completely lost. can''t I buy her a car instead?

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 1:34:30 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
well, at least I can't interpret it. It seems to be place too deep into the scope and there is a slight tilt, so you can't tell if there really is leakage. Maybe you can.

If there was any leakage on the IS, it could be minimal and may not be visible to the human eye - we can't always get perfect images, especially if the image is of a non perfect diamond in the first place. It is easy to get caught up in the perfect IS's we see here every day, so anything that doesn't meet that standard can look worse than it is when comparing it to those. Also we face increased challenges if SI2 is required to get a large diamond on a budget, out of these diamonds which are in short supply anway, there is a fair chance that a good portion of the SI clarities won't be eyeclean to the buyer's standards, and we will find the ones obviously cut for weight, so the trick is to try to find the best cut you can out of the eyeclean SI clarities and colour preferences. It is natural to measure everything by the strictest standards when all you see is ' perfection' with diamonds and images, but in the real world things can be a bit different and we get buyers with varying priorities here.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 1/29/2009 2:03:50 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 1/29/2009 1:34:30 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
well, at least I can''t interpret it. It seems to be place too deep into the scope and there is a slight tilt, so you can''t tell if there really is leakage. Maybe you can.

If there was any leakage on the IS, it is could be minimal and may not be visible to the human eye - we can''t always get perfect images, especially if the image is of a non perfect diamond in the first place. It is easy to get caught up in the perfect IS we see here every day, so anything that doesn''t meet that standard can look worse than it is.

How sure are you that the leakage is minimal given the state of the IS image?

You are the one that question AGS0 cut grade based on HCA giving a score greater than 2 for that stone and a IS showing some leakage.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 2:09:24 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 1/29/2009 2:03:50 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 1/29/2009 1:34:30 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
well, at least I can't interpret it. It seems to be place too deep into the scope and there is a slight tilt, so you can't tell if there really is leakage. Maybe you can.

If there was any leakage on the IS, it is could be minimal and may not be visible to the human eye - we can't always get perfect images, especially if the image is of a non perfect diamond in the first place. It is easy to get caught up in the perfect IS we see here every day, so anything that doesn't meet that standard can look worse than it is.

How sure are you that the leakage is minimal given the state of the IS image?

You are the one that question AGS0 cut grade based on HCA giving a score greater than 2 for that stone and a IS showing some leakage.

The diamond in question is a GIA Excellent, not an AGS0 if you mean the 3.52 carat, so I don't understand what you mean... And even if it was an AGS0, I never assume anything, that is one lesson I have learned here that you cannot afford to do so. As to any leakage, I have seen in my consumer capacity many IS images over the years - I am the first to admit I am no expert nor ever will be but I have learned enough to see the bigger picture, work with what I have available and try to help the consumer according to their individual needs and requirements, and to point them in the direction of an expert who can advise them in the proper capacity. And also even if there was leakage, it may not be visible to the human eye or even be that detrimental to the diamond that it would not be worth buying, particularly if the poster wants a big rock for the money with these being scarce anyway and finding ones which are eyeclean - getting caught up in perfection is not best serving the poster if they have other priorities than getting the best cut money can buy.

 

[stone-cold11]

So what are you looking for if not for leakages using the IS? All I am asking for is a better IS image to check for leakage. What is wrong with asking for a better image?

This is a big stone and leakage could be a more serious problem than a small stone. So you are going to give it a pass just based on that badly taken IS?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 2:52:05 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
So what are you looking for if not for leakages using the IS? All I am asking for is a better IS image to check for leakage. What is wrong with asking for a better image?

This is a big stone and leakage could be a more serious problem than a small stone. So you are going to give it a pass just based on that badly taken IS?

HUH? What gives you the idea that I am suggesting to pass on that diamond?? I think there is some confusion somewhere here.....

I am not suggesting passing on the diamond for any reason, if anything I prefer to keep an open mind and give many diamonds the benefit of the doubt - especially on the strength of my only being a consumer with real limitations and not an expert who has actual real life experience and has handled and examined thousands of diamonds. Also it is doubtful that another IS image could be taken and sent to the poster until next week now, maybe he doesn't even want to wait for another one on the strength of your request for one SC.

