Jump to content

What Do You Think Of This Aset & Ideal Scope? (Emerald Cut)


C Lum Silin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just received the ASET & Ideal scope of the diamond (Emerald cut)
ASET is very GREEN...don't see red...

Does it look terrible?
I have the diamond by my side and I can see the hole leaking light in the center....other than that...it looks lovely

 

This is a 1.65ct G VS2 with medium blue fluoro...1.44 ratio...eye clean

 

Should I return this?

post-134190-0-28889500-1397691832_thumb.jpg

post-134190-0-21027400-1397691840_thumb.jpg

Edited by C Lum Silin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two issues here:

 

1) You - or anyone else - don't go around with an ASET or an IdealScope fitted to your eye. These are tools meant to help you select, but the ultimate test is "do you like it" under real viewing conditions? If you do, the so-called "objective tests" are irrelevant - however they should be still useful in a price setting/negotiation.

 

2) Yes, those reflector images both look "terrible" by any normal evaluation score. So much so that if you had asked for feedback only attaching those two images, my recommendation would have been "call FedEx".

 

Since you added a comment - that may or may not be serious - "it looks lovely", my recommendation is instead to go out and check a few other stones first, so that you can get a sense of whether the "lovely" is actually solid, or in comparison to other diamonds the loveliness is as limited as a big window in the centre would suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just went to Google, typed : "emerald cut ASET" ...  and almost immediately came up with an excellent thread from this forum 5+ years ago:

 

http://www.diamondreview.com/forum/topic/4625-emerald-cut-depth-question/

 

 

Also, I think I see your stone on pricescope. It's in a pack of six 1.61-1.68 GIA stones, G-H, VS1-VS2.  It's second cheapest of the six, even though it's the higher color grade and has the most carat weight (and is top-down the largest by far). That tells how the experts evaluate it.

 

Unless you specifically want fluorescence and a spready stone -- which is what I usually go for -- the H VS1s are better performers, and are correspondingly more expensive.  Big difference if it's for a pendant or a ring, though, because the "leaking light" issue changes based on where it's worn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two issues here:

 

1) You - or anyone else - don't go around with an ASET or an IdealScope fitted to your eye. These are tools meant to help you select, but the ultimate test is "do you like it" under real viewing conditions? If you do, the so-called "objective tests" are irrelevant - however they should be still useful in a price setting/negotiation.

 

2) Yes, those reflector images both look "terrible" by any normal evaluation score. So much so that if you had asked for feedback only attaching those two images, my recommendation would have been "call FedEx".

 

Since you added a comment - that may or may not be serious - "it looks lovely", my recommendation is instead to go out and check a few other stones first, so that you can get a sense of whether the "lovely" is actually solid, or in comparison to other diamonds the loveliness is as limited as a big window in the centre would suggest.

 

Thank you Davidelevi for the advice!!

Now I'm looking at it under natural daylight (when I posted the original thread was at dawn)...it seems not as bright as the other ones I saw....I have to tilt it, and look at it from very low angles to get the shiny effect in the belly...maybe that's why the ASET is all green... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Big difference if it's for a pendant or a ring, though, because the "leaking light" issue changes based on where it's worn.

Not really, in the case of a window - and particularly of a large, dead-centre window.

 

 

It is for a ring...so even it is set on a ring...it wouldn't compensate the white area in the center...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is for a ring...so even it is set on a ring...it wouldn't compensate the white area in the center...

Particularly if set on a ring... unless you plan on putting a little mirror on the bottom of the ring? (I'm not kidding - things like that have been done - but what's the point when you haven't bought the diamond and there are plenty better ones available?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DL >> Particularly if set on a ring... unless you plan on putting a little mirror on the bottom of the ring? (I'm not kidding - things like that have been done - but what's the point when you haven't bought the diamond and there are plenty better ones available?)

 

Thinking creatively ...

 

This might be better worn as a brooch (or earring).  On a stickpin.  Or centered in a medallion with a lot of distracting glitter.  There has to be SOME way to compensate for the visible shortcomings of the stone; the world isn't full of enough half-baked idjits (like me) willing to buy the worst-cut stones and try to apply them unconventionally.

 

So -- what becomes of a stone like this?  Does it keep getting priced cheaper until a Greater Fool comes along?  Or does it get quietly retired -- and then recut?

 

 

PS -- I like the way you guys answered this one 5 years before it got asked!

Edited by jginnane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be SOME way to compensate for the visible shortcomings of the stone; the world isn't full of enough half-baked idjits (like me) willing to buy the worst-cut stones and try to apply them unconventionally.

