Vendor says one thing... Ideal scope says another?

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

I am trying to decide between two diamonds on James Allen. The gemologist said that diamond one has better face up light performance than diamond two. It looks to me like the ideal scope says that second diamond is better! Who should I trust? Are they trying to sell me the worse stone for more profit? Am I reading these ideal scope images wrong? Are both of these stones bad?

Diamond ONE Diamond TWO
Price $6,790 $6,810
Carat 0.9 0.9
Color e d
Clarity vs1 vs1
Symmetry ex vg
HCA 2 1.6
Depth 62.1 61.5
Table 57 57
Crown 34.5 35
Pavilion 41 40.8
Star Length 45% 50%
Lower Half 75% 80%






Diamond ONE



Diamond TWO

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

There is an issue with the first photo. Those proportions should see the arrows consistent, even if asymmetric (which they are not). The leakage is odd too. Ask for a re-take of the first photo.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

There is an issue with the first photo. Those proportions should see the arrows consistent, even if asymmetric (which they are not). The leakage is odd too. Ask for a re-take of the first photo.

Hello Brian, and welcome,

I do not understand your post fully. You may be right that the photo needs retaking, but:

How do you judge that the stone is not asymmetric? And how do you deduct from the average proportions that the arrows should show consistent?

Live long,

 

[BhavinJ]

Looks like stone 2 has lesser light leakage then stone 1. Try getting the real images (10x) and pls post it here.

Good Luck!

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the welcome!

Asymmetry is relative I suppose - your standards may require more information than an Ideal-Scope. My comment was in-general, mainly to support the request for another photo.

To answer your question: My deduction is based on the odd under-table leakage coupled with pavilion mains being light where they would not normally be. From what I have seen, obstruction in a standard Ideal-scope setup is more consistent. If a new photo is presented and the issues persist I’m inclined to side with your assertions. In any event, I’d like to see a re-do of the photo.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hey Brian,

I have no assertions on this stone.

I just disagreed with your blank statement that these proportions should show consistent arrows. All we know is averages of measurements, rounded even as per GIA-policy, which, according to me gives absolutely no information on how consistent or inconsistent these arrows should show.

Live long,

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

All we know is averages of measurements, rounded even as per GIA-policy, which, according to me gives absolutely no information on how consistent or inconsistent these arrows should show,

Indeed - I get what you are saying here. I was seeing the cup as half-full - that is why I would request a re-take of the photo.

Given the practice of rounding per GIA-policy (up or down), wouldn't the presumed HCA result also be variable?

 

[YoungPapa]

I am trying to decide between two diamonds on James Allen...Are they trying to sell me the worse stone for more profit?

Short answer, no. Neither our gemologists or Customer Service Representatives have any financial incentive to promote one diamond over another.

As to the diamonds themselves, I would add this: Let's assume for the sake of argument that the second diamond has a 'better' Idealscope and that both photographs were taken correctly. That being the case;

Is the different light return evidenced in those Idealscopes enough to be perceptible in 'real life'? Are there other differences between those two diamonds unrelated to cut that might make one more desirable or preferable to the gemologist? Do you have a preference towards thinner or broader arrows, and just as importantly, does the gemologist have a preference that could be influencing their recommendation?

These are just off the top of my head - there might be other considerations as well. My point, however, is that picking the best of any two diamonds is usually about more than which one has the 'best' Idealscope.

Hope this helps

 

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

Thanks for the help guys! I will ask for a retake of the first ideal scope picture. Are these particularly bad ideal scope images? Should I be looking for different stones entirely? I just thought since its mostly red in the table in the 2nd diamond, and the arrows are neatly connecting that it should be better? Upon closer inspection, the ideal scope image from diamond ONE, does seem to have more intense red, but not as evenly distributed. Are the camera settings maintained constant between taking these images (i'm guessing not)?

Schultz,

I am beyond nervous spending so much money, so I am definitely placing "too much" importance on the ideal scope. I am looking for peace of mind making a purchase! I did not get the impression the gemologist was very experienced so I have a hard time trusting what his impressions were.



Diamond ONE



Diamond TWO

 

[diamondseeker2006]

JSNG...just wanted to mention that you left off one important measurement off of your original post...the diameter of the stones. Sometimes when stones are equal in every other way, the diameter can be the tie breaker. I am sure these are close, but one is a little deeper than the other, so you always need to be watching the diameter as part of your assessment of the stones.

Interesting, but diamond one looks better in the last images you posted.

 

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

Do you think it's better because it seems brighter in that image? How do you ascertain that from that image?

Diamond ONE L/W/D (mm): 6.15*6.19*3.83

Diamond TWO L/W/D (mm): 6.19*6.23*3.82

I guess diamond TWO is cut slightly shallower, so appears a tiny bit bigger. Virtually the same size!

 

[WienerSchnitzel]

JSNG - just get number one and be done. It seems to be the general winner, and you aren't going to go wrong either way. MAN UP AND GIT 'ER DONE!!!

