Please..... Rate my IdealScope image

[Guess]

Hey all, I need your help again. I am considering an internet stone that I had sent to an appraiser who is not close enough for me to visit in person. I asked him for an idealscope image and he sent this (photo attached).

1) Does it look like a good stone? I don''t have much idealscope experience
2) Why might the background show a dark halo with reddish exterior, a lot of the images I have seen have white backgrounds?
3) I''m not saying this happened, my appriaser seems very trustworthy, but...If you illuminated any old stone with redish bottom lighting, and then cropped a circle around the stone would it look like an amazing idealscope?

Thanks!

 

[Rhino]

The red halo is from the camera capturing the actual reflector surrounding the stone.

This diamond appears to have painted girdle facets based on this image. It looks to be enough to disqualify it from being a GIA Ex in light performance. You may want to make a visual comparison of it next to an unpainted stone as many observers who have seen this do not desire it. Some do some don't. The amount/extent of the painting is not really discernable from this image so it's impossible to tell if or how much it impacts face up appearance.

An ASET image or knowledge of the upper girdle and lower girdle angles would confirm the extent of it.

Optical symmetry/craftsmanship looks to be *near ideal* with perhaps a heart or 2 slightly smaller which is no big whoop unless you're after a true H&A type of stone.

Regards,

 

[Guess]

Rhino,

This is the first I''ve heard of painting, I just read up on it a little and will do some more research.

Is is a GIA Ex in cut. Is that different than a GIA Ex in light performance? The certificate says nothing about light performance specifically.

The crown angle is 34.5, the pavillion is 40.8. Are the upper and lower girdle angles something else?

Thanks.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/25/2006 4:10:30 PM
Author: Guess
Rhino,

This is the first I''ve heard of painting, I just read up on it a little and will do some more research.

Good. There are varying degrees of it. Some which is minor and does not impact face up appearance but there are others which do.

Is is a GIA Ex in cut. Is that different than a GIA Ex in light performance? The certificate says nothing about light performance specifically.

If the stone is indeed a GIA Ex in cut then either ...

a. There is no painting at all and the IS image is lacking the detail to observe this or
b. The painting is minimal and does not impact face up appearance at all.

Not all IS images show the same detail even with regards to light leakage. Not long ago an appraiser here on PS sent the same diamond to many people who take these kind of photographs and we were able to observe the results of all of them. The information each image showed varied quite dramatically regarding light leakage so while an IS image is good to attain, the consistency of the images shown from each appraiser/vendor is important to know as well.

An IS image should be backed up with at least a Sarin/GIA/AGS report with the proportions.

The crown angle is 34.5, the pavillion is 40.8. Are the upper and lower girdle angles something else?

Thanks.

Those are cherry angles. With those angles and the knowledge that it is indeed a GIA Ex in cut it looks like you''re pretty safe.

Hope that helps and it''s a pleasure to serve.

Kind regards,

 

[Regular Guy]

painting definition:

a) a thing Tom Sawyer was good at getting other people to do
b) strategy for using a contemporary discussion point for differentiating one''s goods from another popular vendor here
c) a topic that may have some intrinsic merit, but whose merit is usually superceded by the annoying way it is frequently introduced
d) all of the above
e) some of the above
f) I don''t care, but I need it done for my house

 

[belle]

Date: 7/25/2006 3:48:01 PM
Author:Guess
Hey all, I need your help again. I am considering an internet stone that I had sent to an appraiser who is not close enough for me to visit in person. I asked him for an idealscope image and he sent this (photo attached).

1) Does it look like a good stone? I don''t have much idealscope experience
2) Why might the background show a dark halo with reddish exterior, a lot of the images I have seen have white backgrounds?
3) I''m not saying this happened, my appriaser seems very trustworthy, but...If you illuminated any old stone with redish bottom lighting, and then cropped a circle around the stone would it look like an amazing idealscope?

Thanks!

i''ll answer, since it appears rhino went off on his painting scare instead of addressing your questions

Date: 7/25/2006 3:48:01 PM
Author:Guess

1) Does it look like a good stone? I don''t have much idealscope experience

yes it does. there is very little light leakage and nice symmetry.
you can read more about idealscope images at www.ideal-scope.com

Date: 7/25/2006 3:48:01 PM
Author:Guess

2) Why might the background show a dark halo with reddish exterior, a lot of the images I have seen have white backgrounds?

the dark halo is the background (probably a black ''stand'' the stone was sitting on) and the reddish exterior is the inside of the idealscope. the different backgrounds correlate with different set ups.