A mirror behind the window works. However it's expensive, fragile (scratches and dirt) and it requires pretty good metalsmithing skills; all this makes it "just not worth it" on a stone that isn't otherwise extraordinary. Or one could build something that exploits the window visually: a micromosaic or other miniature work right behind it - provided the faceting doesn't distort things too much. But again, not an easy, cheap or otherwise popular choice, and it risks turning a moderately-sized albatross into a Pteranodon longiceps

 

So -- what becomes of a stone like this?  Does it keep getting priced cheaper until a Greater Fool comes along?  Or does it get quietly retired -- and then recut?

Yes. Not many other options, either. Unless someone fancies doing a Cleopatra and burning it then swallowing the ashes?

 

PS -- I like the way you guys answered this one 5 years before it got asked!

No foresight involved in repetition. Very few "regular" posters, but lots of new ones, so it's unavoidable that the same question comes up again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mirror behind the window works. However it's expensive, fragile (scratches and dirt) and it requires pretty good metalsmithing skills; all this makes it "just not worth it" on a stone that isn't otherwise extraordinary. Or one could build something that exploits the window visually: a micromosaic or other miniature work right behind it - provided the faceting doesn't distort things too much. But again, not an easy, cheap or otherwise popular choice, and it risks turning a moderately-sized albatross into a Pteranodon longiceps

 

I already thought about fresneling the lower surface, but my guess is it would be better just being recut conventionally, at perhaps a 30% reduction in retail value.  Depends, as always, on the inclusions.  I'm sure this had a lot of discussion before it was even released as a finished product.

 

DL >> Very few "regular" posters, but lots of new ones, so it's unavoidable that the same question comes up again.

 

There's a lot to be learned. In addition to proper proportional standards, I've been trying to collect information about common inclusions, especially what I'm seeing in SI1 stones:

 

http://www.bloomingbeautyring.com/clarity-of-diamonds/

http://www.gemologyonline.com/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11234

http://www.diamond-jewelry-pedia.com/diamond-inclusions.html#.U0oGhVeTySc

http://www.onlinediamondbuyingadvice.com/diamond-education/diamond-clarity-chart/

 

I know I could solve this problem of too-big inclusions by increasing the budget, moving up at least another step in clarity grades, but the whole purpose of budgeting these earrings is that I expect to lose one out of four every five years.  That makes them not-cheap disposables, but also that I shouldn't bother with insurance -- because after the first loss, premiums go up 30% (and more thereafter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me, a diamond cutter knows all there is to know about total internal reflection. And in a way that you or I cannot hope to match with a calculator or trigonometry: he (never seen a female cutter, BTW, even though the industry employs a lot of women) knows it directly with fingers and eyes.

 

If that stone came out with a window as big as that, the cutter knew, and there was no way of recutting it so that the reflection was better without leaving a LOT of diamond on the scaife (you can't polish a concave facet in a diamond well enough with current technology - you can cut it, but not get it to transparency).

 

BTW - for all we know, it already is a recut: of a 2 carater that had a big chip on the keel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that stone came out with a window as big as that, the cutter knew, and there was no way of recutting it so that the reflection was better without leaving a LOT of diamond on the scaife (you can't polish a concave facet in a diamond well enough with current technology - you can cut it, but not get it to transparency).

 

BTW - for all we know, it already is a recut: of a 2 carater that had a big chip on the keel.

 

This does make the stone interesting, in a clinical sense.  I gather there's no such thing as cutting step facets IN to the stone, that is, having a ":negative pyramid" in the pavilion?  (This might be what you're calling concave cuts.)

 

Here's a spitball -- how CHEAP would this stone have to get to make it worth holding as a "poor man's investment" --?  This kind of assumes some use, with or without major cutting, at some future date, and let's guess 20 years as an initial window.  To expand this hypothetical, let's say this color & grade is going at $3200 a carat and this stone's been kncked down to 85% of that -- say, $500/ct off the average price for an emerald cut without the hole.  Would we have to get to $1600/ct to make it worth holding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "negative pyramid" is indeed what I am calling concave faceting. It can be very effective and beautiful - but alas not in diamonds (at least for the moment). To wit:

 

NHB2012-00833-gallery.jpg

http://mineralsciences.si.edu/collections/dom-pedro/index.htm

(This thing is about 2 kg/4 lbs in weight and 1'2"/35 cm long)

 

The biggest problem in buy-and-hold is not about this particular stone, though it may make the problem more acute since it will always be very difficult to resell. The biggest problem is liquidity and transaction costs. To make money on diamonds as a consumer you need to hold them for incredibly long periods (and hope that nothing upsets the apple cart over said long period) and then be equally incredibly patient when selling them. Even 20 years may not be long enough... if you bought in 1979 you are just about seeing the same money now... in nominal terms. On the other hand, if you bought in 1994, you are probably seeing money being made now on the right stones, by consumers.

