Idealscope and ASET, need some help...

[henearly89]

I had the diamond appraised today. Here are the IS and ASET images. As I suspected from the price I paid, this isn''t a true H&A but I''m okay with that. I''m not going to be able to afford a true H&A, D, IF. I do want a quality cut that is going to peform well, though. The diamond was a 1.2 TIC in the HCA and received a GIA Ex,Ex,Ex. I''m likely going to have to wait until I see the stone set with my own eyes before I make my final decision, but for now, what do you think of these IS and ASET images.

By the way, I''d highly recommend David Atlas for an appraisal. Very thorough, professional, informative, and had the appraisal done the same day shipment was received. Price was extremely reasonable.

 

[henearly89]

Here''s the ASET...

 

[henearly89]

Any thoughts?

 

[stone-cold11]

Are these images generated from DiamCalc using the data of the sarin scan instead of actual images taken with the scopes?

 

[henearly89]

Yes, I believe so, make a difference?

 

[stone-cold11]

2 areas that look like slight leakage, not sure if that is a scan artifact or not. Overall good IS/ASET images.

 

[Dreamer_D]

They look good. I am not sure how the diamcalc versus actual IS images compare.

What did Dave think about the optics? I would trust his opinion first and foremost.

 

[henearly89]

He basically said that the price I paid was a fair one, that the diamond had been competitively priced. Thought it was a GIA excellent and a near miss to an AGS0. Said their weren''t any cutting defects of significant importance.

Not going to be able to decide until I see it myself. A bit concerned about the leakage and optical symmetry and just wondering how much that''ll bother me when I see it myself.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/18/2010 10:56:47 PM
Author: henearly89
He basically said that the price I paid was a fair one, that the diamond had been competitively priced. Thought it was a GIA excellent and a near miss to an AGS0. Said their weren''t any cutting defects of significant importance.

Not going to be able to decide until I see it myself. A bit concerned about the leakage and optical symmetry and just wondering how much that''ll bother me when I see it myself.

The only way it will bother you is in your mind

. The reality is that the slight nuances in "great cut" we obsess over are not detectable to the human eye. As Storm once said, a diamond''s performance is all about four things: lighting, lighting, lighting... and cut.

 

[DiceKTak]

Everyone obsesses over this stuff, then when it comes down to it, says its "close enough." Well which is it? If you won''t be able to detect the difference between a great IS and one that''s not, why do we even bother? There''s a lot of leakage in this IS and the optical symmetry is lacking. It''s an okay cut, but not a winner. There, I said it.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/18/2010 11:50:09 PM
Author: DiceKTak
Everyone obsesses over this stuff, then when it comes down to it, says its 'close enough.' Well which is it? If you won't be able to detect the difference between a great IS and one that's not, why do we even bother? There's a lot of leakage in this IS and the optical symmetry is lacking. It's an okay cut, but not a winner. There, I said it.

This isn't a true IS image, it is a symulation from DiamCalc. If the numbers were off in a sarin scan then the images would show leakage when none was present. So they are not diagnositc in the same way that as actual IS image would be. And it is not an H&A so symmetry is not in dispute.

As to when it matters and when it does not, in my opinion some IS images will clearly show leakage, some angle combos will clearly indicate rejection on the HCA. But when it is GIA EX or AGS Ideal for cut grade, and passes the HCA, and it has an IS that looks *good enough*, that is when you will not be able to tell the difference between slight and subtle nuances with the naked eye. Yet some people care about those nuances at the high end of perfection when it comes to cut. *shrug* to each their own.

 

[DiceKTak]

Date: 2/18/2010 11:56:06 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 2/18/2010 11:50:09 PM
Author: DiceKTak
Everyone obsesses over this stuff, then when it comes down to it, says its ''close enough.'' Well which is it? If you won''t be able to detect the difference between a great IS and one that''s not, why do we even bother? There''s a lot of leakage in this IS and the optical symmetry is lacking. It''s an okay cut, but not a winner. There, I said it.

This isn''t a true IS image, it is a symulation from DiamCalc. If the numbers were off in a sarin scan then the images would show leakage when none was present. So they are not diagnositc in the same way that as actual IS image would be. And it is not an H&A so symmetry is not in dispute.

As to when it matters and when it does not, in my opinion some IS images will clearly show leakage, some angle combos will clearly indicate rejection on the HCA. But when it is GIA EX or AGS Ideal for cut grade, and passes the HCA, and it has an IS that looks *good enough*, that is when you will not be able to tell the difference between slight and subtle nuances with the naked eye. Yet some people care about those nuances at the high end of perfection when it comes to cut. *shrug* to each their own.