Date: 7/25/2006 3:48:01 PM
Author:Guess

3) I''m not saying this happened, my appriaser seems very trustworthy, but...If you illuminated any old stone with redish bottom lighting, and then cropped a circle around the stone would it look like an amazing idealscope?

a truly independent appraiser would have nothing to benefit from this.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/25/2006 5:16:20 PM
Author: Regular Guy
painting definition:

a) a thing Tom Sawyer was good at getting other people to do
b) strategy for using a contemporary discussion point for differentiating one''s goods from another popular vendor here
c) a topic that may have some intrinsic merit, but whose merit is usually superceded by the annoying way it is frequently introduced
d) all of the above
e) some of the above
f) I don''t care, but I need it done for my house

lol...great summary rg! i missed that while i was slow posting.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/25/2006 3:53:58 PM
Author: Rhino
The red halo is from the camera capturing the actual reflector surrounding the stone.

This diamond appears to have painted girdle facets based on this image. It looks to be enough to disqualify it from being a GIA Ex in light performance. You may want to make a visual comparison of it next to an unpainted stone as many observers who have seen this do not desire it. Some do some don''t. The amount/extent of the painting is not really discernable from this image so it''s impossible to tell if or how much it impacts face up appearance.

first of all...those two sentences totally contradict eachother.
though, i know the first one was put first because it serves your purpose and the second one was added because you know you can''t tell squat about how much a stone was painted by an idealscope image.

secondly....there is no ''gia ex in light performance'' and you know that

why do you insist on putting forth irrelevant, and in this case WRONG, information?

 

[pricescope]

>>2. Why might the background show a dark halo with reddish exterior, a lot of the images I have seen have white backgrounds?

I might be wrong but it looks like the picture was taken without proper illumination from beneath the stone...

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/25/2006 5:55:01 PM
Author: Pricescope
>>2. Why might the background show a dark halo with reddish exterior, a lot of the images I have seen have white backgrounds?

I might be wrong but it looks like the picture was taken without proper illumination from beneath the stone...

I believe you to be absolutely correct. I have attached a photo here that I have made some notes on, the color of the text matching the color of the circled areas.

While this stone appears to have little leakage in this photo, I believe that were the stone properly illuminated that you would see leakage in the areas and others like them that I have circled in white.

The stone also has a couple of pretty crooked arrow heads circled in yellow.

Still, the stone should be a very HOT looker, especially since we know it to have been graded an excellent cut by GIA. While I have my dissagreements with their new cut grading system, I see nothing in this photo to preclude it from looking very nice. It does not have the "ring of death" that we would expect to see from a seriously steep/deep and I will ignore my misguided friend Jonathon''s attempt to impose the big bad painting monster again, as this picture does not give us the necessary information to discern whether it has or has not been painted, and if it has it is minor which we know because it did receive the Ex cut grade from GIA.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

Hi Belle

Hope you are having a blessed day.

Date: 7/25/2006 5:40:44 PM
Author: belle

Date: 7/25/2006 3:53:58 PM
Author: Rhino
The red halo is from the camera capturing the actual reflector surrounding the stone.

This diamond appears to have painted girdle facets based on this image. It looks to be enough to disqualify it from being a GIA Ex in light performance. You may want to make a visual comparison of it next to an unpainted stone as many observers who have seen this do not desire it. Some do some don't. The amount/extent of the painting is not really discernable from this image so it's impossible to tell if or how much it impacts face up appearance.

first of all...those two sentences totally contradict eachother.
though, i know the first one was put first because it serves your purpose and the second one was added because you know you can't tell squat about how much a stone was painted by an idealscope image.

God forbid I share my honest opinion and evaluation of a reflector image.

The first sentence is based on my experience photographing painted girdle diamonds. This reflector image appears very much like those of painted girdle diamonds, hence its relevance to the posters questions about it.

Since each photographers reflector images vary, the reason for my second statement. In fact one appraiser here who has had several photographers photograph the same stone showed varying results for leakage which ranged from accurate, to somewhat accurate to dead wrong. This appraiser knows that not all reflector images can be relied upon for accurate gemological information.

In our own photography I can determine degrees of painting especially when accompanied by a 3d sarin or helium scan for confirmation.

I am getting tired of your accusations belle each time a person asks a question or this subject comes up. I am simply sharing my professional opinion and was careful to state some like it some don't. No scare tactics. You are manufacturing this about me in your own mind and you are judging me falsely. Perhaps certain professional's should be censored if they don't follow a certain creed?

Date: 7/25/2006 5:40:44 PM
Author: belle

secondly....there is no 'gia ex in light performance' and you know that

why do you insist on putting forth irrelevant, and in this case WRONG, information?

