Idealscope image

[wbarnwell]

A question about this idealscope image



What do you all think?

 

[JulieN]

very good, but could be better.

 

[bizmord]

what about this
1.08ct

 

[wbarnwell]

And one more:



Thanks everyone

 

[04diamond<3]

love it!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

wbarnwell, your 2nd idealscope image is great! Go for that one!

bizmord, yours is very nice!

 

[wbarnwell]

Awesome, thank you.

Now I am going to compare it to the other diamond that I am looking at, last one I promise!




The first is an eye clean (according to Gemologist) F SI1, and the second is an H VS2. Difference in price is negligible, and I assume that their HCA scores are irrelevant at this point too, although one scored a 2.5 and the other scored a 1.4. Both GIA XXX, .90 points.

 

[bunnycat]

what the diameter measurements on the .90's?

 

[wbarnwell]

what the diameter measurements on the .90's?

The first one (F SI1) is 6.20 x 6.21 x 3.84
The second one (H VS2) is 6.14 x 6.19 x 3.84

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The top one with the white background looks like a very excellent cut. Since it is SI1, I'd just want to be sure it is eyeclean.

 

[JulieN]

In the second set, the first one shows some minor leakage, might be due to tilt.

Both should be very nice. All things equal I prefer an eye clean F SI1 over an H VS2. How many stones are in this thread?? They all have excellent Ideal Scopes, first one is borderline.

 

[wbarnwell]

The top one with the white background looks like a very excellent cut. Since it is SI1, I'd just want to be sure it is eyeclean.

Exactly, that is my only concern. Here's a link to its JA page - notice the inclusion (or whatever it is) on the table. I feel like I would have a hard time NOT noticing that in person, but JA claims that it is indeed eye clean. I am going to call them back for another opinion.

http://www.jamesallen.com/#!/loose-...-F-color-SI1-clarity-Excellent-cut-sku-175258

 

[wbarnwell]

There are four stones in total. There is the OP which is a .93, the one you said looks iffy; there's the one that someone else posted; and then the last two that I posted.

I did just talk to JA again, and they promised me that the SI1 is eye clean, so I'm going to take their word for it.

Additionally, someone asked me about the measurements:

The first one (F SI1) is 6.20 x 6.21 x 3.84
The second one (H VS2) is 6.14 x 6.19 x 3.84

Will those make much of a difference at all in how they appear?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Those sizes are too close to let it be the deciding factor, but it is nice that the one you are leaning toward is 6.2mm. I am sorry I can't open the James Allen link on the iPad because their site changes to a mobile site and doesn't show the stone. I will try to look when I get on my laptop.

 

[wbarnwell]

What do you guys and girls make of a diamond with these measurements? I've just never seen a .90 with a diameter this big.

6.35 x 6.37 x 3.76

59% Table
59.1% Depth
32 - Crown
41 - Pavilion

It scored a 1.1 on the HCA, and I am trying to get an idealscope image of it. I've never seen a diamond with those sorts of measurements.

 

[bunnycat]

What do you guys and girls make of a diamond with these measurements? I've just never seen a .90 with a diameter this big.

6.35 x 6.37 x 3.76

59% Table
59.1% Depth
32 - Crown
41 - Pavilion

It scored a 1.1 on the HCA, and I am trying to get an idealscope image of it. I've never seen a diamond with those sorts of measurements.

It's shallow, kind of a 60/60 type stone. My guess is it will lean towards white light return. The shallowness is what is giving it the near 1ct spread. There would probably be a trade off in fire. I don't know at what point obstruction becomes an issue on shallow stones, based on the numbers or if it is a case by case thing.

 

[wbarnwell]

What do you guys and girls make of a diamond with these measurements? I've just never seen a .90 with a diameter this big.

6.35 x 6.37 x 3.76

59% Table
59.1% Depth
32 - Crown
41 - Pavilion

It scored a 1.1 on the HCA, and I am trying to get an idealscope image of it. I've never seen a diamond with those sorts of measurements.

It's shallow, kind of a 60/60 type stone. My guess is it will lean towards white light return. The shallowness is what is giving it the near 1ct spread. There would probably be a trade off in fire. I don't know at what point obstruction becomes an issue on shallow stones, based on the numbers or if it is a case by case thing.

Yeah, I'm going to pass.

