Simulated light return? How''s it look.

[stang67]

I just purchased a diamond and wondered if anyone could show me one of those simulated pics and or tell me what they think of my stone. The HCA seems to say it will be nice.
SI1 H .83 Round $2950
Dimensions: 6.12 x 6.17
Depth: 3.66
Depth: %59.5
Table: %58.9
Crown Angle: 32.4
Crown Height: 13.1
Pavillion Depth: 43.6
Girdle: Medium
Cutlet: None
Polish: Excellent
Symetry: Good
Thanks for any help.

 

[RockDoc]

You're only considering AVERAGES... YOu need the minimum measurement as well as the maximum measurements to make a proportion determination. But even with that, the numbers are still only about 70% reliable relevant to the light return of the stone.

It may be an exceptionally performing diamond, or it might not be.

No one can provide competent or accurately reliable opinion without seeing and testing it.

Rockdoc

 

[Richard Sherwood]

The crown angle is a bit shallow, but with a medium girdle you shouldn't have to worry about chipping, and it (the crown angle) seems to work well in combination with the estimated average pavilion angle (approximately 41.1').

Keep RockDoc's cautions in mind when viewing these POSSIBLE results generated by the DiamCalc's Light Return Analysis, as well as the POSSIBLE simulated IdealScope image attached.

This stone probably majors in "brilliance" (white light return), while minoring in "fire" (colored light return) and "contrast" (the black-white-black-white scintillation effect). All in all, the numbers aren't bad at all, along with the simulated I.S. image, and the price seems reasonable.

Be sure and have it checked out...

Rich

Light Return Mono…….....Very Good 1.01
Light Return Stereo……….Very Good 1.01
(Non) Leakage Mono……...Very Good 0.98
(Non) Leakage Stereo…….Very Good 1.00
Contrast………….......…....Good to Very Good 0.89
(Non) Fisheye Effect……..Very Good 1.00

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated, sometimes dramatically. The image shown has perfect symmetry, which is rare, and the star facet/lower girdle facet lengths may vary from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or when the Sarin data is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in indicating the major light performance aspects.
-----------

 

[stonecold]

I too just purchased a stone that I examined many times in person and loved, but would be very interested to see simulated light return pics/stats also, if it's not too much to ask. The vitals:

1.63 carat, D color, SI1;

Dimensions: 7.55 x 7.59 x 4.60 mm

Depth: 60.8 %

Table: 59.8 %

Crown Angle: 34.6*

Pavillion Angle: 40.6*

Culet: 0.8 %

Girdle: medium to slightly thick (1.7% - 2.4%)

Polish: Very Good

Symmetry: Very Good

Thanks so much for your help!

Stonecold

 

[stang67]

Rich,
Thanks for doing that simulation for me. I had posted earlier about a similar diamond I was considering, a .82 but the #'s from HCA (5.2) didn't come out very well. So I went hunting again and found the .83 you simulated for me. The HCA #'s were a ton better (1.5) and it fell into a category I could afford with cut and price. I brought my GF to a B&M store just to look and try to teach her about diamonds and she was stunned by the amount of info I knew (from here and GOG). It was funny because I had the sales person lay out K - H - E color stones and she thought the K was cut different. But couldn't see much difference in the H and E (face up). Then I showed her what I1 looked like and how you could see it with the naked eye, explained about how that was what most Mall stores sold. Then showed her a SI1 and a VVS1 and asked her if she thought she'd ever notice the difference on her finger. She didn't think she would and for the price jump she couldn't see going higher than a nice SI1. (mine has a small (almost invisible) crystal in a Kite and what looks like a small clear eyelash near the bezel) Then I had them lay out .5 - .7 - .9 carat stones and she said either would be nice (meaning either of the larger ones!). That's why I got her a .83 (right in the middle). Then we talked about cut and she said I was way too picky and she wouldn't care. It was hard to show her the differences in the store because they didn't have the info I was looking for and said they were all well cut stones. In the end, I know what differnce cut makes and got the best I could afford. I will at least be able to show her (after the engagement) what her stone could have looked like If I went with the .82 and what here simulated light return is. So thanks again Rich.
I also had the jewler use their CZ sizeing stones and place it on a setting close to the one I got for her and she thought that the .75 looked huge on the ring. Funny how she didn't think they were that big unset.
One last question, If I buy a veiwer (Idealscope), will I be able to see everything after it is set? Thanks.

Eric

 

[Richard Sherwood]

-----------
One last question, If I buy a veiwer, will I be able to see
everything after it is set?
-----------

The IdealScope works using a diffused white light background that streams into the stone's pavilion from behind. When you mount the stone, you reduce the amount of light coming into it.

I've found that I can still get fairly decent results if the mounting allows a lot of exposure (like a 4 prong solitaire), and I get the stone right up to the light, allowing it to come in from the back and to a certain extent from the side.