Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Very Poor ASET correct?

H

Henry Thomas

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
41
AGS 104076938004
cert.jpg
 
Pretty sloppy, especially under the table. But it is 3.4ct. Surprised AGS considers this ideal light performance.

If you are interested, keep an eye out for a ring of light leak under the table when you see it in person, especially with a stone that size may be more obvious. HCA here is 3.5.
 
yeah thats what I don't get - ideal cut and ideal light performance....
 
I wouldn't immediately rule it out if it is at the right price. What's the price tag?
 
---
Henry Thomas said:
yeah thats what I don't get - ideal cut and ideal light performance....
Click to expand...
on the AGS tables it falls under the very good cut category with 35/41.1 angles

i mostly deal with GIA graded stones, so considering all the issues people have with GIA "steep deep" I am surprised to see this report grading everything ideal. it may have to do with the size maybe.

all that being said, its not to say it is a BAD stone in the 3.4ct range. i think it depends on price and what you are looking for. i would expect more out of a stone of that grading if i was paying for a ideal everything stone.
 
It is a 3.7ct stone
$50K
 
Henry Thomas said:
It is a 3.7ct stone
$50K
Click to expand...
what were your parameters for your search? if you post your size/budget some of the others here may be able to see if they can find something better
 
About the same as your original 3.4c G SI1, probably worse...
Unfortunately, there are some duds out there even among AGS 000.
Like I said in the other post, this is what you see when the pav angle is greater than 41, especially with non complementary 35.1 crown.
Leaky table and washed out arrows.. again,very common of steep and deep stones.
 
GIA would solidly give that an excellent with no further explanation. I’m a little surprised to see this with AGS paperwork for this reason, and it’s a pretty good example of why you want the ASET. What you’re seeing is totally off-paper if this had a GIA pedigree. Is this one a dog? I wouldn’t call it ‘very poor’ but, in the range of ideal cuts, it’s towards the bottom end. It’s fairly typical for a GIA-xxx although not so much for the dealers selling stones based on reflector images.
 
denverappraiser said:
GIA would solidly give that an excellent with no further explanation. I’m a little surprised to see this with AGS paperwork for this reason, and it’s a pretty good example of why you want the ASET. What you’re seeing is totally off-paper if this had a GIA pedigree. Is this one a dog? I wouldn’t call it ‘very poor’ but, in the range of ideal cuts, it’s towards the bottom end. It’s fairly typical for a GIA-xxx although not so much for the dealers selling stones based on reflector images.
Click to expand...
I agree I would love to see ASET with everything. My remark was more aimed at the fact that AGS graded it specifically for light performance ideal. It is great to have the ASET, but for the consumer who may be told it is "ideal light performance" and not see the report or understand ASET imaging may be just as deceived as the consumer who gets a GIA excellent and then finds out the angles are steep deep. At least from pricescope standards haha.
 
I agree. Like GIA-x, AGS-ideal is a range. They are not all the same.

ASET's can be tricky too. There's not a standardized way to take the images and they vary quite a bit even with the same stone depending on how the image is made. That's why I like the computer generated ones like what we have here. They have some issues and some problems, but the methodology to create them is very consistent so they're very easy to compare.
 
How can that possibly be ideal symmetry? Did the software glitch and draw the light diagram all wrong?
 
lolov said:
what were your parameters for your search? if you post your size/budget some of the others here may be able to see if they can find something better
Click to expand...

$40K to $50K

Looking for at least 3ct but bigger is preferred
Minimum color of H
Eye clean from all angles and very close to face
Excellent light performance
No fluorescence
 
denverappraiser said:
I agree. Like GIA-x, AGS-ideal is a range. They are not all the same.

ASET's can be tricky too. There's not a standardized way to take the images and they vary quite a bit even with the same stone depending on how the image is made. That's why I like the computer generated ones like what we have here. They have some issues and some problems, but the methodology to create them is very consistent so they're very easy to compare.
Click to expand...
Yes, variations in how ASET images are obtained is an issue. Some look great, but some do not have uniform lighting or are not using white light/backgrounds. If GIA incorporates light performance imaging like AGS it would really make things easier, even if GIA keeps the producers/sellers happy by making the excellent category broad.

The only thing I do not like too much on the computer images is that subtle variations in light performance may not be seen. May be nitpicky, but I would need to do more side by side comparisons to know where the red/green cutoff is. Sometimes a lot of the stone looks bright red on the computer images, but that just means it is in the red range, not that it is 100%.
 