Belle ... what do you think people were looking at when they conducted the largest observation experiment ever conducted in the history of mankind? I'll give you a hint ... they were examining 3 factors. One begins with a b. One begins with an f and one begins with an s. Each of these optical characteristics these people were observing relates directly to light performance. Can you guess what they are? Light performance based on observation testing is at the hub of the GIA system dear. Where are you getting this bad and misleading information?

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/25/2006 5:16:20 PM
Author: Regular Guy
painting definition:

a) a thing Tom Sawyer was good at getting other people to do
b) strategy for using a contemporary discussion point for differentiating one''s goods from another popular vendor here
c) a topic that may have some intrinsic merit, but whose merit is usually superceded by the annoying way it is frequently introduced
d) all of the above
e) some of the above
f) I don''t care, but I need it done for my house

Hi Ira,

I''ll admit I''m not the best communicator sometimes and have been misunderstood once in a while but what exactly is annoying about my commentary to the poster? He asked for an opinion and I shared mine which I thought was rather quite neautral and matter of fact. My advice was for the poster to see and compare if this was indeed the case and that some don''t like it and some do. If there is a better or more tactful way for me to communicate these thoughts I am open to hearing your suggestion.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/25/2006 5:55:01 PM
Author: Pricescope
>>2. Why might the background show a dark halo with reddish exterior, a lot of the images I have seen have white backgrounds?

I might be wrong but it looks like the picture was taken without proper illumination from beneath the stone...

Definitely looks to be the case Leo. Lighting can greatly alter the effects of the image.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

I''d concur with Winks assessment (with the exception of the personal comments

) and also add that it appears the stone is slightly tilted in the tray which could also be cause for the off arrows. If the stone were centered properly and also properly illuminated itd be better but with the angle combo and the grade, as mentioned earlier you look to be safe.

On a personal note Guess ... if there was any offense/annoyance/rudeness in my commentary to you I apologize. My intent here is to help and to educate when I have the chance to do so.

Godspeed on your purchase and engagement.

Kind regards,

 

[Rod]

Date: 7/25/2006 5:16:20 PM
Author: Regular Guy
painting definition:

a) a thing Tom Sawyer was good at getting other people to do
b) strategy for using a contemporary discussion point for differentiating one''s goods from another popular vendor here
c) a topic that may have some intrinsic merit, but whose merit is usually superceded by the annoying way it is frequently introduced
d) all of the above
e) some of the above
f) I don''t care, but I need it done for my house

LOL!!!!!!! Ummmm B. No, C. Hmmmmmmmm I''ll go with D!!!! Too Too Funny!!!

That stone, is likely quite beautifu BTW..........

 

[belle]

Date: 7/26/2006 2:56:57 PM
Author: Rhino

God forbid I share my honest opinion and evaluation of a reflector image.

The first sentence is based on my experience photographing painted girdle diamonds. This reflector image appears very much like those of painted girdle diamonds, hence its relevance to the posters questions about it.

that is the problem, you did NOT answer the original posters questions about the image, you only managed to work in your 'painting' scare. if you want to disguise that as your 'honest opinion' to make yourself feel better, so be it. you are entitled to your own opinion (no one said you weren't!!) but that does not mean i have to agree with it or that i cannot post my own.

i guess if i would have been more subtle about calling you out on it like ira or wink i wouldn't have to be arguing this with you now.

Date: 7/26/2006 2:56:57 PM
Author: Rhino

Since each photographers reflector images vary, the reason for my second statement. In fact one appraiser here who has had several photographers photograph the same stone showed varying results for leakage which ranged from accurate, to somewhat accurate to dead wrong. This appraiser knows that not all reflector images can be relied upon for accurate gemological information.

that concurs with the fact that your statement was contradictory.

thank you for proving the point.

Date: 7/26/2006 2:56:57 PM
Author: Rhino

In our own photography I can determine degrees of painting especially when accompanied by a 3d sarin or helium scan for confirmation.

me too!
unfortunately we had neither here so it would be asinine to even try and make assumptions about this stone and how it would be effected by painting.
well....unless we were wanting to scare someone into thinking 'painting' was bad.

Date: 7/26/2006 2:56:57 PM
Author: Rhino

I am getting tired of your accusations belle each time a person asks a question or this subject comes up. I am simply sharing my professional opinion and was careful to state some like it some don't. No scare tactics. You are manufacturing this about me in your own mind and you are judging me falsely. Perhaps certain professional's should be censored if they don't follow a certain creed? Last I heard communism fell and freedom of speech still exists. Until that changes I will continue to share my professional opinion.

getting tired? ME TOO! it sounds like several others are as well.

again, if i would have been more clever like ira, or nicey like wink, i guess this could have just been passed off as an annoyance instead of an 'accusation'.

take a look in the mirror sometime.

