one side so this could well be due to some slight tilt in the stone, rather than cut disaster. Whatever happens around the girdle does not appear - to me, of course - any worse that whatever the stones without "tweacking" look like. While this piece is no H&A, it looks like a front runner in the light return department. The 1.6's picture is not conclusive to me: the field of pink (not red) with little contrast showing does not appear conclusive.

Why I say this?

There is a page on the Good Old Gold site explaining what contrast does to these red-white-black pictures (HERE) and, next to the IS reference chart (HERE) this picture hold it's own nicely next to that "very good" mark.

Just my 0.2, of course

Unless you want to go for a 'perfectly ideal' H&A, this is not a reject!

 

[Mara]

IMO there is no comparison between these two.




This 1.65 H SI is what I like to call an almost ACA. It was most likely cut to be an ACA stone, but something on it was not par for the brand, so it's an expert selection. There are so many beautiful stones with top notch numbers in ES...

The IS image on this 1.65 is beautiful. Absolutely.




I would hands down take this 1.65 over the 1.74 all day and every day long.

For LESS money even.

 

[valeria101]

Wow! Now I did it! I must have had a different picture opened on my monitor... The line in BOLD in my previous post is WROING. This IS pic you have posted, Mara, looks just fine - still a bit blurred but not as much as to get me worried. No strong words on this one: it sows better symmetry than the first pic and there is no way the object pictured in it could be a looser.

The two pictures (the correct pair) still does not look like 'apples to apples" comparison, but both stones are nice, with some advantage going to the second - as you say

Thanks!