Need Help w/ Idealscope Image

[nichoesq]

Hi All,

I need help with these two idealscope images from top view. Strangely the vendor did not want to provide the bottom view so this is what I’m working with. Thanks in advance!

 

[nichoesq]

Diamond 1 (1.22 ct)
Report GIA

Table % 55%

Depth % 61.8%

Crown Angle 35

Pavilion Angle 40.6

Lower Girdles 75%

Star Facets 50%

Girdle Thickness t-m
____________

Diamond 2 (1.14 ct)
Report GIA

Table % 56%

Depth % 61.7%

Crown Angle 35

Pavilion Angle 40.8

Lower Girdles 75%

Star Facets 50%

Girdle Thickness M

Btw, with an Idealscope, can you use it to see hearts from the bottom of the diamond?

 

[lovedogs]

Diamond 1 (1.22 ct)
Report GIA

Table % 55%

Depth % 61.8%

Crown Angle 35

Pavilion Angle 40.6

Lower Girdles 75%

Star Facets 50%

Girdle Thickness t-m
____________

Diamond 2 (1.14 ct)
Report GIA

Table % 56%

Depth % 61.7%

Crown Angle 35

Pavilion Angle 40.8

Lower Girdles 75%

Star Facets 50%

Girdle Thickness M

Btw, with an Idealscope, can you use it to see hearts from the bottom of the diamond?

You cant use an IS to see hearts/arrows. For that you need a different lighting environment/setup. I love the specs of #1 with the 55 table and 75% lower. Stone 2 is nice also, but I'm partial to smaller tables.

 

[nichoesq]

Diamond 1 (1.22 ct)
Report GIA

Table % 55%

Depth % 61.8%

Crown Angle 35

Pavilion Angle 40.6

Lower Girdles 75%

Star Facets 50%

Girdle Thickness t-m
____________

Diamond 2 (1.14 ct)
Report GIA

Table % 56%

Depth % 61.7%

Crown Angle 35

Pavilion Angle 40.8

Lower Girdles 75%

Star Facets 50%

Girdle Thickness M

Btw, with an Idealscope, can you use it to see hearts from the bottom of the diamond?

Thanks for responding lovedogs. Is it normal for the IS image to show a ring of pink around the center? Also, the first IS image seems to have missing red areas - should I be concerned?

I’ve seen on JA and WF with IS images with full red throughout and not sure if that’s due to lighting or method of taking the photo.

 

[lovedogs]

Thanks for responding lovedogs. Is it normal for the IS image to show a ring of pink around the center? Also, the first IS image seems to have missing red areas - should I be concerned?

I’ve seen on JA and WF with IS images with full red throughout and not sure if that’s due to lighting or method of taking the photo.

I was taught by @Karl_K to pay attention to the color of the very center of the stone and use that as a gauge for color. If the center were dark red then I'd be concerned about that light pink "ring". But since in these pics the very center is pink in the same color/tone as the outer ring, its something about the lighting /picture vs an issue w the stone.

 

[Karl_K]

They both pass the IS test and are even closer in angles and % than the GIA rounding would indicate.
What are the color and clarity grades for both?
Report number or a copy of the clarity plot if they have one on the report would be nice.
The first one either has a crystal* under the table or a spec of dust on it.

*Most likely a crystal but could be another type of inclusion.

 

[nichoesq]

I was taught by @Karl_K to pay attention to the color of the very center of the stone and use that as a gauge for color. If the center were dark red then I'd be concerned about that light pink "ring". But since in these pics the very center is pink in the same color/tone as the outer ring, its something about the lighting /picture vs an issue w the stone.

I might have actually seen that post lol. I think I’m mainly concerned that my untrained eye will steer me in the wrong direction.

I’m even considering exploring WF as people here say that their ACA line is pretty reliable considering their strict standard. Problem is, it’s more premium and need to consider the setting cost. Not only that but I’m not even sure if I can compare JA’s and WF’s photos/videos to one another as they look completely different - not sure if it’s basically like comparing apples to oranges via online without it being seen in-person. If we’re to choose one of these diamonds, I would want to do a H&A and ASET imaging once received but worst case scenario is that, if it doesn’t turn out to be great, I would need to return it, wait for the refund, and continue my search .

