Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Glass-like vs. frosty round diamonds

Have you actually seen either of the diamonds in person or are your descriptions based on their website pics?
 
I've seen the 1.7 carat in person and a few others but I didn't know to look for this characteristics until after I took a close look.
I compared the HCA scores of a few other stones and compared it to their images also; 1.7 carat stone have HCA 1.9 while the 2+carat have 0.8 HCA score..and I notice some differences in the IdealScope image also. I compared about 5 to 6 H&A stones and noticed these effects with HCA score being close to 2 appear "glass-like" while under 1 is somewhat "frosty"..

Any diamond experts care to chime in?
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but neither one looks frosty to me at all... :confused: I would have to see them in person, but to my eye, the 2.2 looks more appealing from the photo. They are ACAs, so they will both no doubt be beautiful. If it were me, I'd go with the larger of the two. ;))
 
msop04|1391442818|3606950 said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but neither one looks frosty to me at all... :confused: I would have to see them in person, but to my eye, the 2.2 looks more appealing from the photo. They are ACAs, so they will both no doubt be beautiful. If it were me, I'd go with the larger of the two. ;))
Click to expand...

Look closely at the 2 diamond images' table: there you will see that 1.71 stone have a glassy look (see through) while the 2.2 doesn't..do you see? :)
 
No I don' see anything the 2.2 is amazing buy it
 
yes, I see that. and have questioned vendors about this.
I have purchased diamonds on the recommendation of vendor experts that looked slightly frosty in the photos, but in person were clear as glass. I sometimes wonder if the "frosty photos" are a little out of focus or something like that.
 
clarie|1391448969|3607024 said:
msop04|1391442818|3606950 said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but neither one looks frosty to me at all... :confused: I would have to see them in person, but to my eye, the 2.2 looks more appealing from the photo. They are ACAs, so they will both no doubt be beautiful. If it were me, I'd go with the larger of the two. ;))
Click to expand...

Look closely at the 2 diamond images' table: there you will see that 1.71 stone have a glassy look (see through) while the 2.2 doesn't..do you see? :)
Click to expand...

I see what you mean, but I'm pretty sure it's just the photography. :))
 
clarie|1391448969|3607024 said:
msop04|1391442818|3606950 said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but neither one looks frosty to me at all... :confused: I would have to see them in person, but to my eye, the 2.2 looks more appealing from the photo. They are ACAs, so they will both no doubt be beautiful. If it were me, I'd go with the larger of the two. ;))
Click to expand...

Look closely at the 2 diamond images' table: there you will see that 1.71 stone have a glassy look (see through) while the 2.2 doesn't..do you see? :)
Click to expand...

The only thing I am seeing is reflections and maybe a slightly clearer picture on the 1.7, both stones are winners, if you want a ACA the 2.2 meets Whiteflash standards for true H&A's and bigger :appl:
 
Above is a close-up of your two diamond tables, with "Frosty" on the left, and "Glassy" on the right.

I'm a gem photographer.
As msop04 said, what you notice is not from the diamonds themselves but from the photography.
The different look is not caused by the focus or even the depth of field that results from different aperture settings.

Diamonds behave like tiny boxes of windows and mirrors.
Both diamonds reflected and sent to the camera whatever was in front of them, behind the camera.
The greenish beige colors on the right may be the wall of the room or the photographer's shirt.

The left diamond also reflected what was in front of it around the camera but what was there was white stuff intentionally put there by the photographer.
This is often done to eliminate the environment from diamond pictures.
Then you are seeing and comparing only the diamonds, not the room and the photographer's clothing.
If white stuff was placed in front of the diamond on the right it would photograph as 'frosty' as the diamond on the left did.