Neither slight nor subtle but MAYBE not a dealbreaker depending on the OP''s take. There''s definitely leakage to the extent that this IS would be described as good-very good. I think the effects on the optics will be noticeable in person but he/she shall find that out in due time.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/19/2010 12:20:28 AM
Author: DiceKTak

Date: 2/18/2010 11:56:06 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 2/18/2010 11:50:09 PM
Author: DiceKTak
Everyone obsesses over this stuff, then when it comes down to it, says its ''close enough.'' Well which is it? If you won''t be able to detect the difference between a great IS and one that''s not, why do we even bother? There''s a lot of leakage in this IS and the optical symmetry is lacking. It''s an okay cut, but not a winner. There, I said it.

This isn''t a true IS image, it is a symulation from DiamCalc. If the numbers were off in a sarin scan then the images would show leakage when none was present. So they are not diagnositc in the same way that as actual IS image would be. And it is not an H&A so symmetry is not in dispute.

Neither slight nor subtle but MAYBE not a dealbreaker depending on the OP''s take. There''s definitely leakage to the extent that this IS would be described as good-very good. I think the effects on the optics will be noticeable in person but he/she shall find that out in due time.

See highlighted.

 

[DiceKTak]

So are you doubting the appraiser''s scan?

 

[Rhino]

You can get true/traditional H&A if you go to D VVS1. I understand your concern as the person who seeks out this level of quality is also seeking to have the rarity of the cut to compliment it. It's a mind clean thing.

I have a lot of experience reading these scans and how ASET/IS actual imagery correlates with DiamCalc generated imagery.

As pointed out if the Sarin is not calibrated properly and the numbers are off the resultant scan will also be and will not correllate to actual photography.

If the Sarin is in fact calibrated right on it will correllate almost perfectly with actual photography.

If one compares actual photography of the diamond alongside the images generated from the scan you can see how accurate or inaccurate the scanning device is (Sarin/Helium/OGI).

It's nice that your appraiser was able to provide you with a gem advisor file. I'd be curious to see actual photography under the same devices.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 2/18/2010 11:50:09 PM
Author: DiceKTak
Everyone obsesses over this stuff, then when it comes down to it, says its ''close enough.'' Well which is it? If you won''t be able to detect the difference between a great IS and one that''s not, why do we even bother? There''s a lot of leakage in this IS and the optical symmetry is lacking. It''s an okay cut, but not a winner. There, I said it.

Where did you see a lot of leakage?

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 2/19/2010 1:14:38 AM
Author: DiceKTak
So are you doubting the appraiser''s scan?

Yes, calibration can be off, dust can be present, it happened before.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I read the discussion above between Dreamer and DKTak, and wanted to add my 2 cents.

When considering the assessment-tools that are available online, it is important to understand their limitations. Let me try to list them.

- The HCA, a rejection-tool based upon a limited number of average measurements, assessing mainly brightness.
- The GIA-EX-grade on Cut. A rejection-tool, similar to HCA, but considering a few more average numbers. Assessment is mainly of brightness, and the grade is more liberal in the steep/deep-area.
- The AGS-Ideal Cut-grade. A rejection-tool, based upon ray-tracing-assessment of the actual stone. Most of the grade is based on brightness, with the fire-assessment being a minor part of the cut-grade. No assessment of scintillation.
- Ideal-scope-picture. A face-up-picture in a standard viewing environment, assessing mainly potential brightness. Should I mention that this is a rejection-tool?
- ASET-picture. A face-up-picture in a standardized viewing environment, assessing mainly potential brightness. Because of the difficulty in taking this photograph, comparing pictures from different set-ups is difficult. Again, a rejection-tool.

Considering all the above, we can see that the tools available online mainly concentrate on brightness. Of course, this is an important measure, but it does not tell the complete story of a stone.

As such, I see no problem in accepting ''good enough'' as an advice over a stone, provided that the ''goodness'' of the stone is confirmed by real-life-observation.

And most importantly, if a stone passes all the above rejection-tests with flying colours, it does not mean that it will look as good as any other stone passing the same tests. There are considerable potential differences, probably mostly in observed fire and scintillation, and it depends to some extent to the taste of the consumer whether he or she sees and appreciates these differences. In that way, ''good enough'' is a starting-point, almost guaranteeing a bright stone, but it is not the end-all-be-all.

