Need your thoughts - ASET image

[markomarko]

Hi All,

I'm looking at engagement rings and after reading through number of online threats and watching youtube videos I think I'm nowhere near to being able to review ASET image.

Therefore, I would appreciate if anyone with more knowledge than myself could have a look at the image (attached) and let me know if I should be worried? I think there are some potential poor light-performance areas around bottom section (and a bit on both right and left side), but happy to hear your thoughts.




Lastly, if it is relevant, it is F / VS1 / 1.7, with faint fluorescence, 59% table, 62.9% depth, "N" cutlet, 1.6 L/W ratio.

Than you in advance!

Regards,
Marko

 

[DejaWiz]

Hi and welcome to PriceScope, markomarko!
There are some great resources in regards to finding a well-cut pear out there, and Bryan of Whiteflash (Texas Leaguer) made this article:

A Complete Guide to Pear Cut Diamonds | Whiteflash

Discover how to buy a high performing and beautiful pear cut diamond along with guidance on settings, where to buy and more.

www.whiteflash.com

 

[markomarko]

Thank you, DejaWiz.

Just had a quick look and I must say, compared to the ones in his guide, the one I attached looks atrocious.

I guess image on the seller's website looks better due to gray background, but that light performance in real-life would be much worse.

 

[markomarko]

Would appreciate any additional feedback - would really like to get a pear cut, but most that I've found had some flaws (e.g. the one above) and I might simply get a round one - as their characteristics seem to be much more transparent and easier to evaluate.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thank you, DejaWiz.

Just had a quick look and I must say, compared to the ones in his guide, the one I attached looks atrocious.

I guess image on the seller's website looks better due to gray background, but that light performance in real-life would be much worse.

I would not compare the WF ASET images with no backlight to the one you posted with strong backlight.
Personally I do not care much for the no backlight version.
The pear you showed has no bowtie and is way better than average.

 

[markomarko]

I would not compare the WF ASET images with no backlight to the one you posted with strong backlight.
Personally I do not care much for the no backlight version.
The pear you showed has no bowtie and is way better than average.

Thank you, Garry. Much appreciated.

I guess my only questions is how would it perform in the real-life world (i.e. under various lights) and would it be shiny enough.

If it is not shiny enough (and as you have said, this is one of the better ones, at least based on day/two of browsing various internet retailers) I might decide to go with a round one. However, if this is indeed "shinny" - I would probably go for this, as I think pear would fit her better - hence the dilemma.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

ASET images of fancy shapes take experience to read accurately. Many people are disposed to have a negative opinion of stones with significant leakage. But though it sounds counterintuitive, some leakage can be beneficial.

The image posted is photographed on white and a bit overexposed, and so looks pretty washed out. I think the leakages may be exaggerated by the photo setup. As Garry mentioned, this stone does not have a pronounced dark bowtie, so that is a good thing. It's a little lacking in structured contrast (blue in ASET) and therefore may suffer some deficits in scintillation, but could have good brightness. The ends of the stone have a nice mix of small red virtual facets juxtaposed with white leakages which actually provides some contrast and give you a crushed ice look from those areas of the stone. The middle will give you larger flashes.

Overall, the stone is better than what most people would expect from looking at this ASET, unless they have experience translating light maps of fancy shapes.

 

[markomarko]

ASET images of fancy shapes take experience to read accurately. Many people are disposed to have a negative opinion of stones with significant leakage. But though it sounds counterintuitive, some leakage can be beneficial.

The image posted is photographed on white and a bit overexposed, and so looks pretty washed out. I think the leakages may be exaggerated by the photo setup. As Garry mentioned, this stone does not have a pronounced dark bowtie, so that is a good thing. It's a little lacking in structured contrast (blue in ASET) and therefore may suffer some deficits in scintillation, but could have good brightness. The ends of the stone have a nice mix of small red virtual facets juxtaposed with white leakages which actually provides some contrast and give you a crushed ice look from those areas of the stone. The middle will give you larger flashes.

Overall, the stone is better than what most people would expect from looking at this ASET, unless they have experience translating light maps of fancy shapes.

Thank you Bryan - a great answer that someone with very little knowledge (i.e. me) can properly understand. Much appreciated!

Thank you all for your inputs - I've decided to go with the pear and will keep you posted of real-life impressions once I get it.

Cheers

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

ASET images of fancy shapes take experience to read accurately. Many people are disposed to have a negative opinion of stones with significant leakage. But though it sounds counterintuitive, some leakage can be beneficial.

The image posted is photographed on white and a bit overexposed, and so looks pretty washed out. I think the leakages may be exaggerated by the photo setup. As Garry mentioned, this stone does not have a pronounced dark bowtie, so that is a good thing. It's a little lacking in structured contrast (blue in ASET) and therefore may suffer some deficits in scintillation, but could have good brightness. The ends of the stone have a nice mix of small red virtual facets juxtaposed with white leakages which actually provides some contrast and give you a crushed ice look from those areas of the stone. The middle will give you larger flashes.

Overall, the stone is better than what most people would expect from looking at this ASET, unless they have experience translating light maps of fancy shapes.

Bryan you are a gentleman.
Saying relatively nice things about a competitors diamond speaks well of you.
MarkMarko, WF are a premium company, and may or may not charge more for diamonds, but they will also call in and screen diamonds for you for a small but hard working fee.

 

[Karl_K]

Interesting, I like ASET black in fancies as the often to bright back lighting overstate leakage by a significant margin. 10% or less of the light paths to a given area being from behind the stone will show white.
I also disagree that lack of blue is a bad thing.
That is round brilliant thinking and not the same for all shapes and designs which get contrast from other ways such as leakage and or not being as directional as a mrb.

 

[edwardchapman]

I might choose a round one if it isn't shiny enough (and as you said, this is one of the better ones, at least based on day/two of perusing various internet merchants). But if this is truly "shinny," I would probably choose this heardle game