The biggest problem with the computer generated things is that they are generated from a scan, and that scan is subject to both equipment calibration issues and rounding afterward. Most of these scans are done using Sarine equipment, for example, which reports a +/- 0.1-0.2 degree variation depending on which scanner is used.
 
denverappraiser said:
The biggest problem with the computer generated things is that they are generated from a scan, and that scan is subject to both equipment calibration issues and rounding afterward. Most of these scans are done using Sarine equipment, for example, which reports a +/- 0.1-0.2 degree variation depending on which scanner is used.
Click to expand...
GIA can drive me nuts with their rounding...0.1/0.2 degree can make a big difference! pavilion/crown angles.
 
Cut grade 0 ?...:eek:
 
Sorry for hijacking the thread but I am also currently looking at buying a diamond and wondered if the image on the certificate is more reliable than that produced by the vendors. Or better to consider both? Thanks!:)
 
Jormax said:
Sorry for hijacking the thread but I am also currently looking at buying a diamond and wondered if the image on the certificate is more reliable than that produced by the vendors. Or better to consider both? Thanks!:)
Click to expand...
Scan technology has some given error, so in a perfect photo situation the actual image is more reliable. With that said, a perfect photo is insanely difficult to set-up. Any off-axis between lens, stage and girdle-plane creates distortions. Using both is helpful. At some level this is about the amount of detail the viewer is seeking: Scan tech is reliable enough to place a diamond in or out of a broad performance grade like AGS 0, so no worries there, but it's not reliable enough for analysis of 3D optical precision. Perfect 2D photos are better for that, but the fine details are best judged in-person with a good viewer and full depth-perception.
 
John Pollard said:
Scan technology has some given error, so in a perfect photo situation the actual image is more reliable. With that said, a perfect photo is insanely difficult to set-up. Any off-axis between lens, stage and girdle-plane creates distortions. Using both is helpful. At some level this is about the amount of detail the viewer is seeking: Scan tech is reliable enough to place a diamond in or out of a broad performance grade like AGS 0, so no worries there, but it's not reliable enough for analysis of 3D optical precision. Perfect 2D photos are better for that, but the fine details are best judged in-person with a good viewer and full depth-perception.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response, John!
 
It can be both. The image on the report is a computer-generated thing that is effectively a clever display of the data from the scan. Some of that scan data, like the various average angles and dimensions are printed on the report and some are not. The feature of this is that they VERY consistent. It’s generated the same way every time, no matter who the vendor is, no matter what equipment they’re using, and no matter what skills they have. As John points out, vendor photos can be quite difficult to do well and they vary quite a bit from one to the next. A bad image is not necessarily evidence of a bad stone. Vendor pics are most useful when you are comparing two stones from the same outfit and where the same methodology was used to take the images. When it gets tricky is when the photos come from different and unknown sources using unknown methods.
 
This diamond would be amazing, however, its somewhat over-budget.
For what you'd be getting, you might want to consider it.
Wire price is $53,326.
But register with Whiteflash (WF) and you get $25 off your first purchase! :dance: ;)

WF A Cut Above (ACA) branded diamonds have a great reputation for cut.
Several PS members have ACA diamonds.

ACA 3.402 ct H VS 1

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3850862.htm
 
Jormax said:
Thanks for your response, John!
Click to expand...
My pleasure. And in the spirit of keeping the threadjack in context, I'll add that Neil and I are discussing a rather high level of scrutiny.

denverappraiser said:
It can be both. The image on the report is a computer-generated thing that is effectively a clever display of the data from the scan. Some of that scan data, like the various average angles and dimensions are printed on the report and some are not. The feature of this is that they VERY consistent. It’s generated the same way every time, no matter who the vendor is, no matter what equipment they’re using, and no matter what skills they have.
Click to expand...
Consistent on a macro basis, but not micro. We get somewhat vexed because the simulated ASET imprints don't reflect the precision of our output, forcing us to regularly request re-scans and re-prints. The worst scans improve, so cleaning and equipment calibration clearly make a difference, but this back and forth delays distribution and availability. We currently permit cases that aren't too far off to slide: End-users can look at the diamond in the viewer in-person for the accurate picture.
 
We’re saying just about the same thing but I’ll try to explain from the other direction. With a camera there are a lot of variables that can affect an ASET image. How the light enters the cone. How the stone is mounted at the opening. How the cone is made (most are not using a ‘genuine’ AGSL provided reflector). Camera settings. Even photoshop after the fact. With the computer-generated images there’s only one, the scan. That makes them much more directly comparable between dealers. The methodology is consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top