Question about AGS light performance map image

[pahosa]

Hi everybody,

this forum has been so helpful on my quest for the right diamond.

I am pretty close in selecting this diamond to be the one, but I just wanted to have some opinions on the AGS light performance map for this diamond.

I have seen other AGS reports, and is it even remotely OK that the center of the diamond is marked as Green? Other reports I've seen had it marked Red. Will this cause a dramatic decrease in light performance?

Aside from the image, it has scored well on the HCA, 1.7 and is an eye clean diamond at a pretty good price $6400 IMO.

If I can get some input for this image on the report that would be great! Just wna make sure I am getting a great diamond with great fire and light return.

Thanks again for all of your help community!

 

[metatrix]

Have you seen the stone to make sure it is eye clean? SI2s with a feather as the grade setting inclusion are unlikely to be eye clean.

 

[pahosa]

I have not been able to see the diamond in person. It is from Union Diamond and Tony has reassured me that it is 100% eye clean from the top. He said if you were to look at it from the bottom, then you may be able to see something.

 

[RockyRacoon]

I have seen other AGS reports, and is it even remotely OK that the center of the diamond is marked as Green? Other reports I've seen had it marked Red. Will this cause a dramatic decrease in light performance?

No, this is not something to be concerned about.

The green vs red center of the ASET of the AGS report is determined by the Pavilion angle.

Green center is pavilion angle under ~40.75. Red center is a pavilion angle higher than this. Red or green is not preferred, as it is just a function of the tool.

Best of luck!

 

[pahosa]

Thanks for the explanation!

I attached a clearer picture of the report & diamond.

 

[metatrix]

That's what they are calling eye clean? ....really?

 

[pahosa]

I know, having some major 2nd thoughts now in this diamond after finding a that clearer picture. Thanks again for the reply.