 

[Todd Gray]

James Allen Schultz|1397659294|3654330" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

As to the diamonds themselves, I would add this: Let's assume for the sake of argument that the second diamond has a 'better' Idealscope and that both photographs were taken correctly. That being the case;

Is the different light return evidenced in those Idealscopes enough to be perceptible in 'real life'? Are there other differences between those two diamonds unrelated to cut that might make one more desirable or preferable to the gemologist? Do you have a preference towards thinner or broader arrows, and just as importantly, does the gemologist have a preference that could be influencing their recommendation?

These are just off the top of my head - there might be other considerations as well. My point, however, is that picking the best of any two diamonds is usually about more than which one has the 'best' Idealscope.

Hope this helps

Interesting perspective... easily addressed and answered. How about sending both diamonds to an independent gemologist, where the customer can view them side-by-side and determine which of the two diamonds exhibits the highest volume of light return and sparkle factor? There is a list of independent appraisers available at the top of the page under the Resources tab. Then the customer can update this thread with their findings and we'll know whether the difference in light return between the two diamonds, based upon the ideal scope images, is perceptible in real life.

 

[Karl_K]

JSNG - just get number one and be done. It seems to be the general winner, and you aren't going to go wrong either way. MAN UP AND GIT 'ER DONE!!!

I do not agree with that, a choice of this magnitude has to be "mind clean".
I do not get the feeling the op is "mind clean" with the selection presented.
I would consider asking for a gemologists choice of a similar diamond that is both "mind clean" in technical details and the gemologists opinion.
It is not about technical details it is about peace of mind for the buyer.

 

[WinkHPD]

I relish those rare times when I can have a client in my office to look at two or more diamonds at one time. Sometimes it can even be shown on the live video presentations that I do with a client, although when dealing with truly well cut diamonds it can be much more difficult with video.

In real life though, it is almost always instantly discernible by the viewer which diamond(s) he/she likes least or best. (A much higher percentage choose the least like first in my experience) It normally takes only a few seconds for the first stone to be chosen or eliminated until we are down to just two and only another few seconds until the final diamond is chosen.

More than 80% of the time, the best cut diamond wins.

ALL OF THIS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE VIEWER ABOUT WHICH DIAMOND IS WHICH.

So YES, in my opinion, minor differences are easily visible to the eye of the beholder, and which the beholder chooses, depends on the beholder's idea of what is beautiful.

Wink

P.S. Funny story. This approach did go horribly wrong once, when I made the mistake of putting five of my gems on the table in the slotted tray.

My client dithered for over an hour and never could narrow the field. She loved them all and finally her husband had to come back to me and get the one that fit his budget best. She now wears, and absolutely loves, her ring.

 

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

How much importance would you place on the symmetry of the black arrows in the center lining up?

Looking at the "A CUT ABOVE" stones on white flash, they all have perfect black arrows in the middle. Maybe the amount of red in the image is similar to what I have from James Allen.

I really wish the camera settings would be standardized for taking ideal scope images.

 

[Todd Gray]

How much importance would you place on the symmetry of the black arrows in the center lining up?

Looking at the "A CUT ABOVE" stones on white flash, they all have perfect black arrows in the middle. Maybe the amount of red in the image is similar to what I have from James Allen.

I really wish the camera settings would be standardized for taking ideal scope images.

I personally place a lot of importance on the consistency of the shape of the pavilion main facets (arrows pattern) as well as the static contrast which they exhibit, because it is a reflection of the overall optical symmetry of the diamond. Variances in the size and shape of the pavilion main facets, is an indication that there were adjustments made to the facets as they were indexed from one facet to the next; variances in the size and shape of the lower girdle facets; as well as perhaps the angle of the facets themselves.

Note that the degree of contrast exhibited by a diamond, in terms of the darkness of the arrows pattern, can be affected by the distance from which the camera lens is positioned from the surface of the diamond, since what you are actually seeing is the camera lens reflecting off of the pavilion main facets... and it can also be affected by any adjustments to the contrast which they vendor might add to the photograph after it is taken. What you want to look for is consistency of the pattern of reflection, e.g. pavilion mains which appear to be exhibiting less contrast than the others, because that can indicate inconsistencies in the indexing and angle of the facets, as indicated previously.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

JSNG - You are ONE lucky guy! You got a bunch of veteran heavy hitter bigwigs responding to your thread! Outstanding!

 

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

Todd,

Thanks for the explanation! It's obvious that the contrast is adjusted on many vendor ideal scope images.

I talked to James Allen, and they are going to take another ideal scope image and send it tomorrow. I am very pleased with their customer service. I will post it here tomorrow!

 

[Todd Gray]

Todd,

Thanks for the explanation! It's obvious that the contrast is adjusted on many vendor ideal scope images.

I talked to James Allen, and they are going to take another ideal scope image and send it tomorrow. I am very pleased with their customer service. I will post it here tomorrow!