 

[stone-cold11]

passing grade.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 2:55:18 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
passing grade.

I am sorry I don''t understand LOL!

 

[stone-cold11]

I mean ''are you going to give the stone a passing grade based on that poorly taken IS?''.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 3:05:55 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
I mean 'are you going to give the stone a passing grade based on that poorly taken IS?'.

I am more interested in what your advice would be, although I think I already know the answer.

Based on the IS image, the photograph of the diamond, the proportions and all the other info available, my advice is for the poster to put this diamond in the ' possible' list, see what else is out there bearing in mind it is a large diamond/ lower clarity might be needed due to budget constraints/ eyeclean diamonds in this size might be limited/ top cut quality might be limited /and if a purchase is agreed on, get an independant appraisal during the return period so a qualified expert can give an opinion on the diamond and its performance.

If obviously budget is not an issue or a top cut quality diamond is desired then that could be a different matter.

And I still don't understand what you mean here - " You are the one that question AGS0 cut grade based on HCA giving a score greater than 2 for that stone and a IS showing some leakage." - unquote. Again which diamond do you mean? The diamond I am discussing is a GIA Excellent.

Not everyone wants to buy a top quality cut, it is very important to remember this - sometimes the less than perfect can be perfect for some.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 1/29/2009 3:13:51 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 1/29/2009 3:05:55 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
I mean 'are you going to give the stone a passing grade based on that poorly taken IS?'.

I am more interested in what your advice would be, although I think I already know the answer.

And what would my answer be? I already stated what my answer is. That is that 'I cannot decide based on that poorly taken IS.'.

 

[Lorelei]

I am asking you again, can you please clarify we are discussing the same diamond please? You posted " You are the one that question AGS0 cut grade based on HCA giving a score greater than 2 for that stone and a IS showing some leakage." Also I respectfully suggest maybe it might be best to refrain from answering posts or offering advice if you are not confident doing so.

The diamond I am referring to is a GIA Excellent that the IS image belongs to.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 1/29/2009 3:22:21 PM
Author: Lorelei
Also maybe it might be best to refrain from answering posts or offering advice if you are not confident doing so.
The diamond I am referring to is a GIA Excellent that the IS image belongs to.

Yes, that is the JA diamond's IS I am referring to. I am confident of offering advice. Just that the IS pic given for the stone is sub-par and I am asking for a better IS to be supplied.

I am asking you again, can you please clarify we are discussing the same diamond please? You posted ' You are the one that question AGS0 cut grade based on HCA giving a score greater than 2 for that stone and a IS showing some leakage.'

That is a general statement and is not referring to this stone. You have make that statement before. I brought that up because you are so insistent of seeing an IS pics of even AGS0 stone and then in this case, the IS image of the stone was so poorly taken than it is impossible to determine the extent of leakage and you are going to give it a passing grade. I am asking what is the point of seeing the IS image that is so poorly taken that you cannot see the extent of the leakage in this case and then still insist on having them for AGS0. That is being inconsistent.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 1/29/2009 3:34:01 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 1/29/2009 3:22:21 PM

Author: Lorelei
I am asking you again, can you please clarify we are discussing the same diamond please? You posted ' You are the one that question AGS0 cut grade based on HCA giving a score greater than 2 for that stone and a IS showing some leakage.'

That is a general statement and is not referring to this stone. You have make that statement before. I brought that up because you are so insistent of seeing an IS pics of even AGS0 stone and then in this case, the IS image of the stone was so poorly taken than it is impossible to determine the extent of leakage and you are going to give it a passing grade. I am asking what is the point of seeing the IS image that is so poorly taken that you cannot see the extent of the leakage in this case and then still insist on having them for AGS0. That is being inconsistent.

I am giving an example here. AN EXAMPLE.

