Help with idealscope and gia report please

[Weslaw11]

Looking to buy an ER and I'm new to the process. I'm looking at a .9 carat round natural diamond.

How does the gia report and idealscope look? Should i be concerned the table is above 57%? It has feather listed clarity characteristic, but i can't see it in the website's 360 photo.

TIA!

 

[Tourmaline]

If the look of the larger table doesn’t bother your eye, it’s ok. The angles are complementary. The Idealscope doesn’t look excellent to me, showing leakage under the table, but it might be plenty beautiful.

 

[John Pollard]

How does the gia report and idealscope look? Should i be concerned the table is above 57%? It has feather listed clarity characteristic, but i can't see it in the website's 360 photo.

A diamond's proportions, together, tell a more detailed story that any single proportion. The usual caution about tables >57% is that larger tables tend to lower crown height. In this case the 58% table was paired with a 35 degree crown angle, so the crown still has nice overall height.

The relative lightness under the table may indicate a slight brightness reduction. It's also possible the light source underneath the diamond was brighter than we're used to seeing in other Ideal Scope photos - those setups are not standardized.

With that said, the basic numbers are predicted to earn AGS1 in light performance, but the numbers on GIA reports are rounded. If the 35.0 is actually 35.2 it would drop the light performance prediction to AGS2, reinforcing what @Tourmaline observed above.

 

[Weslaw11]

If the look of the larger table doesn’t bother your eye, it’s ok. The angles are complementary. The Idealscope doesn’t look excellent to me, showing leakage under the table, but it might be plenty beautiful.

Thank you. I'm guessing it's hard to say, but does this look like a possible show stopper? If we were grading on a scale im ok if this is a 7 out of 10 for leakage, but not a 4 or 5 out of 10.

 

[Weslaw11]

A diamond's proportions, together, tell a more detailed story that any single proportion. The usual caution about tables >57% is that larger tables tend to lower crown height. In this case the 58% table was paired with a 35 degree crown angle, so the crown still has nice overall height.

The relative lightness under the table may indicate a slight brightness reduction. It's also possible the light source underneath the diamond was brighter than we're used to seeing in other Ideal Scope photos - those setups are not standardized.

With that said, the basic numbers are predicted to earn AGS1 in light performance, but the numbers on GIA reports are rounded. If the 35.0 is actually 35.2 it would drop the light performance prediction to AGS2, reinforcing what @Tourmaline observed above.

Thank you. I'm guessing it's hard to say, but does this look like a possible show stopper? If we were grading on a scale im ok if this is a 7 out of 10 for leakage, but not a 4 or 5 out of 10.

 

[Karl_K]

It's also possible the light source underneath the diamond was brighter than we're used to seeing in other Ideal Scope photos - those setups are not standardized.

Over bright back lights are more common than properly lighted examples if you go by the ones posted here as your group.
In my opinion with in the stones numbers averages and rounded add up to a working combination with very minor if at all under table leakage.
Here is an images I use. It is a computer generated "perfect" cut just backlit. The arrow points to the reference point anything bright than that and not at the end of the stars is something to consider.
Everything dimmer or the same is minor and can be ignored.
Same in IS images.

 

[lovedogs]

I'd likely give it a 7. I think you could do better but it isn't bad.