Date: 7/26/2006 2:56:57 PM
Author: Rhino

Belle ... what do you think people were looking at when they conducted the largest observation experiment ever conducted in the history of mankind? I'll give you a hint ... they were examining 3 factors. One begins with a b. One begins with an f and one begins with an s. Each of these optical characteristics these people were observing relates directly to light performance. Can you guess what they are? Light performance based on observation testing is at the hub of the GIA system dear. Where are you getting this bad and misleading information?

facts:
less than 2% of diamonds gia grades are influenced by painting or digging
i think the ps vendors can be trusted to sort that out…

it’s funny that you pick and choose what sells your stones from the different technologies and labs out there…you use gia’s painting scare, but you don’t support steep/deep? wait a minute…didn’t those 70,000 observations support steep/deep? if you’re going to cite this to back up your painting scare you need to embrace it all…you can’t just pick and choose what 70,000 observations agreed on you either use it all or dismiss it.

the gia EX grade is NOT in light performance like the AGS shows on their document. its confusing to say that and you know it. EX is proportions with GIA.

you are misleading.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 7/25/2006 3:48:01 PM
Author:Guess

3) I'm not saying this happened, my appriaser seems very trustworthy, but...If you illuminated any old stone with redish bottom lighting, and then cropped a circle around the stone would it look like an amazing idealscope?

Guess,

An idealscope image involves several things. First, a diamond. Second, an idealscope. Third a lighting environment. Fourth, an imaging system. Fifth, an editing system. Sixth a display method.

5/6th of this has nothing to do with the diamond and adjusting them will produce wildly different results, even when using the same diamond. Comparing IS images can be useful when the other criteria can be counted on to be reasonably constant, like when the images were made by the same photographer using the same setup, but otherwise its very problematic. Interpreting an isolated image like you’ve asked leaves a margin of error that is so large that it makes the opinion useless.

Attached are 4 quick images. They are of the same stone, using the same light and the same camera. No photoshop editing other than cropping. The only difference has to do with the way the stone is mounted in the tool. Incidentally, the stone is an AGS1. The difference in photography is much more pronounced on stones that are really bad, I just don't happen to have one handy.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Nice example Neil.

Date: 7/26/2006 3:45:36 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 7/25/2006 3:48:01 PM
Author:Guess

3) I''m not saying this happened, my appriaser seems very trustworthy, but...If you illuminated any old stone with redish bottom lighting, and then cropped a circle around the stone would it look like an amazing idealscope?

Attached are 4 quick images. They are of the same stone, using the same light and the same camera. No photoshop editing other than cropping. The only difference has to do with the way the stone is mounted in the tool. Incidentally, the stone is an AGS1. The difference in photography is much more pronounced on stones that are really bad, I just don''t happen to have one handy.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Leonid was on the money - this appraiser is using the ideal-scope the same way that a Hearts and Arrows photo would be taken.

Rhino thatnks for the painting sermon?
We need frequent reminding. But we will repent.

 

[Rhino]

Belle ... reread my response bracketed below. I changed one contextual thing.

Date: 7/25/2006 3:53:58 PM
Author: Rhino
The red halo is from the camera capturing the actual reflector surrounding the stone.

This diamond appears to have dug out girdle facets based on this image. It looks to be enough to disqualify it from being a GIA Ex in light performance. You may want to make a visual comparison of it next to an stone without digging as many observers who have seen this do not desire it. Some do some don''t. The amount/extent of the digging is not really discernable from this image so it''s impossible to tell if or how much it impacts face up appearance.

An ASET image or knowledge of the upper girdle and lower girdle angles would confirm the extent of it.

Optical symmetry/craftsmanship looks to be *near ideal* with perhaps a heart or 2 slightly smaller which is no big whoop unless you''re after a true H&A type of stone.

Regards,

Question belle. Assuming this individual posted a stone with an IS image that appeared to have digging instead of painting. Does the above response warrant an attack on my part for dug out girdles?

 

[Rhino]

Great points and demonstration Neil.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/26/2006 4:47:08 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Nice example Neil.

Date: 7/26/2006 3:45:36 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 7/25/2006 3:48:01 PM
Author:Guess

3) I''m not saying this happened, my appriaser seems very trustworthy, but...If you illuminated any old stone with redish bottom lighting, and then cropped a circle around the stone would it look like an amazing idealscope?

