Help with ASET & Idealscope images!

[Scarte1]

Hello,

I have been reading from this site for almost a year now (just created a member ID a little while back). I have been trying to take pictures (ASET & Idealscope) of a mounted ring for some input on the diamond. This has been difficult so I have attached the pictures I was able to get - even though I know they are not picture perfect. Light is coming from behind on all pictures and they have varying intensity of light. I have assumed that the brighter the back light the better...although I have no idea.

I have experimented quite a bit and I am unsure if there is too much light in these pictures from the back side? Can you still see the needed details to get an idea if there is any leakage or issues with this stone from the pictures I have attached?

I am looking for some feedback on the stone. Anyone see any leakage concerns or anything else to be concerned with given the images?

HCA says 1.6 to 1.8 depending on if it is hearts and arrows or not. This is a ring.
GIA triple excellent.
AJA / NAJA says overall cut score of 1A and the cut parameters from HCA show GIA XXX and AGS ideal.

From the GIA cert -

34.5 crown
41.0 pavilion
43.5 pavilion depth
58 table
14.5 crown height
60.8 overall depth
50 star length
80% lower half

I realize the GIA numbers are not as exact as AGS so I am looking for some opinions from PriceScope members as to if there is anything to worry about with this stone. I also ran GIA FacetWare and it came up with some slightly different numbers.

Any help with image evaluation is appreciated!

With all of that said - anything to be concerned with from the pictures?

 

[flyingpig]

I do not see any big concern. But to really assess light leakage, you need white background.

 

[Karl_K]

They are good enough. The diamond is fine.

 

[Scarte1]

They are good enough. The diamond is fine.

I appreciate the feedback. It took a long time to find this stone. D color type IIa

 

[Scarte1]

They are good enough. The diamond is fine.

My main concern was with the crown and pavilion angles as I was concerned about leakage.

 

[Karl_K]

My main concern was with the crown and pavilion angles as I was concerned about leakage.

That combo is very often just fine, like it is in this case.
It can be a little finicky about the the lower girdles %/angles depending on what is in the averages but this one is fine as are most with gia numbers 80% lowers.

 

[tysaval]

Hello,

I have been reading from this site for almost a year now (just created a member ID a little while back). I have been trying to take pictures (ASET & Idealscope) of a mounted ring for some input on the diamond. This has been difficult so I have attached the pictures I was able to get - even though I know they are not picture perfect. Light is coming from behind on all pictures and they have varying intensity of light. I have assumed that the brighter the back light the better...although I have no idea.

I have experimented quite a bit and I am unsure if there is too much light in these pictures from the back side? Can you still see the needed details to get an idea if there is any leakage or issues with this stone from the pictures I have attached?

I am looking for some feedback on the stone. Anyone see any leakage concerns or anything else to be concerned with given the images?

HCA says 1.6 to 1.8 depending on if it is hearts and arrows or not. This is a ring.
GIA triple excellent.
AJA / NAJA says overall cut score of 1A and the cut parameters from HCA show GIA XXX and AGS ideal.

From the GIA cert -

34.5 crown
41.0 pavilion
43.5 pavilion depth
58 table
14.5 crown height
60.8 overall depth
50 star length
80% lower half

I realize the GIA numbers are not as exact as AGS so I am looking for some opinions from PriceScope members as to if there is anything to worry about with this stone. I also ran GIA FacetWare and it came up with some slightly different numbers.

Any help with image evaluation is appreciated!

With all of that said - anything to be concerned with from the pictures?

Hi, my diamond is almost completely the same, But my Lower half is 75%. Everything else is the same!!!

 

[tysaval]

My diamond is almost completely the same, but my lower half is 75% Everything else is the same!!

 

[John Pollard]

You can see graduated examples here - top light return to poor - which might be useful context.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Your photos are not bad and the stone is cut extremely well!

 

[tysaval]

Your photos are not bad and the stone is cut extremely well!

Thank you, I’m stuck on these two could you give me your opinion on the cut. And which one would perform better.

