I finally found a diamond with full imaging!

[MJ98]

Hi all,

I have been trying to buy a diamond for 6 weeks and have a couple that fell through at the last minute and none of them (being in the UK) has had IdealScope and other imaging.

I have just 4 weeks left and today I was sent a diamond with full imaging!

If anyone could have a look and tell me their thoughts I would appreciate it. I don't really like the normal diamond picture as it doesn't look nice and symmetrical like some I've seen (maybe it's not taken perfectly overhead?) which makes it difficul for me to judge as a novice.

Depth: 62.2
Table: 56
CA: 34.5
PA: 41



It just sits in the HCA range. I am getting desperate now as I still need this made into a ring. In my price range I'm not going to get 'the perfect diamond' that I'm looking for but does anyone think this would be a pretty good go?

Thanks a lot.

 

[tyty333]

I think it looks pretty nice...good numbers, decent images. I think its a very nice stone!

 

[bunnycat]

I think it is fine. Remember the actual thing you will be looking at in real life is not taking up half your computer screen in a blow-up, and under normal viewing unless you are going to try to photograph arrow shots, then I wouldn't worry too hard about it. It's got good numbers and looks good.

 

[kenny]

I don't really like the normal diamond picture as it doesn't look nice and symmetrical like some I've seen (maybe it's not taken perfectly overhead?) which makes it difficul for me to judge as a novice.

I believe I understand what your concern is and it's the photography, not the diamond.
I'm a bit of a diamond photographer.

Diamonds function like a little box of a zillion mirrors and windows that reflect everything in their environment.
That makes them a nightmare to photograph, till you learn some tips.



We've grown accustom to nice diamond pics of ideal-cut rounds, like this pic on the left from Whiteflash.
They are taken in a nearly pure white environment, like a light box with a hole for the camera lens to look into.
Also the size and position of the lighting dramatically affects what you see in the pics.
Every decent diamond photographer figures this out, so I'm not revealing any proprietary secrets.

The solid black arrows are actually reflections of the lens (which come out black compared to the bright white of the box).
This contrast makes the arrows really pop out ... but again this is just an artifact of the environment & lighting.
Arrows looking more gray or less dark doesn't mean the diamond will perform any better or worse.

The pic of yours (on the right) was taken in some set up that wasn't as closed off and pure white, so whatever was there (instead of pure solid white) was 'seen' and reflected by the diamond.

Also when the environment is pure white the competent photographer (or smart camera) reduces the exposure, which pushes the darker parts (arrows) even darker.

Separate thing: The pic on the right was taken very slightly off axis.
You can tell because the culet (the point where the lines meet int the center) is slightly to the left of the center of that inner-most circle.
But it's not off enough to be the cause of what concerns you about the pic.

 

[MJ98]

Aaargh this is a nightmare! Thanks for the replies regarding how it looks - I phoned up the dealer to put it on hold and they said luckily this supplier was one I could hold it with. They contacted them to hold it and the supplier told them there is an cloud inclusion on the top which means they wouldn't call it completely eye clean.

This is good as the dealer know I am being pretty picky, so at least I'm getting honest information, but the search continues! With that in mind, can anyone see the cloud that that was mentioned? Due to the way the photo was taken i can't really see it.

kenny - Thanks that's really interesting, you are correct about what I was thinking. I think as a beginner, looking at the 'symmetrical' image is easier to see inclusions as they seem to stand out more. On the example of the picture I put up, due to the variation in patterns and colours it becomes a lot more difficult for me to know if i'm looking at inclusions or just reflections. Also I feel like if for example, I only had that single image of the diamond, having that lens reflection would make me feel better about the diamonds symmetry (like how an IdealScope would show it) without having any other information.

That's one diamond with this many images in the UK with 6 weeks of looking, I really hope I get lucky soon!

Thanks all

 

[flyingpig]

Image 1: undefined arrows. Kenny fully explained; it is due to the lighting conditions and photography setup
Image 2: undefined blue arrows. This is typical of a 34.5/41 under ASET 30 with 30 degree obscuration. 41 pav angle is the rounded average of 8 pav angles. It appears that some are significantly higher than 41.
Image 3: defined white arrows. The H&A viewer uses much wider obscuration angle (I say 40 degree??)

See how diamond's appearance changes depending on the obscruation angle, viewing distance and other lighting conditions.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tips-diy-aset-is-light-performance-diamond-photography.227610/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tips-diy-aset-is-light-performance-diamond-photography.227610/[/URL]

 

[MJ98]

Thanks for that link. It's really interesting how simple it is to get the same general effect.

Are you saying it looks to you the PA could be 40 instead of 41? Is it possible or maybe common that something could potentially be labelled wrongly?

 

[bunnycat]

Thanks for that link. It's really interesting how simple it is to get the same general effect.

Are you saying it looks to you the PA could be 40 instead of 41? Is it possible or maybe common that something could potentially be labelled wrongly?

No- a 40 pavilion would be a very bad thing. The 40 I think is referencing the angle at which the light is coming in on the idealscope or ASET. They are meant to look at the return of light or obstruction from different angles relative to a stone.

 

[MJ98]

Ah okay thanks. I was shocked at the possibility as I would have even less faith in knowing what I am seeing!