Attached are 4 quick images. They are of the same stone, using the same light and the same camera. No photoshop editing other than cropping. The only difference has to do with the way the stone is mounted in the tool. Incidentally, the stone is an AGS1. The difference in photography is much more pronounced on stones that are really bad, I just don''t happen to have one handy.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Leonid was on the money - this appraiser is using the ideal-scope the same way that a Hearts and Arrows photo would be taken.

Rhino thatnks for the painting sermon?
We need frequent reminding. But we will repent.

Hey Garry,

Long time no speak mate. Hope you''re having a good summer.

Na ... no sermons. Just calling it as I see it. As you pointed out Leo was on as well as Neil. Hope this post finds you well.

Regards,

 

[rogue]

I don''t mean to hijack the post, but the four IS images brings up a question I''ve had. In some diamonds I have seen, the size of the culet region of the stone looks larger than others. I am not talking about the culet itself - it''s not a hole - this can be seen in pointed/none culets. The reflection of the center area is much larger than normal, which gives the effect of a glassy hole when looking down through the table. Is this a reflection of the table? Why is it more pronounced in some stones than in others?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/26/2006 5:57:59 PM
Author: Rhino

Hey Garry,

Long time no speak mate. Hope you''re having a good summer. I did not know you were a flat earrth proponent Rhino? It is winter here when it is summer there.

Na ... no sermons. it is unusual to find you not mentioning painting in most threads these days. Just calling it as I see it. As you pointed out Leo was on as well as Neil. Hope this post finds you well.Been great mate. hope you are enjoying your summer. Our winter is not quite cold enough for me - skiing next week and there is really only man made slush

Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/26/2006 6:40:39 PM
Author: rogue
I don''t mean to hijack the post, but the four IS images brings up a question I''ve had. In some diamonds I have seen, the size of the culet region of the stone looks larger than others. I am not talking about the culet itself - it''s not a hole - this can be seen in pointed/none culets. The reflection of the center area is much larger than normal, which gives the effect of a glassy hole when looking down through the table. Is this a reflection of the table? Why is it more pronounced in some stones than in others?

Correct - as the pavilion gets deeper the center reflection gets lower. This stone of Neils also has a shallow crown - so it is not too leaky.
Little known fact: the table reflection also gets larger as the table gets bigger - leading most people who use the Liddicaot pavilion depth estimation method to arrive at deeper pavilion depth % estimates.

 

[Guess]

A great many thanks to all who replied, it has been very educational. You guys rule!

Rhino, no need to appologize at all. While your first post did worry me a little bit, the fact you conceded "If the stone is indeed a GIA Ex in cut then either ...a. There is no painting at all and the IS image is lacking the detail to observe this or b. The painting is minimal and does not impact face up appearance at all. made it clear to me that you were not simply employing a scare tactic. Especially since you said this b/f others chimed in.

To make a long story short, I have bought this diamond and CANNOT WAIT to see it.
Vital Stats:
Price: $5810
Certification: GIA
Shape: Round Brilliant (H&A)
Carat Weight: 1.12
Clarity Grade: VS2 (major inclusion is a candidate for a prong cover)
Color Grade: H
Flourescence: None
Table Percent: 55
Crown Angle: 34.5
Crown Height: 15.5
Pavillion Angle: 40.8
Pavillion Depth: 43.0
Girdle Thickness Field: thin-med
Total Depth Percent: 61.6
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Cut Grade :Excellent
Round Minimum Diameter: 6.69
Round Maximum Diameter: 6.72
Round Depth: 4.13
HCA Score: 1.3
HCA Light: Ex
HCA Fire: Ex
HCA Scint: Ex
HCA Spread: VG

 

[denverappraiser]

Garry,

Here''s an DiamCalc IS simulation of the stone, which is a bit more standardized an image than my photos. It definitely wouldn''t make the grade around here.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/26/2006 7:29:22 PM
Author: denverappraiser
Garry,

Here''s an DiamCalc IS simulation of the stone, which is a bit more standardized an image than my photos. It definitely wouldn''t make the grade around here.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Neil,

This is for Guess'' stone? Been awhile since I cracked open my diamCalc, but seems like that should not be the output. Any operator error?

 

[JulieN]

RG, it's for Neil's AGS1.

 

[Regular Guy]

Ooh, sorry for not keeping my eyes on the ball, thanks.

I suppose Neil won''t be saying your Guess is as good as mine.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 7/26/2006 8:18:42 PM
Author: Regular Guy

I suppose Neil won''t be saying your Guess is as good as mine.

Guess''s stone looks like it''s much better than mine.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver