Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Expert Opinions on IdealScope Image

Any other options out there that split the difference or at least better cut?
If your open to other options the prosumers here can help.
Post your preferences to help them hunt.
 
Karl_K said:
Any other options out there that split the difference or at least better cut?
If your open to other options the prosumers here can help.
Post your preferences to help them hunt.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion @Karl_K

Constraints:
<=$35k
>=2.5Carats
>= I Color
Eye Clean
As close to SIC proportions as possible (ideally without the SIC branded premium (unless this translates into quantifiable "good value")).
Mind clean to me is optimization of the constraints.

I will say I have scoured far and wide (as far as I can tell), and this was one of the few stones that seemed to "optimize" most of the constraints. The tradeoffs from what I've seen is a roughly half carat reduction for a branded SIC vs what I would interpret to be a "near" SIC. Additionally as I detailed in a previous post from StoneAlgo there appears to be a nearly $15k "fair price" delta between this stone and branded SIC's that meet the constraints which is hard for me to wrap my head around the value proposition of branded SIC's.

Purely from a light performance perspective, I would think a 3 carat near SIC's physically larger facets would outperform a 2.5 carat branded SIC marginally more precise facets, if we were able to quantify and summate aggregate light return / scintillation, rather than performance per carat. (My logic could be deeply flawed)

I would certainly like to hear all perspectives on this and think this is a very interesting discussion!
 
Last edited:
LIKEACA said:
@lovedogs

Wow that is crazy! I actually reserved this exact diamond at one point before I started really researching "ideal" proportions and I just considering "eye pleasing". The 36.5 / 63.2 depth % ultimately scared me off
Click to expand...

Totally get it. 36.5 and 40.6 should be fine. The depth isn't ideal, but I love the small table. It's the type of diamond I personally like, but it's not everyone's preference
 
lovedogs said:
Totally get it. 36.5 and 40.6 should be fine. The depth isn't ideal, but I love the small table. It's the type of diamond I personally like, but it's not everyone's preference
Click to expand...

My initial evaluation method was within budget and looks similar to another visually pleasing but out of my league price wise stone. I even went as far as to make this rather unscientific comparison Haha! This was before I really got into proportions & such. The proportion differences are much more apparent to me now, but at the time just starting out they looked quite similar (excluding color obviously)


1713554659293.png
 
Last edited:
Honestly I'd get the WF one and be sure ab0it ideal cut
 
LIKEACA said:
Purely from a light performance perspective, I would think a 3 carat near SIC's physically larger facets would outperform a 2.5 carat branded SIC marginally more precise facets, if we were able to quantify and summate aggregate light return / scintillation, rather than performance per carat. (My logic could be deeply flawed)

I would certainly like to hear all perspectives on this and think this is a very interesting discussion!
Click to expand...
I posted a comparison between a 1.3 ct AGS0 and a 1.7 ct IGI H&A with similar proportions in the lab forum if you want to read about my experience. ~20% difference in face up size and the smaller better cut one looks more lively and eye catching on the hand.

IGI HPHT H&A vs AGSL CVD AGS 0

Found a matching pair of IGI graded HPHT H&A cuts to compare with an AGSL graded CVD AGS 0 cut. All are eye clean D color VS clarity. No visible fluorescence or phosphorescence. Carat Weight 1.76 1.74 1.312 Measurements 7.75 - 7.78 x 4.76 7.73 - 7.77 x 4.74 7.04 - 7.06 x 4.31 Depth 61.2%...
www.pricescope.com
 
0-0-0 said:
I posted a comparison between a 1.3 ct AGS0 and a 1.7 ct IGI H&A with similar proportions in the lab forum if you want to read about my experience. ~20% difference in face up size and the smaller better cut one looks more lively and eye catching on the hand.

IGI HPHT H&A vs AGSL CVD AGS 0

Found a matching pair of IGI graded HPHT H&A cuts to compare with an AGSL graded CVD AGS 0 cut. All are eye clean D color VS clarity. No visible fluorescence or phosphorescence. Carat Weight 1.76 1.74 1.312 Measurements 7.75 - 7.78 x 4.76 7.73 - 7.77 x 4.74 7.04 - 7.06 x 4.31 Depth 61.2%...
www.pricescope.com
Click to expand...

@0-0-0 Wow!!! Mind officially blown! This is exactly the type of analysis I've trying to do mental acrobats around.

Crazy how the 1.312 actually smacks down the larger stones. I think if anything this is proving that seeing a particular stone in person means a lot!!

Out of curiosity looking at the ASET images of your three stones. Were the ASET images all taken with the same light source?? I feel like if they were, we can observe the duller performance of the two larger stones even in the ASET images:

1713556987307.png
 
Last edited:
Nothing beats comparing in person! There’s a limit to how much numbers, photos, and videos can tell you.

The ASET images were taken in the same setup. Bigger stones sit higher on the tray I have so they tend to show a bit more blue obstruction that’s not visible in person. The patterning in the ASET is definitely less crisp on the bigger pair.
 
It is hard to beat the performance of a SIC diamond. Size is important, of course, but performance trumps that every time for me. Turning those SIC stones in every direction gives so much credence to the precision and symmetry of those diamonds.
 
There is a reason we often say buying a branded H&A Super ideal is the easiest way to guarantee the best cut. It’s peace of mind. And that might be worth it for you.
 
Great discussion here. Posting the stones below as yet another consideration:

www.briangavindiamonds.com

2.57 I VS1 Brian Gavin Signature Round

Brian Gavin Diamonds
www.briangavindiamonds.com www.briangavindiamonds.com

I found myself in a similar situation with a recent JA purchase of a True Hearts stone, where the IS images on their website showed potential leakage under the table - a specific concern for my particular stone's proportions: 35/40.8. I purchased both an IS and ASET, and now that I have the ring (finally) I can see that there isn't any leakage under the table, and can confirm that the online IS pictures were slightly off center and strongly backlit. JA has a long way to go to standardize their online images, and in my opinion are far behind BGD and WF -but JA has an entirely different business model that likely makes those high quality images very difficult to collect across their virtual inventory - to their detriment.

I am trying to take pictures to share with the PSers here, but getting a good image is quite challenging, as @flyingpig has noted - although he figured it out. I can now see that the slightest change in angle of the camera, or distance of the base of the scope from the stone will make dramatic changes in the image.

Slightly outside your parameters is this stone. A J color 2.64 ct BG Blue with medium blue fluoresence - part of their BG Blue line - so you know that the fluorescence won't have any negative proprerties. I am a fan of fluor in this color range - I think it is a great value at $26k.

www.briangavindiamonds.com

2.64 J VVS2 Brian Gavin Blue Round

Brian Gavin Diamonds
www.briangavindiamonds.com www.briangavindiamonds.com
 
Last edited:
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