 

[nichoesq]

They both pass the IS test and are even closer in angles and % than the GIA rounding would indicate.
What are the color and clarity grades for both?
Report number or a copy of the clarity plot if they have one on the report would be nice.
The first one either has a crystal* under the table or a spec of dust on it.

*Most likely a crystal but could be another type of inclusion.

You’re right. The 1.22 has a crystal, and it can be seen being reflected due to it being right in the center. However, I don’t think it would be visible in-person - but, let me know what you think . Nevertheless, if you look at the photos, the 1.22 looks brighter (less grey) than the 1.14 but not sure if that’s something that says something about the diamond’s brightness.

1.22 color is H VS2 with triple ex.

1.14 color is G VS2 with triple ex.

Btw, I do have the hearts view for only the 1.14. So, if I want to see the hearts for the other diamond, I would need to buy a H&A scope? Can’t use an ideal scope right?

 

[Karl_K]

Yes need a h&a scope to see the hearts, or a toilet paper tube to get images that work but are less precise than using the h&a scope.
The 1.14 is h&a.
Can you double check those regular images and make sure you posted the right ones?
Something is odd about them.

 

[nichoesq]

Yes need a h&a scope to see the hearts, or a toilet paper tube to get images that work but are less precise than using the h&a scope.
The 1.14 is h&a.
Can you double check those regular images and make sure you posted the right ones?
Something is odd about them.

Image 3 of 5 should be the 1.22 and image 4 of 5 should be the 1.14. What are you seeing that’s strange? I’m using my phone so let me know if you aren’t seeing the same thing .

 

[DejaWiz]

Loving the 1.22 more than the 1.14, but either would be a solid choice.

 

[Karl_K]

Not seeing the crystal in either image and the one called IMG_7377.jpeg is not of either one of the diamonds in question I am about 90% sure.

 

[nichoesq]

Loving the 1.22 more than the 1.14, but either would be a solid choice.

DejaWiz can you explain what make you prefer the 1.22 more. I would like to learn what to look out for. Thank you.

 

[DejaWiz]

Not seeing the crystal in either image and the one called IMG_7377.jpeg is not of either one of the diamonds in question I am about 90% sure.

Is this the crystal?

 

[DejaWiz]

DejaWiz can you explain what make you prefer the 1.22 more. I would like to learn what to look out for. Thank you.

These bug me at a nitpicky level.

 

[nichoesq]

These bug me at a nitpicky level.

is it possible that those are showing being the diamond might be at a tilt? If it’s not at a tilt the length of the contrast between top and bottom seem off, but not sure if my understanding is correct so please let me know.

In the 1.22, do you see light leakage in the light portions around the center?

 

[nichoesq]

Is this the crystal?

I believe that is the crystal when comparing the video image. That crystal reflects on the black stars too.

 

[Karl_K]

These bug me at a nitpicky level.

Don't bug me at all after seeing the heart image.

 

[Karl_K]

Ok the video brought some clarity. :}
I see the crystal and the bow ties at the arrow shaft junction with the arrow heads at 3 and 6 are still strange but further investigation shows that happening in the same place with other combos so its environmental.
The image is the right one and the crystal should be eye clean.

 

[nichoesq]

Ok the video brought some clarity. :}
I see the crystal and the bow ties at the arrow shaft junction with the arrow heads at 3 and 6 are still strange but further investigation shows that happening in the same place with other combos so its environmental.
The image is the right one and the crystal should be eye clean.

Nice! So of the two would you agree with DejaWiz that the 1.22 at this point seems like a better choice or would an ASET and H&A imaging need to be performed? Btw, what is bowing - I quickly looked it up but still can’t determine where you’re seeing that. Was that what you meant when you said it’s environmental (I.e., that it’s not the diamond but an outside reflection)?

My search for the perfect diamond has got me interested in learning more, and definitely speaking to everyone here has made me realize how little I know xD.

 

[Karl_K]

I think the 1.14 is a safer choice just because you have more information.
The other one may or may not be h&a and you said that's important to you.

In not allowed to mark up vendor pictures so had to find one of my computer generated images that shows it.
Totally different combo that is expected to show it....

 

[nichoesq]

I think the 1.14 is a safer choice just because you have more information.
The other one may or may not be h&a and you said that's important to you.

In not allowed to mark up vendor pictures so had to find one of my computer generated images that shows it.
Totally different combo that is expected to show it....