Live long,

 

[DiceKTak]

Date: 2/19/2010 5:29:41 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 2/18/2010 11:50:09 PM
Author: DiceKTak
Everyone obsesses over this stuff, then when it comes down to it, says its ''close enough.'' Well which is it? If you won''t be able to detect the difference between a great IS and one that''s not, why do we even bother? There''s a lot of leakage in this IS and the optical symmetry is lacking. It''s an okay cut, but not a winner. There, I said it.

Where did you see a lot of leakage?

There is a decent chunk of leakage under the table.

 

[DiceKTak]

There also aren''t any hotspots in that region, meaning scintillation is likely to suffer.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 2/18/2010 10:56:47 PM
Author: henearly89
He basically said that the price I paid was a fair one, that the diamond had been competitively priced. Thought it was a GIA excellent and a near miss to an AGS0. Said their weren''t any cutting defects of significant importance.


Not going to be able to decide until I see it myself. A bit concerned about the leakage and optical symmetry and just wondering how much that''ll bother me when I see it myself.

Listen closely to what Dave Atlas tells you and take him at his word.
His is the most important opinion as he has seen the diamond and is a very respected expert on diamonds.
As far as image errors goes, Dave does look at them under the real scopes and will see if there are significant errors in the generated images and redo them as needed.
You are in good hands with him helping you.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/19/2010 10:20:26 AM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 2/18/2010 10:56:47 PM
Author: henearly89
He basically said that the price I paid was a fair one, that the diamond had been competitively priced. Thought it was a GIA excellent and a near miss to an AGS0. Said their weren''t any cutting defects of significant importance.


Not going to be able to decide until I see it myself. A bit concerned about the leakage and optical symmetry and just wondering how much that''ll bother me when I see it myself.

Listen closely to what Dave Atlas tells you and take him at his word.
His is the most important opinion as he has seen the diamond and is a very respected expert on diamonds.
As far as image errors goes, Dave does look at them under the real scopes and will see if there are significant errors in the generated images and redo them as needed.
You are in good hands with him helping you.

I agree.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 2/19/2010 10:11:12 AM
Author: DiceKTak

Date: 2/19/2010 5:29:41 AM

Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 2/18/2010 11:50:09 PM

Author: DiceKTak

Everyone obsesses over this stuff, then when it comes down to it, says its 'close enough.' Well which is it? If you won't be able to detect the difference between a great IS and one that's not, why do we even bother? There's a lot of leakage in this IS and the optical symmetry is lacking. It's an okay cut, but not a winner. There, I said it.

Where did you see a lot of leakage?

There is a decent chunk of leakage under the table.

There is only one small area of partial leakage due to the slight offset of the lowers in that area.
It will not be eye visible.
The IS image would be placed in the EX-VG border region not good/poor.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 2/19/2010 10:12:20 AM
Author: DiceKTak
There also aren''t any hotspots in that region, meaning scintillation is likely to suffer.

The effect of scintillation is under-studied and neither of these reflector-images is suitable to effectively assess scintillation. The theory of ''hotspots'' being a sign of better scintillation is an unconfirmed, disputable theory.

Live long,

 

[henearly89]

I was stuck between a .71 carat D, IF that was Ideal but possibly (and now knowingly) not H&A (this one), and a .80 carat D, VVS1 that was H&A but not an IF. I decided that the IF meant more to me if I could find a good enough ideal cut. Hoping I won''t regret not choosing the .80 carat from WF once I see this stone in person.

And yes, Dave Atlas has really been awesome. He''s answered every one of the 101 questions I''ve asked. Couldn''t be happier with his work. I certainly picked the right appraiser, even if I may regret not selecting the other diamond.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/19/2010 11:10:59 AM
Author: henearly89
I was stuck between a .71 carat D, IF that was Ideal but possibly (and now knowingly) not H&A (this one), and a .80 carat D, VVS1 that was H&A but not an IF. I decided that the IF meant more to me if I could find a good enough ideal cut. Hoping I won''t regret not choosing the .80 carat from WF once I see this stone in person.

And yes, Dave Atlas has really been awesome. He''s answered every one of the 101 questions I''ve asked. Couldn''t be happier with his work. I certainly picked the right appraiser, even if I may regret not selecting the other diamond.

Thats the ultimate test but I think you will be fine and you have been in excellent hands with Dave, he won''t let you pick a bad diamond!