Below I posted 3 pics to show what/how I place white stuff in front of the diamond.
I use a light tent that closes in the front with a little opening for the camera lens.
Then to take the effect even further, onto the camera lens I place a piece of white styrofoam with a hole cut out for the lens.

screen_shot_2014-02-03_at_10.png

dsc_0004.jpg

dsc_100.jpg

dsc_101.jpg
 
KENNY

KENNY

OMG KENNY HIHIHIHIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
distracts|1391454737|3607082 said:
KENNY

KENNY

OMG KENNY HIHIHIHIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great explanation, kenny!! :appl:
 
Forgive me if this seems stupid, but couldn't the clear look be coming from the (ever so slight) leakage under the table (also seen in the IS image)? Wouldn't that contribute to this difference in appearance between the 2?
 
thank you for this explanation it was extremely helpful to me on viewing diamonds.

kenny|1391452808|3607061 said:
Above is a close-up of your two diamond tables, with "Frosty" on the left, and "Glassy" on the right.

I'm a gem photographer.
As msop04 said, what you notice is not from the diamonds themselves but from the photography.
The different look is not caused by the focus or even the depth of field that results from different aperture settings.

Diamonds behave like tiny boxes of windows and mirrors.
Both diamonds reflected and sent to the camera whatever was in front of them, behind the camera.
The greenish beige colors on the right may be the wall of the room or the photographer's shirt.
Click to expand...
 
:wavey: Kenny - thanks for that explanation - it makes total sense and explains the slight differences I've seen in similar images. (gotta do the happy dance, you know, for no particular reason :appl:)
 
jramy278|1391457879|3607122 said:
Forgive me if this seems stupid, but couldn't the clear look be coming from the (ever so slight) leakage under the table (also seen in the IS image)? Wouldn't that contribute to this difference in appearance between the 2?
Click to expand...

Thank you Kenny for that thorough explanation; the 2 pictures (glassy or frosty) you have are of the same diamond?
But I have the same thought as jramy278!..because IdealScope image for the 1.7 carat (HCA is 1.8ish) is not as red on the table as the 2.2 carat (HCA 0.8ish). I compared with some other ACA diamond images as well..there is a correlation with the HCA score and its appearance..HCA score near 2 is "glass-like" while under one is a bit "frosted"

Thank you for everyone's comments and participations :wavey:
 
clarie|1391460375|3607153 said:
... the 2 pictures (glassy or frosty) you have are of the same diamond?
Click to expand...

No, they are not two pics of the same diamond.
They are pics from the two links you posted.

That said, if they were both photographed in the exact same environment (they weren't) they would look VERY similar.
The difference you see is 99% from the different environment, not the cut.
The pic you called frosty-looking had to be taken in a light box or light tent or light dome.

Again, remember that we are basically looking at pictures of a bunch of tiny mirrors that are positioned at various angles, so they each reflect things from various directions.
The pic mostly shows whatever the mirrors are reflecting, not the diamond itself.
Change what the mirrors are reflecting and the mirrors looks different - but only until it sinks in that the pic of the mirror is not really a pic of the mirror; it's a pic of whatever the mirror is reflecting.
Sorry, I'm being redundant but it's a point that is subtle until you get it, then it is slap-your-head obvious.

That the one you called glassy (in right pics above and below) having a bit worse Idealscope performance under the table is a good observation but what you see under the table would not result in the greenish-beige colors we see in the right pic above.

Also if the colors we see in 'Glassy' were the result of leakage that would mean those colors were behind the diamond.
Whiteflash's photographer is quite good and would not do that.

BTW the 'Frosty' on the left is an ACA and the right one is only an Expert Selection, which are not cut quite as perfectly as the ACAs.

screen_shot_2014-02-03_at_0.png
 
clarie|1391460375|3607153 said:
But I have the same thought as jramy278!..because IdealScope image for the 1.7 carat (HCA is 1.8ish) is not as red on the table as the 2.2 carat (HCA 0.8ish). I compared with some other ACA diamond images as well..there is a correlation with the HCA score and its appearance..HCA score near 2 is "glass-like" while under one is a bit "frosted"
Click to expand...

HCA score and the two different looks you call glassy and frosty have nothing to do with each other.
The two looks described are from the photography, as described above.
 
To demonstrate how much what's in front of a diamond affects how it looks to the camera check this out this extreme example.
I've posted these pics before but I think they are useful here.
Again the OP's question is, why do those two diamonds look so different, one frosty and the other glassy?
They answer is because of whatever is placed in front of, and reflected by, the tiny box of mirrors.