Ahh I see. So, to make sure that I understand correctly, the bow tie effect may not be the diamond itself but a reflection of something in the environment being reflected? I guess ultimately, from everything that is currently known about these diamonds, could they be considered a super ideal or even on par with a ACA diamond. If not, how would you rate these on a scale of 1-10.

Also, thank you for your help .

 

[sledge]

JA only provides heart images if the stone is part of their True Heart (TH) collection. So from that perspective, yes the 1.14 is a H&A stone.

More than that, every MRB produces heart looking shapes. However, it’s the symmetry exhibited (or not) that determines if it’s a true H&A stone. Not all JA TH stones are as tightly cut as WF ACA stones and similar but the 1.14 TH has a nice hearts image. Below is an example how these details matter.



Part of the experience of buying a H&A stone is the confidence of getting a high performing stone and having tangible data to confirm that on the front side. Things like ASET, idealscope and hearts images helps us confirm quality.

As you probably noticed all ACA stones have that information readily available for review so from that perspective it’s less risky buying because you know more about the quality level of the product you’re buying. Just as a TH stone has more information readily available to review than a standard 3X stone. However, in this case an ACA still provides more data than a TH stone in two ways.

1. An ACA will either have an AGS 000 lab report with computer generated ASET image on the report. Or newer stones dated 1/2023 or later ACA stones will have GIA 3X report with an AGS light performance addendum. The reason for the change is AGS merged with GIA in 12/2022 and no longer provide standalone lab reports; however, GIA now offers an option to obtain the AGS light performance addendum for an extra fee. Not all GIA 3X stones come with this very valuable addendum. I’ve not saw any TH stones with the AGS addendum but all newer ACA’s have them which also have a computer generated ASET on the addendum.

2. In addition to the computer generated ASET images shown in the lab reports, WF also makes actual ASET images available for their ACA stones as well. While similar to an idealscope image, you sometimes see additional details about light performance that you may not easily pick up with an idealscope.

Another key difference between JA and WF, even when comparing TH and the ACA lines are the upgrade policies. Granted this has nothing to do with light performance but it may affect long term purchase effects. For instance JA requires you spend 2X the original amount each time you upgrade. That may be prohibitive in trading up or even sideways. With WF, you simply have to choose a stone that is equal or higher value. No other restrictions. This allows you do the obvious size upgrade but can also be used to go sideways by going with higher color and/or clarity while staying at the same size or smaller and keeping dollars similar to your initial purchase amount. Or sometimes buyers choose to go down in color or clarity and get a larger size for near the same dollar amounts. You just have more options to trade on your terms. Depending how you exercise those options, this can be a very valuable perk that is sometimes overlooked.

Aside from additional information and a better upgrade program a ACA would offer, the TH should still be a nice performer.

 

[nichoesq]

JA only provides heart images if the stone is part of their True Heart (TH) collection. So from that perspective, yes the 1.14 is a H&A stone.

More than that, every MRB produces heart looking shapes. However, it’s the symmetry exhibited (or not) that determines if it’s a true H&A stone. Not all JA TH stones are as tightly cut as WF ACA stones and similar but the 1.14 TH has a nice hearts image. Below is an example how these details matter.



Part of the experience of buying a H&A stone is the confidence of getting a high performing stone and having tangible data to confirm that on the front side. Things like ASET, idealscope and hearts images helps us confirm quality.

As you probably noticed all ACA stones have that information readily available for review so from that perspective it’s less risky buying because you know more about the quality level of the product you’re buying. Just as a TH stone has more information readily available to review than a standard 3X stone. However, in this case an ACA still provides more data than a TH stone in two ways.

1. An ACA will either have an AGS 000 lab report with computer generated ASET image on the report. Or newer stones dated 1/2023 or later ACA stones will have GIA 3X report with an AGS light performance addendum. The reason for the change is AGS merged with GIA in 12/2022 and no longer provide standalone lab reports; however, GIA now offers an option to obtain the AGS light performance addendum for an extra fee. Not all GIA 3X stones come with this very valuable addendum. I’ve not saw any TH stones with the AGS addendum but all newer ACA’s have them which also have a computer generated ASET on the addendum.

2. In addition to the computer generated ASET images shown in the lab reports, WF also makes actual ASET images available for their ACA stones as well. While similar to an idealscope image, you sometimes see additional details about light performance that you may not easily pick up with an idealscope.