Basically, what I want to know is, given an AGS0 that score maybe a 2.4 on the HCA. A well taken IS probably can show a slight leakage, but if taken to the standard of the IS pic for the above GIA stone, the leakage can definitely be obscured. Then what is the point of having that poorly taken IS?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 3:34:01 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 1/29/2009 3:22:21 PM
Author: Lorelei
Also maybe it might be best to refrain from answering posts or offering advice if you are not confident doing so.
The diamond I am referring to is a GIA Excellent that the IS image belongs to.

Yes, that is the JA diamond's IS I am referring to. I am confident of offering advice. Just that the IS pic given for the stone is sub-par and I am asking for a better IS to be supplied.

I am asking you again, can you please clarify we are discussing the same diamond please? You posted ' You are the one that question AGS0 cut grade based on HCA giving a score greater than 2 for that stone and a IS showing some leakage.'

That is a general statement and is not referring to this stone. You have make that statement before. I brought that up because you are so insistent of seeing an IS pics of even AGS0 stone and then in this case, the IS image of the stone was so poorly taken than it is impossible to determine the extent of leakage and you are going to give it a passing grade. I am asking what is the point of seeing the IS image that is so poorly taken that you cannot see the extent of the leakage in this case and then still insist on having them for AGS0. That is being inconsistent.

I am not liking your tone here stone-cold and I hope this isn't going to lead to you insulting me and making personal attacks as it has repeatedly in the past, as I will not tolerate it. As I have said to you before, we should be able to disagree or debate without resorting to accusations and personal attacks, it is completely unnecessary.

I deal with many many threads here, you keep referring to some mysterious AGS diamond as an example that isn't anything to do with this thread, how on earth I am I expected to remember what diamond you are talking about when I see so many??? That is completely unnecessary and is hindering my helping the original poster. You never said it was a general statement even when I asked you repeatedly to clarify as to which diamond you were referring to - not helpful at all when we are discussing diamonds in this thread.

For your information, I never assume anything as I have said before even with AGS0 diamonds, the IS in this case in my opinion was although not ideal was sufficient for me to form a non expert opinion that the diamond was worth further investigation due to the limited supply of larger diamonds and especially eyeclean diamonds in this size and clarity grade. Decently cut GIA graded 3.5 carat diamonds with completely eyeclean SI2 clarity don't grow on trees and if the cut quality is reasonable and the buyer is on a budget, no sense at all in dismissing it out of hand without just cause. If one of the experts looked at that Idealscope image and said it was definitely insufficient to get a reasonable picture of any leakage of this diamond then that is completely fair enough and I defer to their expertise. However I am not going to agree just on the strength of another non expert poster saying that an Idealscope image is not sufficient for them to pass judgement when in my opinion they don't have the experience to decide that, when the original poster has already gone to the trouble of getting one which also in my non expert opinion gives enough info at this stage , and when it costs a vendor additional time and trouble and expense to do so.

As to the use of the term pass, many of us use the term to mean " pass on a diamond" as in don't buy that diamond, so I can see where the confusion arose in that instance.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 1/29/2009 3:58:06 PM
Author: Lorelei
I am not liking your tone here stone-cold and I hope this isn''t going to lead to you insulting me and making personal attacks as it has repeatedly in the past, as I will not tolerate it. As I have said to you before, we should be able to disagree or debate without resorting to accusations and personal attacks, it is completely unnecessary.

I deal with many many threads here, you keep referring to some mysterious AGS diamond as an example that isn''t anything to do with this thread, how on earth I am I expected to remember what diamond you are talking about when I see so many??? That is completely unnecessary and is hindering my helping the original poster. You never said it was a general statement even when I asked you repeatedly to clarify as to which diamond you were referring to - not helpful at all when we are discussing diamonds in this thread.

For your information, I never assume anything as I have said before even with AGS0 diamonds, the IS in this case in my opinion was although not ideal was sufficient for me to form a non expert opinion that the diamond was worth further investigation due to the limited supply of larger diamonds and especially eyeclean diamonds in this size and clarity grade. If one of the experts looked at that Idealscope image and said it was definitely insufficient to get a reasonable picture of any leakage of this diamond then that is completely fair enough and I defer to their expertise. However I am not going to agree just on the strength of another non expert poster saying that an Idealscope image is not sufficient for them to pass judgement when in my opinion they don''t have the experience to decide that, when the original poster has already gone to the trouble of getting one which also in my non expert opinion gives enough info at this stage , and when it costs a vendor additional time and trouble and expense to do so.

