What do you think?

[Gigahertz1]

I would love to hear some thoughts on this diamond. The idealscope image looks similar to an EightStar, however I asure you it is not...

Sarin Specs:
1.15 H SI1
6.83 x 4.14
Table % 55.6
Depth % 60.6
Crown Angle ° 34.8
Pavilion Angle ° 40.9
Culet .9
Gridle Avg 1.3 %
Polish Ideal
Symmetry Ideal

Thanks.

 

[Mara]

Wow that image is a knockout! I ran the #'s on the HCA and got a 1.6 TIC EX VG VG VG. So I'm sure you already know this stone will probably be stunning in person. Have you seen it in person or is it an online purchase?

Thumbs up! Good luck ...and let us know what you decide.

 

[Giangi]

Oh my God!!!!!!!

Buy it immediately!!!! lol!

 

[Giangi]

Oh my God!!!!!!!

Buy it immediately!!!! lol!

 

[Gigahertz1]

No, I have not seen this diamond in person. It's an online purchase...
However, the idealscope and specs do seem good.

I'll keep you informed on my decision.

 

[Rhino]

Interesting how you have blacks under the table in the upper half (between the arrows) and the same points are red in the lower half. This has to do with optical alignment which says something about it's optical precision. It'd be interesting to know the variances on this one. It does represent a certain flavor of H&A on the market, those of the shorter star/lower girdle ratio which may or may not appeal to you were you to compare it to the longer star/upper girdle ratio. We show people these 2 kinds of super ideals in side by side comparisons often. Either way it looks like you can't go wrong.

Congrats!

Rhino

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I'm curious about this image. What instrument produced it? An IdealScope, FireScope, LightScope?

When I run the numbers through DiamCalc, it indicates a moderate amount of light leakage under the table, yet this image shows no sign of that.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Rhino, Garry, Serg?

 

[Gigahertz1]

------------------------------------
I'm curious about this image. What instrument produced it? An IdealScope, FireScope, LightScope?
------------------------------------

I was told that the IdealScope was the instrument used.

I would love to hear more about the "moderate amount of light leakage" stated by Rich.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 5/7/2003 7:28:12 AM Richard Sherwood wrote:
I'm curious about this image. What instrument produced it? An IdealScope, FireScope, LightScope?

When I run the numbers through DiamCalc, it indicates a moderate amount of light leakage under the table, yet this image shows no sign of that.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Rhino, Garry, Serg?
----------------

Yes Rich. Images taken through both the FireScope & the IdealScope do not show in detail the areas within the diamond that are reflecting back weak light return vs those that are reflecting back more intense light return and there is very little contrast between the pale reds and the rich dark reds and can be a little misleading.

Consider the attached graphic. These pictures are of the same exact diamond. One under LightScope one under IdealScope. One image makes the stone look immaculate with all the reds being a rich dark red, one reveals where all the partial leakage is taking place. One would make you wonder why it didn't get all triple VH's on a BrillianceScope, one explains why it got lower scores than one would expect.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Richard Sherwood]

When are you going to market that LightScope, Rhino?

Actually, the photos I've been taking resemble that of the image on the left (your LightScope?), versus that on the right (IdealScope). Are you sure you're getting enough light behind the stone on the I.S. photos?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hi Gigahertz. I'll post the image I got off the DiamCalc software when I ran the stats through you listed.

The white areas of leakage around the edge might have been eliminated in your stone by a "tweaking" of the minor facets, but the moderate leakage indicated under the table is what I'm puzzling about. From my past experience the DiamCalc (although a harsh critic), is usually pretty good about picking this sort of thing up.

When you view the stone yourself, ask if you can take a look at it through an IdealScope. Look for more pale pinks in the center than you're seeing in the photo image, and check out the edge while you're at it. If it looks fine, then we'll get Serg at MSU to give his program a checkup.

By the way, the stone scores all "very goods" in the profile, except for the (non) leakage factor, which is "very good to good". Should be a very nice looking stone regardless.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

simulated idealscope image...

 

[Rhino]

Same light source bro.

 

[Rhino]

Here's the image I pulled up closely resembing the stone. I plugged in 55% stars and 78% lower girdles. (fairly short star and short lg combo). The upper girdle angles I'm willing to bet are below 40 degrees and that is something we cannot yet tweak within the DiamCalc software. I think the star angle (this is something I'm yet to discover as I just now have the means to get that info) also plays in eliminating the leakage at the star points which we get in the DiamCalc software yet we seel elimination of leakage in the star points in the actual image.

One reason why an actual image is still better than the sim.

Nite nite.

Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Rich, for some fun, plug in the numbers on this one and see what you come up with. See if you can eliminate the leakage at the star points.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_078ct_e_vvs2_h&a.htm

Peace,
Rhino