I'm glad that my explanation was helpful and look forward to seeing the revised ideal scope image, even though as a trade member I am limited in what I can say about it... but there are plenty of people here on the forum who are not members of the trade who are quite adept at interpreting Ideal Scope and ASET images.

I'm curious about something, I don't see diamonds of this description reflected in James Allen's current inventory, but are the primary inclusions indicated for the 0.90 carat, D-color, VS-1 clarity, round diamond from James Allen listed as: crystal, feather, knot, pinpoint? With a girdle thickness of medium to slightly thick, faceted.

I realize that you might not want to post the full details for these diamonds on the forum, but it might be helpful for the people who are helping you select the best option between these two diamonds to know the extent and type of inclusions within the diamond, as that is also a factor which should be taken into consideration during the evaluation process. I'm assuming that this is the diamond, since there is a feather visible in the clarity photograph provided for Diamond #2 just to the right of the tip of the arrow located in the 12 o'clock region and within the upper girdle facet located in the seven o'clock region.

What are the inclusions indicated for the 0.90 carat, E-color, VS-1? And what is the girdle thickness?

 

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

I don't really know anything about inclusion types and which ones are bad at which locations etc.. Have a good resource for that?

Diamond ONE = cloud, needle, pinpoint girdle = medium - slightly thick

Diamond TWO = crystal, feather, knot, pinpoint girdle = medium - slightly thick

It looks like there are a couple inclusions on Diamond ONE that are in the table? Hopefully they are too small to be visible?

 

[Todd Gray]

I don't really know anything about inclusion types and which ones are bad at which locations etc.. Have a good resource for that?

Diamond ONE = cloud, needle, pinpoint

Diamond TWO = crystal, feather, knot, pinpoint

It looks like there are a couple inclusions on Diamond ONE that are in the table? Hopefully they are too small to be visible?

No way that they'll be visible without magnification in a VS-1 clarity diamond

Keep in mind that you're looking at diamonds which average, what? 6.20 mm in diameter? But you're looking at them the size of a tennis ball on your computer monitor... to put this in perspective, the eraser on a standard #2 pencil is about 6.5 mm in diameter.

Clouds, Crystals, Needles, and Pinpoints are all different forms of crystals, which are usually diamond, but can also be other types of gemstones which might be present when the diamond is formed. These tend to be my favorite type of inclusions... pinpoints are crystals which are about the size of a pinpoint, they look a lot like sparkling dust, when clustered together, they are referred to as a cloud. A needle is a crystal which is long and thin in shape.

A feather is a minute fracture, the majority of them are of no consequence, but I tend to avoid them if they are extensive, stacked together in close proximity, or are represented on both sides of the plotting diagram (which is not provided on GIA Diamond Dossier format lab reports)

A knot is a crystal which breaks the surface of the diamond...

 

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

RETAKES of the ideal scope images... What do you think?



Diamond ONE retake



Diamond TWO retake

 

[Todd Gray]

RETAKES of the ideal scope images... What do you think?



Diamond ONE retake



Diamond TWO retake

They look consistent with the originals... Have you compared them to the advanced tutorial on firescope / ideal scope? Follow that through to the reference charts and look for diamonds which exhibit similar patterns.

 

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

Diamond ONE has brighter red in the very middle, but also has more leakage at the tips of the pavilion facets.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am thinking that you might be happier with a super ideal cut diamond. Then you'd have nothing to worry about with the images and performance.

 

[JustSomeNerdyGuy]

I thought these two would be "Super Ideal Cuts", given their low HCA scores/dimensions and GIA ratings.

Do you mean buying one of the James Allen "hearts and arrows", or Gavin "Signature" etc.... ?

 

[RockyRacoon]

Just to throw something out there -

This stone is in the colorless range, same size (dimensions), looks to be eye-clean, and (after Pricescope discount) is almost $2k less than the stones you had linked!

.891ct, F, SI1
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.891-f-si1-round-diamond-ags-104069795040

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I thought these two would be "Super Ideal Cuts", given their low HCA scores/dimensions and GIA ratings.

Do you mean buying one of the James Allen "hearts and arrows", or Gavin "Signature" etc.... ?

No, these two are not super ideal cuts. Super Ideal Cuts are stones that have almost perfect hearts images and idealscope, ASET, etc. Most JA True Hearts would qualify and WF ACA, GOG Superior, BG Signature, Infinity, etc. They may not have .90 D-E VS1's in stock, though. Any of them might have to call some in. But I will tell you, if I were spending the money to buy D-E VS1, superideal cut would be essential for me. I'd rather have G-H superideal over D-E that is not. If you want a very top quality diamond, get the best cut. I certainly would consider F color.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Just to throw something out there -

This stone is in the colorless range, same size (dimensions), looks to be eye-clean, and (after Pricescope discount) is almost $2k less than the stones you had linked!

.891ct, F, SI1
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.891-f-si1-round-diamond-ags-104069795040

Goodness, somebody already reserved this stone. That was fast. I didn't think the OP would want to go down to SI clarity.