Why are they suggesting this diamond? Ideal scope images

[Chihuahua6]

These images came back and the first image below was described as the BEST of the three offering excellent fire, brilliance, and scintillation and performs the strongest of the diamonds. It has great proportions and beautiful cut. The average eye will not pick up on the inclusions. Huh?

Here are the proportions on it which btw I didn't choose. It was suggested and I needed to add a third to compare:
Table 57
Length 62.6
Crown 36
Pavilion 40.6



This was a close number two but described as just slightly cloudy and not likely that most people will notice it. Huh?



All he said about this one is it's nice but ranks third.



Anyway I'm just curious here. It seems that the first diamond that was suggested as the best performing one is the worst of the three according to the images. Am I missing something here? As per proportions on the report, before I saw images, I thought number 2 was the best followed by number 3.

 

[yssie]

#2 is painted (entirely personal preference, it's not my personal preference), and apparently is also slightly cloudy (this is an automatic drop to last-place for me).

#1 and #3 are different flavours of diamond with different proportions, and will play with light differently. #3 is a shallower (shallower-crown appropriate for the pav depth), larger-table type, #1 has a steeper crown and smaller table than #3. None are H&A - #2 is the only one I might guess could be even somewhat close... not a bad thing if that's not what you're looking for (and it's not what you're paying for!). Re. #1 - only one area of "leakage" (light escape out the back of the stone) is might be visible w/ stereo vision (8 o'clock in the IS pic). I believe these are larger stones? If so I would definitely want the vendor to check whether #3 is eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are.

After you've been here a while you learn that different vendors tend to have different preferences, overall. JA reps, for example, consistently favour shallower stones; Karl K would happily take a 53T/37C MRB if you found him one, Rhino from GOG is in general more accepting of certain types of brillianteering than Texas Leaguer from WF and Wink from HPD...

FWIW after a quick look through your other threads my first suggestion would be to halt this process and choose a vendor whose eyes you trust, rather than second-guessing one(s) you clearly don't trust.

 

[Chihuahua6]

#2 is painted (entirely personal preference, it's not my personal preference), and apparently is also slightly cloudy (this is an automatic drop to last-place for me).

#1 and #3 are different flavours of diamond with different proportions, and will play with light differently. #3 is a shallower (shallower-crown appropriate for the pav depth), larger-table type, #1 has a steeper crown and smaller table than #3. None are H&A - #2 is the only one I might guess could be even somewhat close... not a bad thing if that's not what you're looking for (and it's not what you're paying for!). Re. #1 - only one area of "leakage" (light escape out the back of the stone) is might be visible w/ stereo vision (8 o'clock in the IS pic). I believe these are larger stones? If so I would definitely want the vendor to check whether #3 is eyeclean to your specifications, whatever they are.

After you've been here a while you learn that different vendors tend to have different preferences, overall. JA reps, for example, consistently favour shallower stones; Karl K would happily take a 53T/37C MRB if you found him one, Rhino from GOG is in general more accepting of certain types of brillianteering than Texas Leaguer from WF and Wink from HPD...

FWIW after a quick look through your other threads my first suggestion would be to halt this process and choose a vendor whose eyes you trust, rather than second-guessing one(s) you clearly don't trust.

Thank you Yssie for explaining all of this. I am truly enjoying the learning process. I hadn't thought that number 2 was painted. It just didn't cross my mind. I also thought there was more light leakage than you pointed out on diamond number 1.

After all of the searching online and seeing some stones in person I decided that I would be sticking to a vendor that has the diamonds in their inventory and that are cut to superior standards. This way I can't go wrong. I still enjoy learning about diamonds.

Thanks again for the lesson. There is so much to know about diamonds. I find it quite fascinating : )

 

[Chihuahua6]

Btw how can you tell number two is painted? Is it because the edges where it's normally white is not exactly white?

 

[pfunk]

Btw how can you tell number two is painted? Is it because the edges where it's normally white is not exactly white?

Here is a great article to help you learn about painting and digging and how you can tell if it is present.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds

As you can see from the idealscope example photos in the article, your observation of the white around the girdle going away as more painting is introduced is accurate. Painting is even more easy to notice in ASET photos.

Have you had any luck with your search at BG? I just looked and didn't see much in g or h color for their signature line. They did have a couple around 1.5 carats in their BG blue line.