As to the use of the term pass, many of us use the term to mean '' pass on a diamond'' as in don''t buy that diamond, so I can see where the confusion arose in that instance.

You are the one that repeatedly mis-represents me and now threatening me. I am just asking what makes you think this is a passable IS that allows you to come to the conclusion that there is not leakage and all is good. Maybe you see something or know something that I don''t.

As to no replying you on the AGS0 thingy, you posted without that statement. Only the previous post did I notice you are editing the post. How was I to know if I don''t read back previous post.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 4:11:59 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 1/29/2009 3:58:06 PM
Author: Lorelei
I am not liking your tone here stone-cold and I hope this isn't going to lead to you insulting me and making personal attacks as it has repeatedly in the past, as I will not tolerate it. As I have said to you before, we should be able to disagree or debate without resorting to accusations and personal attacks, it is completely unnecessary.

I deal with many many threads here, you keep referring to some mysterious AGS diamond as an example that isn't anything to do with this thread, how on earth I am I expected to remember what diamond you are talking about when I see so many??? That is completely unnecessary and is hindering my helping the original poster. You never said it was a general statement even when I asked you repeatedly to clarify as to which diamond you were referring to - not helpful at all when we are discussing diamonds in this thread.

For your information, I never assume anything as I have said before even with AGS0 diamonds, the IS in this case in my opinion was although not ideal was sufficient for me to form a non expert opinion that the diamond was worth further investigation due to the limited supply of larger diamonds and especially eyeclean diamonds in this size and clarity grade. If one of the experts looked at that Idealscope image and said it was definitely insufficient to get a reasonable picture of any leakage of this diamond then that is completely fair enough and I defer to their expertise. However I am not going to agree just on the strength of another non expert poster saying that an Idealscope image is not sufficient for them to pass judgement when in my opinion they don't have the experience to decide that, when the original poster has already gone to the trouble of getting one which also in my non expert opinion gives enough info at this stage , and when it costs a vendor additional time and trouble and expense to do so.

As to the use of the term pass, many of us use the term to mean ' pass on a diamond' as in don't buy that diamond, so I can see where the confusion arose in that instance.

You are the one that repeatedly mis-represents me and now threatening me. I am just asking what makes you think this is a passable IS that allows you to come to the conclusion that there is not leakage and all is good. Maybe you see something or know something that I don't.

As to no replying you on the AGS0 thingy, you posted without that statement. Only the previous post did I notice you are editing the post. How was I to know if I don't read back previous post.

This isn't helping the original poster in any way. I have no idea where you get the idea I am misrepresenting you, nor am I threatening you - just telling you that I do not appreciate the way you have spoken to me from previous experience and I don't want that to continue for the sake of the poster in this thread.
As to editing the post, I always work that way with every post as I find it easier to do part of a post then add to it, I have always worked in this manner.

With the above highlighted statement, I actually asked you repeatedly to clarify what you meant about that AGS0 diamond in previous posts, you obviously must have missed those repeated requests which had been there for considerable time.

Ok I will try once more to explain my thinking here. I did not say there was no leakage in the idealscope image. I said IF there was, going by what some of the experts have taught me in the past it might not be visible to the human eye anyway, or even if so it might not be seriously detrimental to the actual diamond - or in other words enough to have a visible negative effect on the diamond. We know this is a well cut gem, not to absolute cream of the crop standards but certainly not badly cut and far better than many you can see. In my opinion, the IS and photograph was sufficient to show there was not disastrous leakage throughout the diamond, that the IS had served its purpose at this stage and in my opinion rightly or wrongly that considering all the pertinent facts and information, that the info given was sufficient for the diamond to go on a ' maybe' list with view to purchase.