Another key difference between JA and WF, even when comparing TH and the ACA lines are the upgrade policies. Granted this has nothing to do with light performance but it may affect long term purchase effects. For instance JA requires you spend 2X the original amount each time you upgrade. That may be prohibitive in trading up or even sideways. With WF, you simply have to choose a stone that is equal or higher value. No other restrictions. This allows you do the obvious size upgrade but can also be used to go sideways by going with higher color and/or clarity while staying at the same size or smaller and keeping dollars similar to your initial purchase amount. Or sometimes buyers choose to go down in color or clarity and get a larger size for near the same dollar amounts. You just have more options to trade on your terms. Depending how you exercise those options, this can be a very valuable perk that is sometimes overlooked.

Aside from additional information and a better upgrade program a ACA would offer, the TH should still be a nice performer.

Thank you for the detailed explanation of the two lines. Something I’ve been wondering is, if JA does not label a diamond as a TH, can we know for certain that the diamond is not at that standard (I.e., does JA test all there diamonds they sell to determine if it’ll go in its TA collection)?

Also, is the center whiter portion of the 1.22 IS image showing that the diamond is deeper in the center and showing light loss? Im speaking about the what appears to be lighter area right in the center of the IS.

 

[DejaWiz]

Thank you for the detailed explanation of the two lines. Something I’ve been wondering is, if JA does not label a diamond as a TH, can we know for certain that the diamond is not at that standard (I.e., does JA test all there diamonds they sell to determine if it’ll go in its TA collection)?

Also, is the center whiter portion of the 1.22 IS image showing that the diamond is deeper in the center and showing light loss? Im speaking about the what appears to be lighter area right in the center of the IS.

I'm going to strongly lean towards "no", JA doesn't screen every diamond to see if it'll make their premium TH lineup...for example, I've seen plenty of AGS 000 diamonds in their inventory over the past couple/few years with gorgeous cut precision as well as proportions and angles that would fall within SIC range, but they weren't screened and not part of the TH collection.

 

[lovedogs]

I still prefer the 1.14 (I think the first one you posted pics of). But I agree that if you want perfection then go with an ideal vendor like WF or BGD

 

[Karl_K]

Also, is the center whiter portion of the 1.22 IS image showing that the diamond is deeper in the center and showing light loss? Im speaking about the what appears to be lighter area right in the center of the IS.

Light centers are caused by over bright backlight combined with the natural leakage present in any MRB.
Then in this case you get a slight tilt which is causing the variation. The longer arrow shafts point to the direction of tilt.
Image below is computer generated with back lighting only which shows the principle of nominal leakage present in every MRB. The exact pattern will vary with different angles and %.
Anything simular in brightness to the lightest center spot is not significant leakage.

 

[nichoesq]

I still prefer the 1.14 (I think the first one you posted pics of). But I agree that if you want perfection then go with an ideal vendor like WF or BGD

I think the first ideal scope image was of the 1.22 but I’m looking on mobile so not sure if it’s different on desktop. On mobile, the top IS image is the 1.22. I actually got the stones in and the scopes so I’ll be posting those images once I can get it while the ms is away.

 

[nichoesq]

Light centers are caused by over bright backlight combined with the natural leakage present in any MRB.
Then in this case you get a slight tilt which is causing the variation. The longer arrow shafts point to the direction of tilt.
Image below is computer generated with back lighting only which shows the principle of nominal leakage present in every MRB. The exact pattern will vary with different angles and %.
Anything simular in brightness to the lightest center spot is not significant leakage.

Thanks Karl for the informative post. I’ve received the diamonds and also the scopes, so I’ll be posting those once I get the opportunity while the ms. is away.

 

[nichoesq]

I’ve had only the opportunity to look through the scopes but did not have time to take photos yet. However, in the meantime, the ASET scope showed light green on the edges of both diamond which shows as translucent on the IS image, and also light green on what shows as white thin lines which is around the table on the IS scope. Not sure if the slight green at the edge is indicating slight painting or whether it was due to me using my phone as backlight with a glass in between the phone and scope - could be my inexperience too. However, both had a light green in the center of the table which would, in about 25% portions flicker to light pink at extremely slight movement of the scope. It’s definitely a challenge, which other talk about, that a slight tilt changes the image.

I’ll post images when I get the chance to take them .