From the GIA cert
1.18 Carat
Color E
Clarity VS1
Faint fluorescent
Depth 60.8
Crown angle 34.5
Pavilion angle 41.0
Table 58
Crown height 14.5
Lower half 75%
Star length 50
6.84 6.85 4.16
It score a 1.6 on the HCA TEST


1.16 carat
Color F
Clarity VS2
Fluorescent none
Depth 62.9
Crown angle 35.5
Pavilion angle 40.8
Table 56
Crown height 15.5
Lower half 80%
Star length 50
6.67 6.70 4.20
It score 2.5 on the HCA. TEST

Could I get your opinion. Picture and sending you are the first diamond
My Concern about the first diamond is the faint fluorescent??? And the depth 60.8 But it scores excellent on all the diamond scales

Diamond # 2 is the depth being 62.9 I feel like that’s kind of deep???

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I agree, The first stone is better.
Faint is not strong enough.
Strong blue diamonds with no transparency issues are far nicer than none.
That is an opinion that is not commonly held these days.
However a generation or two ago it was the norm.
Harry Winston (the person, not todays company) was a great fan. And he was universally referred to as The King of Diamonds.
The latest research from GIA supports that view. Sadly very few people in this industry ever read a scientific paper.

 

[tysaval]

I agree, The first stone is better.
Faint is not strong enough.
Strong blue diamonds with no transparency issues are far nicer than none.
That is an opinion that is not commonly held these days.
However a generation or two ago it was the norm.
Harry Winston (the person, not todays company) was a great fan. And he was universally referred to as The King of Diamonds.
The latest research from GIA supports that view. Sadly very few people in this industry ever read a scientific paper.

Do you think 60.8 is to Shallow. What is your opinion???

 

[Karl_K]

Do you think 60.8 is to Shallow. What is your opinion???

60.8 is fine if the girdle is ok,
What the girdle listed as? Is its not under thin its fine.

 

[tysaval]

60.8 is fine if the girdle is ok,
What the girdle listed as? Is its not under thin its fine.

The girdle is 3% thin to medium

 

[Karl_K]

The girdle is 3% thin to medium

Thats good

 

[tysaval]

The girdle is 3% thin to medium

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Depth percentages have nothing to do with diamond performance - you have angles etc which are a lot more important.
It's good.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I agree, The first stone is better.
Faint is not strong enough.
Strong blue diamonds with no transparency issues are far nicer than none.
That is an opinion that is not commonly held these days.
However a generation or two ago it was the norm.
Harry Winston (the person, not todays company) was a great fan. And he was universally referred to as The King of Diamonds.
The latest research from GIA supports that view. Sadly very few people in this industry ever read a scientific paper.

Just a point of clarification for viewers of this thread that may not read the literature. The latest GIA research (snippet below in bold) does conclude that strong fluorescence is not the primary cause of transparency issues, though it can can be a contributor. Clarity issues are the main culprit, often at the microscopic level.

The research does NOT conclude, however, that diamonds with strong blue are "far nicer than none". In fact, the latest study (linked above) revealed for the first time that there is some loss of contrast associated with fluorescence.

The “hazy” appearance that often impacts apparent diamond transparency is mainly attributed to light scattering from structural defects, but our results also indicate that strong fluorescence causes minor contrast loss in the face-up patterns of some polished diamonds. The presence of both strong fluorescence and light-scattering structural defects increases the apparent haziness.

 

[Karl_K]

In fact, the latest study (linked above) revealed for the first time that there is some loss of contrast associated with fluorescence.

That is something Garry and I and others have discussed over the years.
My line is and has been for years for when reaction to fluorescence is an issue is when the virtual facets can not be clearly seen because of the effects of fluorescence, then to me it is hazy.
If the virtual facets can be clearly differentiated then the loss of contrast is not a issue.
A hazy or not call is a contrast call.

That said I would love an over-blue just because it is kewl.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

That is something Garry and I and others have discussed over the years.
My line is and has been for years for when reaction to fluorescence is an issue is when the virtual facets can not be clearly seen because of the effects of fluorescence, then to me it is hazy.
If the virtual facets can be clearly differentiated then the loss of contrast is not a issue.
A hazy or not call is a contrast call.

That said I would love an over-blue just because it is kewl.

Point of clarification Karl,
A test like this needs to be done in the presence of UV light or plenty of violet rich light. Since almost all videos and photos we see are made in UV light devoid of the energies that create the blue (N3) effect - you will not be able to do that test from photos and videos.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Just a point of clarification for viewers of this thread that may not read the literature. The latest GIA research (snippet below in bold) does conclude that strong fluorescence is not the primary cause of transparency issues, though it can can be a contributor. Clarity issues are the main culprit, often at the microscopic level.