The diamond is of rare and highly desirable size, GIA graded, it has a good cut and near colourless colour grade, if it was verified eyeclean being an SI2 clarity grade by one of James Allen's reps then it is absolutely worth consideration if the poster wants a large diamond for less money. If it was a smaller diamond and the poster said he wanted the absolute best cut he could get etc, then he would have more options, with the type of diamond he wants he needs to consider everything carefully.

I have been doing this a long time and am far from being an expert, nor will I ever be. All I can do is help each poster as I see fit based on my very limited knowledge and ability. I felt the IS was sufficient at this stage, if of course the poster decides he wants to reserve the diamond and wants further info, then he can request additional images. But sometimes to begin with, we need to try to work with what we have, in my opinion and experience the IS was usable.

 

[hem01]

Wow. Both of you are invited for super bowl sunday. There''s no question the discussion would be lively.

I talked to James Allen regarding a lot of the discussion points. Concerning eyeclean, the "diamond department" said the stone was eyeclean. The master gemologist felt the stone was an excellent "SI2." The inclusions were visible to her because she had the GIA plot and knew where to look.

Concerning "I" color, the stone was white face up.

Concerning the quality of the IS picture, he stated that the picture was the best they could do. Because the stone was so large, it doesn''t fit appropriately in the idealscope. That is why the top and bottom were cut off and why the depth and angle may be off. The take home point that JA stressed was that the stone is very red with little light reflection in the IS.

He offered that I should buy the stone and evaluate it in person to see if it is eyeclean to my standards.

He was very positive on the high quality of the diamond.


I sincerely appreciate all your opinions.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 1/29/2009 4:37:00 PM
Author: Lorelei
This isn''t helping the original poster in any way. I have no idea where you get the idea I am misrepresenting you, nor am I threatening you - just telling you that I do not appreciate the way you have spoken to me from previous experience and I don''t want that to continue for the sake of the poster in this thread.

As to editing the post, I always work that way with every post as I find it easier to do part of a post then add to it, I have always worked in this manner.

Ok I will try once more to explain my thinking here. I did not say there was no leakage in the idealscope image. I said IF there was, going by what some of the experts have taught me in the past it might not be visible to the human eye anyway, or even if so it might not be seriously detrimental to the actual diamond - or in other words enough to have a visible negative effect on the diamond. We know this is a well cut gem, not to absolute cream of the crop standards but certainly not badly cut and far better than many you can see. In my opinion, the IS and photograph was sufficient to show there was not disastrous leakage throughout the diamond, that the IS had served its purpose at this stage and in my opinion rightly or wrongly that considering all the pertinent facts and information, that the info given was sufficient for the diamond to go on a '' maybe'' list with view to purchase.

The diamond is of rare and highly desirable size, GIA graded, it has a good cut and near colourless colour grade, if it was verified eyeclean being an SI2 clarity grade by one of James Allen''s reps then it is absolutely worth consideration if the poster wants a large diamond for less money. If it was a smaller diamond and the poster said he wanted the absolute best cut he could get etc, then he would have more options, with the type of diamond he wants he needs to consider everything carefully.

I have been doing this a long time and am far from being an expert, nor will I ever be. All I can do is help each poster as I see fit based on my very limited knowledge and ability. I felt the IS was sufficient at this stage, if of course the poster decides he wants to reserve the diamond and wants further info, then he can request additional images. But sometimes to begin with, we need to try to work with what we have, in my opinion and experience the IS was usable.

So how much leakage is too much is what I am trying to clarify. For me, I said that the IS is sufficiently bad not to give a thumbs up based on that. But based on the HCA score, it is good to go with the same reasoning as you give, aka. rare, large, eye-clean stone, etc. So I am wondering why would you need an IS in this case? It is badly taken in this case, that any leakage could be obscured and you are not trying to find an ideal cut stone so that minimal leakage is acceptable, then why the requirement for IS?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 4:58:12 PM
Author: hem01
Wow. Both of you are invited for super bowl sunday. There's no question the discussion would be lively.