EDIT: I opened up the budget some and this is the only one I found that seems similar to what you've been looking for.

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/d...00-ags-104074992020#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/3/

 

[Chihuahua6]

Thanks for the link. I've read very little on the subject but now I'm really curious to learn more. I think this is something they should have mentioned to me when they were describing the diamond. I'm a bit surprised they didn't.

Yes Brian Gavin has a nice 1.68 G SI2 that's confirmed eye clean with my name on it : ) I am designing my setting for them to build as well. I'm so excited.

 

[pfunk]

Sounds great! Be sure to post photos when complete!

I'm sure they dind't say anything because of the negative connotation attached to painting and digging. If customers hear the term it will turn them off if they have read any online articles about it. Most describe it as a bad, bad thing done to save weight. However, slight crown only painting doesn't necessarily mean there will be detrimental performance. I believe most diamonds will have some degree of it, and if it is done too much GIA will penalize it on the report. This is probably why they don't mention it.

 

[Chihuahua6]

Yes but they should be honest as they were in the other descriptions so a person can decide for themselves if this is something they want. That's what I like about shopping with Brian Gavin and also when I was looking to buy from Whiteflash (someone beat me to the diamond I was about to purchase.) They are both very honest and upfront describing the diamond accurately in detail. This is the kind of service I am comparing others to.

I will definitely post pics, you better believe it : )

 

[pfunk]

Yes but they should be honest as they were in the other descriptions so a person can decide for themselves if this is something they want. That's what I like about shopping with Brian Gavin and also when I was looking to buy from Whiteflash (someone beat me to the diamond I was about to purchase.) They are both very honest and upfront describing the diamond accurately in detail. This is the kind of service I am comparing others to.

I will definitely post pics, you better believe it : )

I agree completely that vendors should be honest. But to be fair, they were not dishonest with you. If you ask them if the diamond has painting or what the effects are, they can respond with an honest opinion. They won't go into super detail on every gemologist review, and it wasn't long ago someone asked whiteflash about whether a diamond had painting and the rep gave the wrong answer. It wasn't dishonesty, just a human error which happens. You can't expect them to cover their bases with every little detail. If you have specific questions about the diamond you are free to ask them, but I would't describe them as being dishonest with you on this one diamond and honest on the other two.

 

[Chihuahua6]

Well they didn't lie however when someone is spending this much money, asking for ideal scope images and describing what they want I think it should be described thoroughly. It wouldn't benefit them to order the diamond and send it to me only to have me send it back to them for a full refund. It's benefits both the seller and the consumer to describe any negative qualities the diamond might have.

 

[pfunk]

Well they didn't lie however when someone is spending this much money, asking for ideal scope images and describing what they want I think it should be described thoroughly. It wouldn't benefit them to order the diamond and send it to me only to have me send it back to them for a full refund. It's benefits both the seller and the consumer to describe any negative qualities the diamond might have.

Absolutely it does. But you are assuming that the painting is a negative quality, which is what most people assume. That isn't always the case. If the painting had been detrimental in some way, perhaps then they would have mentioned it. GIA didn't find it to be, so that's an indication that it isn't something customers necessarily need to be warned about.

The chances of you sending it back are probably higher if they mention it has slight crown painting and you as a consumer get it in your mind that you can see the effects of such painting. We are in complete agreement that transparency is a must from vendors. But very few if any are going to explain every little bit of brillianteering that might be present on a given stone. On the other hand, if you ask them, they should be willing to give you honest answers. But you are expecting them to answer up front any possible question you might have in their brief gemologic review/comparison. Most consumers aren't directly asking if there is painting/digging when they ask for a 3 stone idealscope comparison so they aren't going to routinely cover that in their review unless it is very noticeable, which it most likely is not.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Chihuahua,
This is the thread pfunk is referring to. If you want more info about crown painting you might find it interesting:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/does-this-diamond-have-painting-digging.210763/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/does-this-diamond-have-painting-digging.210763/[/URL]

Bottom line, crown painting is often used as a technique to enhance light performance rather than retain weight. Some superideals are fine tuned to remove leakage. This results in a slightly different flavor - more brightness and fire but with a tradeoff in scintillation. Some may prefer this look, others may prefer the more traditional. But crown only painting with intentional precision can be viewed as a positive. It certainly was by the designers of Eightstar.

I will add that it is often a subtle effect that can easily go unnoticed, depending on extent.