 

[04diamond<3]

What do you guys and girls make of a diamond with these measurements? I've just never seen a .90 with a diameter this big.

6.35 x 6.37 x 3.76

59% Table
59.1% Depth
32 - Crown
41 - Pavilion

It scored a 1.1 on the HCA, and I am trying to get an idealscope image of it. I've never seen a diamond with those sorts of measurements.

It's shallow, kind of a 60/60 type stone. My guess is it will lean towards white light return. The shallowness is what is giving it the near 1ct spread. There would probably be a trade off in fire. I don't know at what point obstruction becomes an issue on shallow stones, based on the numbers or if it is a case by case thing.

Yeah, I'm going to pass.

I wouldn't assume or pass on this stone till you get the idealscope image. I'd be interested to see what it looked like. So far the F SI1 looks the best but this stone with an hca score of 1.1 means you should look into it.

 

[bunnycat]

What do you guys and girls make of a diamond with these measurements? I've just never seen a .90 with a diameter this big.

6.35 x 6.37 x 3.76

59% Table
59.1% Depth
32 - Crown
41 - Pavilion

It scored a 1.1 on the HCA, and I am trying to get an idealscope image of it. I've never seen a diamond with those sorts of measurements.

It's shallow, kind of a 60/60 type stone. My guess is it will lean towards white light return. The shallowness is what is giving it the near 1ct spread. There would probably be a trade off in fire. I don't know at what point obstruction becomes an issue on shallow stones, based on the numbers or if it is a case by case thing.

Yeah, I'm going to pass.

I would agree with 04 that an ideascope image would be a good thing to look at. Just because it's somewhere around a 60/60 doesn't make it an automatic pass, but you SHOULD be aware that it is not exactly the same kind of animal you've been looking at in the other 2 stones and you probably ought not expect exactly the same sot of look. It's a different flavor of diamond. An idealscope is going to show you brightness versus leakage, not what TYPE of light you are getting, so you only get leak vs. not leak in an IS. These are just things you need to be aware of so you can make an educated decision.

 

[yssie]

What do you guys and girls make of a diamond with these measurements? I've just never seen a .90 with a diameter this big.

6.35 x 6.37 x 3.76

59% Table
59.1% Depth
32 - Crown
41 - Pavilion

It scored a 1.1 on the HCA, and I am trying to get an idealscope image of it. I've never seen a diamond with those sorts of measurements.

It's shallow, kind of a 60/60 type stone. My guess is it will lean towards white light return. The shallowness is what is giving it the near 1ct spread. There would probably be a trade off in fire. I don't know at what point obstruction becomes an issue on shallow stones, based on the numbers or if it is a case by case thing.

Yeah, I'm going to pass.

I would agree with 04 that an ideascope image would be a good thing to look at. Just because it's somewhere around a 60/60 doesn't make it an automatic pass, but you SHOULD be aware that it is not exactly the same kind of animal you've been looking at in the other 2 stones and you probably ought not expect exactly the same sot of look. It's a different flavor of diamond. An idealscope is going to show you brightness versus leakage, not what TYPE of light you are getting, so you only get leak vs. not leak in an IS. These are just things you need to be aware of so you can make an educated decision.

Ditto...
But c32 on a stone of this size (girdle is measured as a percentage of diameter) is too much of a chipping risk for me personally unless girdle is thicker or you're planning to bezel it (and have the vendor who's selling you the stone make the setting)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yep, no way would I consider a crown angle of 32.

 

[bunnycat]

Thanks for the info Yssie and DS. I know that once the CA starts getting low, there can be issues and to be wary, I just wasn't sure at what point that was, below 33?

 

[yssie]

Thanks for the info Yssie and DS. I know that once the CA starts getting low, there can be issues and to be wary, I just wasn't sure at what point that was, below 33?

Depends - a "thin" girdle on a 9mm stone will be thicker, in mm, than a "thin" girdle on a 5mm stone.
The other side of that is that 4 prongs will offer a 5mm stone a lot more protection than the same 4prongs holding a 9mm, just in terms of how much the stone sticks out beyond the protective outline of the prongs...
Pressure is d(normal force) / d(area of contact surface), the lower crown creates a more acute angle - whack it and the area of contact surface is small and the area the force propagates through is smaller than if it was a wider angle. But I prefer higher crowns anyway!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I aim for 34-35 crown angles.