I talked to James Allen regarding a lot of the discussion points. Concerning eyeclean, the 'diamond department' said the stone was eyeclean. The master gemologist felt the stone was an excellent 'SI2.' The inclusions were visible to her because she had the GIA plot and knew where to look.

Concerning 'I' color, the stone was white face up.

Concerning the quality of the IS picture, he stated that the picture was the best they could do. Because the stone was so large, it doesn't fit appropriately in the idealscope. That is why the top and bottom were cut off and why the depth and angle may be off. The take home point that JA stressed was that the stone is very red with little light reflection in the IS.

He offered that I should buy the stone and evaluate it in person to see if it is eyeclean to my standards.

He was very positive on the high quality of the diamond.


I sincerely appreciate all your opinions.

I apologize to you for the above, I assure you my sincere intentions was to give you the most accurate and helpful advice I could. Thank you also for clarifying about the IS image, as I thought this might be the case and that the image was indeed acceptable and the diamond worthy of consideration.

JA have a great rep here with many happy clients, and as they do have a solid return policy then you have time to properly evaluate it in person, you could also get an independant appraisal if that might help within the return period.

One last thing, pop the diamond on hold if you haven't already to make sure it doesn't get grabbed!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/29/2009 5:07:07 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 1/29/2009 4:37:00 PM
Author: Lorelei
This isn't helping the original poster in any way. I have no idea where you get the idea I am misrepresenting you, nor am I threatening you - just telling you that I do not appreciate the way you have spoken to me from previous experience and I don't want that to continue for the sake of the poster in this thread.

As to editing the post, I always work that way with every post as I find it easier to do part of a post then add to it, I have always worked in this manner.

Ok I will try once more to explain my thinking here. I did not say there was no leakage in the idealscope image. I said IF there was, going by what some of the experts have taught me in the past it might not be visible to the human eye anyway, or even if so it might not be seriously detrimental to the actual diamond - or in other words enough to have a visible negative effect on the diamond. We know this is a well cut gem, not to absolute cream of the crop standards but certainly not badly cut and far better than many you can see. In my opinion, the IS and photograph was sufficient to show there was not disastrous leakage throughout the diamond, that the IS had served its purpose at this stage and in my opinion rightly or wrongly that considering all the pertinent facts and information, that the info given was sufficient for the diamond to go on a ' maybe' list with view to purchase.

The diamond is of rare and highly desirable size, GIA graded, it has a good cut and near colourless colour grade, if it was verified eyeclean being an SI2 clarity grade by one of James Allen's reps then it is absolutely worth consideration if the poster wants a large diamond for less money. If it was a smaller diamond and the poster said he wanted the absolute best cut he could get etc, then he would have more options, with the type of diamond he wants he needs to consider everything carefully.

I have been doing this a long time and am far from being an expert, nor will I ever be. All I can do is help each poster as I see fit based on my very limited knowledge and ability. I felt the IS was sufficient at this stage, if of course the poster decides he wants to reserve the diamond and wants further info, then he can request additional images. But sometimes to begin with, we need to try to work with what we have, in my opinion and experience the IS was usable.

So how much leakage is too much is what I am trying to clarify. For me, I said that the IS is sufficiently bad not to give a thumbs up based on that. But based on the HCA score, it is good to go with the same reasoning as you give, aka. rare, large, eye-clean stone, etc. So I am wondering why would you need an IS in this case? It is badly taken in this case, that any leakage could be obscured and you are not trying to find an ideal cut stone so that minimal leakage is acceptable, then why the requirement for IS?

It depends. In the case of this diamond we know have a definite opinion that the IS was acceptable and that the diamond does not show leakage, based on my knowledge of JA I would trust this opinion. IS is always useful IMO even if you are not looking for a top cut diamond, there can be variables to the best of my knowledge in these cases - distinct leakage should be easily visible such as the ring of death around the table or distinct dark leaky patches in the IS image, with the IS in question looking at the whole image and the photo, I had the impression that overall there was actually little to no leakage and so it proved. Some are harder to call than others from my experience at looking at many, I tend to look at larger diamonds with a slightly more forgiving eye I suppose due to them being rare and especially with an eyeclean SI2 which is rarer still.

