shape
carat
color
clarity

Views on H&A image

Fuzzy Dunlop

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 2, 2022
Messages
6
Dear Hivemind

First, many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the many other helpful threads on here, and to my earlier thread which helped me if no one else!

So, I've found a diamond - VS1/H/HCA score 1, stats all in the ideal/'safe' range - with the below H&A and arrows photos (supplier won't provide Idealscope/ASET).

Price seems good and it's through a hybrid (online/in-person) vendor I'm happy with, ring design is great, the fairly likely half-a-size resize and less likely "yes but can we change the ring?" will be no problem if they arise. But - they don't hold diamonds in stock, so getting ASETs/Idealscopes has not been so easy - H&A images yes, Idealscopes and ASETs no.
But given a HCA score of 1 and the images below, is there anything reason not to go with this? The dot in the H&A image is - I think - a crystal inclusion in the table that's not going to be eye-visible; it's VS1 but confirmed as eye clean in any case.

H&A.jpg

Arrows.jpg


There's also diamond 2, same vendor, 0.1 carat bigger and HCA 0.7 at more-or-less the same price, but the performance doesn't seem great, and I'm including mostly to have that confirmed.

H&A 2.jpg

heart.jpg

There have also been diamonds 3-33 (including the one discussed in the past thread, that with hindsight would've probably gone just fine but is making someone else happy), and I am pretty much at the point of accepting that if I only want to buy something with all the certainty given by the detailed images, I should switch to buying from Whiteflash's ACA's range, and either drop the carat weight a touch and/or throw an extra $1-2K at the problem. This is an option for sure, but there is a convenience and I perceive also narrative value with going with the in-person vendor in my city, and my sense is diamond 1 above does look pretty good...

Please excuse the lack of GIA numbers and anonymisation and many thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Whats funny is the second image first stone is an IdealScope image.
It passes the h&a test and the IS test.

2nd diamond has hearts and arrow viewer images.
It is not h&a, even with the diamond not centered/level in the scope you can tell that much.
It is enough info for me to consider it not as well cut as the first.

What are the numbers for the first one?
You could post an image of the numbers or post the report #.
 
I personally would like the vendor to have the actual stone in stock if I was going to buy, but out of the two diamonds you posted, the second is a no for me. The cut isn’t doing it for me.

The first diamond actually does have an ideal scope but showing the numbers would most definitely help to confirm it’s in the ideal range.

Dear Hivemind

First, many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the many other helpful threads on here, and to my earlier thread which helped me if no one else!

So, I've found a diamond - VS1/H/HCA score 1, stats all in the ideal/'safe' range - with the below H&A and arrows photos (supplier won't provide Idealscope/ASET).

Price seems good and it's through a hybrid (online/in-person) vendor I'm happy with, ring design is great, the fairly likely half-a-size resize and less likely "yes but can we change the ring?" will be no problem if they arise. But - they don't hold diamonds in stock, so getting ASETs/Idealscopes has not been so easy - H&A images yes, Idealscopes and ASETs no.
But given a HCA score of 1 and the images below, is there anything reason not to go with this? The dot in the H&A image is - I think - a crystal inclusion in the table that's not going to be eye-visible; it's VS1 but confirmed as eye clean in any case.

H&A.jpg

Arrows.jpg


There's also diamond 2, same vendor, 0.1 carat bigger and HCA 0.7 at more-or-less the same price, but the performance doesn't seem great, and I'm including mostly to have that confirmed.

H&A 2.jpg

heart.jpg

There have also been diamonds 3-33 (including the one discussed in the past thread, that with hindsight would've probably gone just fine but is making someone else happy), and I am pretty much at the point of accepting that if I only want to buy something with all the certainty given by the detailed images, I should switch to buying from Whiteflash's ACA's range, and either drop the carat weight a touch and/or throw an extra $1-2K at the problem. This is an option for sure, but there is a convenience and I perceive also narrative value with going with the in-person vendor in my city, and my sense is diamond 1 above does look pretty good...

Please excuse the lack of GIA numbers and anonymisation and many thanks in advance.
 
The first set of images for diamond one looks like screenshots from James Allen/Jared/Blue Nile (they all share inventory since they are all Signet brands).

You might be able to find this diamond by putting in exacting parameters into the PriceScope diamond search engine, if your jeweler is pulling from the same virtual inventory.

What is the upgrade program stipulations?
Do they come close or match what WF offers their customers?
That is one heck of a safeguard for your expensive purchase, so be sure to consider ALL aspects of what comes with the diamond.
...that extra $1-2k may very well be the cheaper over the long run option.
 
