Uniform Below Table Leakage or Strong Backlighting in Idealscope Image?

[lovedogs]

I don't think there's any actual leakage-just a crappy overly back-lit picture.

 

[Karl_K]

You got it.
With less backlighting it would show very little to no undesirable leakage.
Its a false negative because of the backlight strength.

 

[Old_Fossil]

Thanks @Karl_K and @lovedogs I am inclined to agree with you. My overall JA experience has been mostly positive, and will have one of their TH stones headed my way soon. No longer much debate on this site as to whether all TH stones meet PS-approved H&A precision criteria (general consensus is not always), but most appear to, and I hate to see someone dissuaded from what may be good value by a poorly captured image. As one who sweats every detail in the QC process, this is an area that could use some improvement. @YoungPapa or whomever may be able to influence the quality of their marquis True Hearts images to reduce this potential for false negatives.

 

[MissGotRocks]

To follow up on the JA backlighting topic on this thread.....what is going on with this True Hearts arrows image here?



The link to this stone is here From what I can gather this stone seems to be relatively well cut, with a decent face-on view and without too many shenanigans going on in the 360 video images. But then JA posts the Ideal Scope arrows image and evidently it was taken in a tanning booth. Using @Karl_K ' s wisdom I gathered from @lovedogs with using the lightest part of the center under the table as a reference, this stone may actually not have any leakage? I imagine it would quickly be rejected by the average buyer. The GIA report is from last summer, so not like this has been languishing on the JA site since the early days of figuring out how to post IS pics.

35.5/40.6 may be at the limits, and perhaps a bit deepish at 62.4, and perhaps other proportion variables are less than ideal, but I wonder who is letting these images through quality control? It seems to me to be either an incredibly leaky stone, or someone needs to turn the light output down on the table on which they photograph these stones. There seems to be a lot of these really light centers on JA IS images. Any thoughts on this are welcome, as I don't imagine they inspire consumer confidence. Thanks to all as

Thanks @Karl_K and @lovedogs I am inclined to agree with you. My overall JA experience has been mostly positive, and will have one of their TH stones headed my way soon. No longer much debate on this site as to whether all TH stones meet PS-approved H&A precision criteria (general consensus is not always), but most appear to, and I hate to see someone dissuaded from what may be good value by a poorly captured image. As one who sweats every detail in the QC process, this is an area that could use some improvement. @YoungPapa or whomever may be able to influence the quality of their marquis True Hearts images to reduce this potential for false negatives.

I don’t believe that all of the diamonds featured on their website are in house, so not sure where or in how many locations photography is done.

 

[Old_Fossil]

I don’t believe that all of the diamonds featured on their website are in house, so not sure where or in how many locations photography is done.

Great point @MissGotRocks and I agree with you. My assumption is that most of the stones on the JA site are NOT in house in NY. Most WF, VC, and BG stones are ready to ship in less than two days, and this stone in the example above is over a week.

Although the JA operating model places significant emphasis on the customer experience with the images of stones on their website, I imagine their global network of vendors makes stringent and standardized video and IS image quality very challenging. As a great example, the JA TH stone that I am in the process of purchasing has a rotating video image that is not very clear compared to most, and I argue that the table area is actually out of focus.

It's a tough market out there, especially when your competition is putting out images like the one below.