Unlike the thread title implies, there is no such thing as a glass-like or a frosty diamond.



Here is how all those colors got into the diamonds.
The camera is hiding behind the hole I cut in the middle of the piece of paper with all those colors painted on.

screen_shot_2014-02-03_at_2.png

screen_shot_2014-02-03_at_1.png
 
Ahh I see it now. Thanks for taking the time to explain that Kenny! :wavey:
 
My pleasure.
 
Claire, now that I see them all side by side I see what you mean.
It may be a coincidence, but there may be something to it, or both.
I'm always open to learning and correcting what I think I know.

These pics are, left to right, in the same order as your Whiteflash comparison search.
FWIW, all four of these are ACAs.



The four HCA scores are at the top of the pic.
If the text is too small on your screen they are, left to right, 1.8, 1.9, 0.8, and 0.8.
The two lower HCA scores on the right do show more 'frostiness' or whiteness than the other two which show more of the greenish-beige color.
Interesting to note all four show some of the identical color.
That probably rules out the photographers shirt since (s)he likely owns more than one. :lol:
Interestingly the red under the table of the highest HCA score, 1.9, most-closely matches the red of the rest of the diamond.

Now I'm also curious whether there could be some correlation.
Of course not that lower HCA scores are whiter or frostier diamonds, but that lower HCA scores indicate the 'mirrors' are angled to reflect back to their camera an area of their photo set up that is more white … perhaps further off-axis or on-axis.
Again this all still indicates nothing about the diamonds and their overall light performance, but about the reflections captured by the photo set up.

I'd love to hear feedback from Whiteflash's boss, Texas Leaguer, on this.
I think I'll email him a link to this thread.
It would be understandable if we don't hear much, if anything from him.
Some Internet diamond vendors are understandable very tight-lipped about their photography set ups and processes.
Revealing much can help their competitors.
I have had photo discussions with a few of them at PS GTGs and they all asked me to keep anything they say private.
Since I'm not selling anything I reveal everything to help improve the photography we enjoy on PS.

Nice sleuthing, claire!

screen_shot_2014-02-03_at_3.png
 
Kenny- as always, great post. Welcome home. X
 
:wavey:
 
kenny|1391469031|3607278 said:
Now I'm also curious whether there could be some correlation.
Of course not that lower HCA scores are whiter or frostier diamonds, but that lower HCA scores indicate the 'mirrors' are angled to reflect back to their camera an area of their photo set up that is more white … perhaps further off-axis or on-axis.Again this all still indicates nothing about the diamonds and their overall light performance, but about the reflections captured by the photo set up.
Click to expand...

This is very interesting, indeed... I'd love to hear more about this. :bigsmile:
 
Wow! Thank you Kenny! I'm glad that I can contribute an interesting point to the discussion..I was beginning to feel that I was pestering you :wink2: Thank you for being open-minded and taking in a new possible insight. ;)) Would love to know what you find out. Please keep us posted.

By the way, which stone is a good buy? the 1.7 or 2.2 carat?
 
clarie|1391471007|3607313 said:
Wow! Thank you Kenny! I'm glad that I can contribute an interesting point to the discussion..I was beginning to feel that I was pestering you :wink2: Thank you for being open-minded and taking in a new possible insight. ;)) Would love to know what you find out. Please keep us posted.

By the way, which stone is a good buy? the 1.7 or 2.2 carat?
Click to expand...

Pestering?
No way.
I'll ramble about photography till the cows come home.

Knowing WF, I'd guess both diamonds are equally good buys.
I've had an ACA around 10 years and it is a real fireball.
I read rave reviews here about their Expert Selection rounds too.

If you have the budget or credit you could buy both and return one.
You will have to pay for return shipping and insurance on the returned one but perhaps you can time everything on your credit card billing cycle so you get your refund before payment is due.

There's nothing like seeing two diamonds side by side for a few days in different environments to make you comfortable with your selection.
I think shipping is a small price to pay considering how important and expensive the purchase is.
 
Nice pics kenny!
 
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