I would want to see the GIA reports for these stones as I think I might smell a rat.
 
Think might want to be careful - had similar experience with a local seller where they showed me "different" H&A images that seem to come from different diamond.

Actual diamond (with H&A taken myself):
Cert.PNG
pic3.PNG

Pictures sent to me by seller initially:
pic1.PNG

New computer generated pictures sent to me after I asked about the H&A separation being weird:
pic2.PNG

Till now, I have no idea if these pics were really from the same diamond >< Nothing beats seeing the diamond through ASET and H&A yourself!
 
Think might want to be careful - had similar experience with a local seller where they showed me "different" H&A images that seem to come from different diamond.

Actual diamond (with H&A taken myself):
Cert.PNG
pic3.PNG

Pictures sent to me by seller initially:
pic1.PNG

New computer generated pictures sent to me after I asked about the H&A separation being weird:
pic2.PNG

Till now, I have no idea if these pics were really from the same diamond >< Nothing beats seeing the diamond through ASET and H&A yourself!

When the images come direct from the manufacturer they are usually dead on. Most of the manufacturers are Indian and they are by and large the most ethical people in the supply chain.
For example Indian companies declare 4% of diamonds are milky on RapNet. US wholesalers declare only 0.8% or 5 times less! Most US Mum & Pop jewelers believe their diamonds come from Belgium. They don’t trust diamonds from India. They wool is being pulled over their eyes.
 
When the images come direct from the manufacturer they are usually dead on. Most of the manufacturers are Indian and they are by and large the most ethical people in the supply chain.
For example Indian companies declare 4% of diamonds are milky on RapNet. US wholesalers declare only 0.8% or 5 times less! Most US Mum & Pop jewelers believe their diamonds come from Belgium. They don’t trust diamonds from India. They wool is being pulled over their eyes.

IMG-20221207-WA0003.jpg


This ASET of a different diamond is provided by indian manufacturers themselves and you can see how they will not hide any potential flaws (e.g. painting)

Screenshot_20221221-083436_Chrome.jpg

On the other hand, look at this computer generated image of h&a for the diamond shown above where there's a haziness concerning the separation between hearts and cheverons. There's also visually no clefts at all, which is odd when compared to actual h&a taken with a camera.

I'm thinking the vendor can bring in the diamond with the guarantee that it would visually be the same as the pictures provided? That sounds like what a honest seller should be comfortable with - just my 2 cents.
 
IMG-20221207-WA0003.jpg


This ASET of a different diamond is provided by indian manufacturers themselves and you can see how they will not hide any potential flaws (e.g. painting)

Screenshot_20221221-083436_Chrome.jpg

On the other hand, look at this computer generated image of h&a for the diamond shown above where there's a haziness concerning the separation between hearts and cheverons. There's also visually no clefts at all, which is odd when compared to actual h&a taken with a camera.

I'm thinking the vendor can bring in the diamond with the guarantee that it would visually be the same as the pictures provided? That sounds like what a honest seller should be comfortable with - just my 2 cents.
In the same way that the actual ASET photo is a real photo and fuzzy in the center because of depth of field focus issues, the fuzzy arrow as are because at that position the ray paths are very mixed up.
I modeled this with ray traces in DiamCalc and you cane see even in an ideal ideal cut there are multiple rays at the spot marked in the small blue circle.
1671587744552.png
 
In the same way that the actual ASET photo is a real photo and fuzzy in the center because of depth of field focus issues, the fuzzy arrow as are because at that position the ray paths are very mixed up.
I modeled this with ray traces in DiamCalc and you cane see even in an ideal ideal cut there are multiple rays at the spot marked in the small blue circle.
1671587744552.png

Ooo interesting! @Garry H (Cut Nut) so what can we say about the H&A scope above?

I believe the H&A picture seems to indicate that it is a SIC (proportionate hearts with little cleaving). But since the separation areas are fuzzy, does it means they are not as well proportionate as the image suggest?

Was looking through white flash ACA hearts pictures and their lines are always a lot more crisp than the above.
 
Think might want to be careful - had similar experience with a local seller where they showed me "different" H&A images that seem to come from different diamond.

Actual diamond (with H&A taken myself):
Cert.PNG
pic3.PNG

Pictures sent to me by seller initially:
pic1.PNG

New computer generated pictures sent to me after I asked about the H&A separation being weird:
pic2.PNG

Till now, I have no idea if these pics were really from the same diamond >< Nothing beats seeing the diamond through ASET and H&A yourself!

And based on your professional opinion, do you believe the h&a pictures are of the same diamond, different diamonds, or inconclusive?
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top