The research does NOT conclude, however, that diamonds with strong blue are "far nicer than none". In fact, the latest study (linked above) revealed for the first time that there is some loss of contrast associated with fluorescence.

The “hazy” appearance that often impacts apparent diamond transparency is mainly attributed to light scattering from structural defects, but our results also indicate that strong fluorescence causes minor contrast loss in the face-up patterns of some polished diamonds. The presence of both strong fluorescence and light-scattering structural defects increases the apparent haziness.

The research does NOT conclude, however, that diamonds with strong blue are "far nicer than none".
Hi Bryan, I asked Yun Luo, the lead author her opinion and she told me (I think Dave Atlas was also on the webinar) :
"I love blue fluorescent diamonds"

 

[Karl_K]

Point of clarification Karl,
A test like this needs to be done in the presence of UV light or plenty of violet rich light. Since almost all videos and photos we see are made in UV light devoid of the energies that create the blue (N3) effect - you will not be able to do that test from photos and videos.

sunlight on a cloudy day would be ideal for the test.
A cheap ~400nm led light is probably close enough when added to diffused white light
Agree most photos and videos are not taken in lighting where the effect is even visible

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

sunlight on a cloudy day would be ideal for the test.
A cheap ~400nm led light is probably close enough when added to diffused white light
Agree most photos and videos are not taken in lighting here the effect is even visible

Shaded sunlight is all you need, even through a window.
I wounder if grow lights might be worth a try. Anyone growing dope in their wardrobe?

 

[tysaval]

Shaded sunlight is all you need, even through a window.
I wounder if grow lights might be worth a try. Anyone growing dope in their wardrobe?

I have a grow light. I’m going to try it on my faint fluorescent diamond. I will let you know

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have a grow light. I’m going to try it on my faint fluorescent diamond. I will let you know

You may not see much - although with a cheap UV penlight you will see a lot stronger blue than faint because historically GIA used the wrong long wave UV (365mn) to assess diamond fluorescence.
Also the grow light needs to appear white - not the blue red LED's

 

[AJ37]

That is something Garry and I and others have discussed over the years.
My line is and has been for years for when reaction to fluorescence is an issue is when the virtual facets can not be clearly seen because of the effects of fluorescence, then to me it is hazy.
If the virtual facets can be clearly differentiated then the loss of contrast is not a issue.
A hazy or not call is a contrast call.

That said I would love an over-blue just because it is kewl.

Can you clarify what the virtual facets are please? Love this conversation; thanks.

 

[DejaWiz]

Can you clarify what the virtual facets are please? Love this conversation; thanks.

Here's an article with a picture that shows virtual facets:

What Makes a Diamond Sparkle? | Whiteflash

New science has unlocked our understanding of diamond sparkle (scintillation), the primary attribute of diamond beauty.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The research does NOT conclude, however, that diamonds with strong blue are "far nicer than none".
Hi Bryan, I asked Yun Luo, the lead author her opinion and she told me (I think Dave Atlas was also on the webinar) :
"I love blue fluorescent diamonds"

Garry,
It's important not to conflate what the research actually concludes with anecdotal personal preferences. It can be misleading to the pricescope visitors who may not want to take a deep dive into the research papers themselves.

It's also important to understand that GIA has a huge trade constituency and have for years been trying to remove the stigma associated with fluorescence in order to increase inventory value and sell-through rates for that constituency. To their credit GIA acknowledges that goal, in this case in the Introduction of the article.

"Our goal is to provide a better understanding of the effect of blue fluorescence on diamond appearance and quantify it instrumentally. We believe this will help to reduce the confusion and biases in the industry and serve as a solid scientific foundation to ensure public trust with respect to diamond fluorescence."

And what I find particularly interesting in this study is the fact that while attempting to "ensure the public trust" GIA reveals another potential problem with strong fluorescence in loss of contrast.

 

[Karl_K]

Here's an article with a picture that shows virtual facets:

What Makes a Diamond Sparkle? | Whiteflash

New science has unlocked our understanding of diamond sparkle (scintillation), the primary attribute of diamond beauty.

www.whiteflash.com

This one is easier to understand:

Virtual Facets and patterns, a Discussion about step cuts.

This is the next article in the discussion of step cut diamonds. The main goal of this article is to show how virtual facets form patterns in diamonds. This is […]

www.pricescope.com