So I believe IS are still valid even if a top cut diamond isn't what is wanted, it still gives you a better idea of how the diamond will look than without, the trick is considering the diamond as a whole and collating the best ones - not necessarily super perfect but a good image with minimal leakage is what to aim for I think and some flexibility perhaps in judging such images. Perfect Idealscope images are reasonably easy to call once you have looked at a few and read up, distinguishing the best of the non top make diamond can be more of a challenge but rewarding if you make a good judgement call.

 

[hem01]

I think it is down to 3 stones now. I will summarize the information as I know it. A lot of it is lost in the above replies:

#1: GIA 3.52, I, SI2
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 9.71 - 9.75 x 6.01 mm
Carat Weight: 3.52
Color Grade: I
Clarity Grade: SI2
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 61.8 %
Table: 56 %
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown Height: 15.5 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion Depth: 43 %
Star length: 50 %
Lower Half: 80 %
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None


Eyeclean per James Allen staff
ideal scope image on prior posting
hca = 2.5


#2: AGS 3.94, G, SI2
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 10.04 - 10.12 x 6.23 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 1.5 (G)
Clarity Grade: AGS 6 (SI2)
Carat Weight 3.942
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments:
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 57.0%
Crown Angle: 36.2
Crown Height: 15.7%
Girdle: Faceted, 1.7% to 4.9%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Pavilion Depth: 42.6%
Star Length: 57%
Lower Girdle Length: 80%
Total Depth: 61.7%
Culet: Pointed


The AGS report shows lots of inclusions. Martin (USA certed) says eyeclean. It is a virtual stone so his opinion is based on the wholesaler.
HCA = 2
no pictures


#3 GIA, 3.01, I, SI2
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 9.12 - 9.17 x 5.78 mm
Carat Weight: 3.01
Color Grade: I
Clarity Grade: SI2
Cut Grade: Very Good
Proportions:
Depth: 63.2 %
Table: 58 %
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 41.2°
Pavilion Depth: 44 %
Star length: 55 %
Lower Half: 80 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None

I think this is a no go, because of steep/deep
eyeclean


Thoughts? #1 or #2?

 

[hem01]

I think it is down to 3 stones now. I will summarize the information as I know it. A lot of it is lost in the above replies:

#1: GIA 3.52, I, SI2

Round Brilliant
Measurements: 9.71 - 9.75 x 6.01 mm
Carat Weight: 3.52
Color Grade: I
Clarity Grade: SI2
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 61.8 %
Table: 56 %
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown Height: 15.5 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion Depth: 43 %
Star length: 50 %
Lower Half: 80 %
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None

Eyeclean per James Allen staff
ideal scope image on prior posting
hca = 2.5

#2: AGS 3.94, G, SI2

Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 10.04 - 10.12 x 6.23 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Color Grade: AGS 1.5 (G)
Clarity Grade: AGS 6 (SI2)
Carat Weight 3.942
Fluorescence: Negligible
Comments:
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Table: 57.0%
Crown Angle: 36.2
Crown Height: 15.7%
Girdle: Faceted, 1.7% to 4.9%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6
Pavilion Depth: 42.6%
Star Length: 57%
Lower Girdle Length: 80%
Total Depth: 61.7%
Culet: Pointed

The AGS report shows lots of inclusions. Martin (USA certed) says eyeclean. It is a virtual stone so his opinion is based on the wholesaler.
HCA = 2
no pictures

#3 GIA, 3.01, I, SI2

Round Brilliant
Measurements: 9.12 - 9.17 x 5.78 mm
Carat Weight: 3.01
Color Grade: I
Clarity Grade: SI2
Cut Grade: Very Good
Proportions:
Depth: 63.2 %
Table: 58 %
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 41.2°
Pavilion Depth: 44 %
Star length: 55 %
Lower Half: 80 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
I think this is a no go, because of steep/deep
eyeclean

Thoughts? #1 or #2?

 

[Lorelei]

I would pass on the third diamond and see if you can get an IS for the second diamond, for me it would be between 1 and 2.