 

This has very little to do with the supposedly fabulous retail margins on diamonds (maybe they were there once, but since I have access to "wholesale" price info, about 20 years, they don't), and much more to do with the diamond market structure (back to the issue of wholesalers acting largely as financing house for retailers).

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warning about statements on 'retail value'. 

 

The point of recutting such a stone would be to INCREASE the value.  The reason it would increase the value is because, as it sits, it's whopping difficult to retail it at all.  The only way it's going to move is if there's a whopping discount applied to what someone somewhere says the 'value' is.  A price on a list that doesn't include all of the variables means nothing at all.  Put another way, the fact that Rapaport SAYS a stone is worth a lot, doesn't make it so.   That's actually one of the problems with 'retail value', a phrase I rarely use for this very reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of recutting such a stone would be to INCREASE the value.  The reason it would increase the value is because, as it sits, it's whopping difficult to retail it at all.  The only way it's going to move is if there's a whopping discount applied to what someone somewhere says the 'value' is.  A price on a list that doesn't include all of the variables means nothing at all.  Put another way, the fact that Rapaport SAYS a stone is worth a lot, doesn't make it so.   That's actually one of the problems with 'retail value', a phrase I rarely use for this very reason.

 

I keep trying to look at this in a variety of different ways, and each one has a big red NO flag hanging on it.  The stone's actually too small to consider recutting.  It's too average.  In terms of light refraction, it's broken.

 

If I was to select it as the 4-point earring in our set, it wouldn't be terrible, in fact it might NOT be the worst of what I've already decided on.  But then, it's being selected just to juxtapose step facting with the brilliant faceting on the marquise which is also selected for that ear.  I don't know if we're running a demonstration class in diamonds, or just trying to enjoy them.  But for nearly the same amount of trouble we could put an HPHT pink stone in that same position, and probably wind up with better light performance.

Edited by jginnane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do HPHT and pink have to do with light performance? Unless you define "light performance" as the ability to reflect white light.... and only white light.

 

And there are plenty of stones below 1.50 that get recut. The problem is how much you may need to cut with this one to close the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do HPHT and pink have to do with light performance? Unless you define "light performance" as the ability to reflect white light.... and only white light.

 

Absolutely nothing.  We're looking at two more holes/slots to fill, and I suggested colored stones, so we're working our way through that.  She ruled out yellow grades, so that makes it a real slim choice. :)

 

"Better light performance" from a well-cut man-made stone, as opposed to a man-cut stone.  Disregard the "pink"... this is just looking at some alternatives to "complete" a mismatched set.  Admittedly, going with a manufactured diamond at this point is going to seem a cop-out, but not so bad as using other "gemstones".

 

As far as -- how far would this emerald with a hole have to be cut, I'm still working on the angle of "how cheap could I get it for / could it be acceptable as an earring".  I think these are negative answers in each respect. and no one's said it would be wonderful as a brooch with a little ruby cabochon peek-a-boo in the window.

 

Yet another alternative is go crazy on the setting: instead of an up-down orientation, have it purposefully set at an oblique angle (so not one ever sees it directly-on).  And then put random other things in a minefield around the emerald.  This is crazy-talk, but dollars to donuts, you're going to wind up posting a DiamondsByLauren wonderful dinner ring that demonstrates exactly what I'm trying to say.  (And then, I'm going to learn how to say it better. :)

Edited by jginnane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll get a very dark stone when observed "straight" and then it's going to flash very white when you rock it a few degrees from on-axis. Is it a problem? If you like blinking lights, no, it's not a problem. But a flat mirror effectively does exactly the same and doesn't cost $10k...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll get a very dark stone when observed "straight" and then it's going to flash very white when you rock it a few degrees from on-axis. Is it a problem? If you like blinking lights, no, it's not a problem. But a flat mirror effectively does exactly the same and doesn't cost $10k...

 

Haha thanks David for the mirror talk.

 

Here are two more but both of them seems leaking light...

sigh...I'm not anywhere closer to finding a well cut one...frustrated

 

post-134190-0-04874100-1398211849.jpg

post-134190-0-21871800-1398211875.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what has been said, or at least hinted, is that you owe it to yourself to go somewhere and sit down, and, using a 10X loupe, work your way through a tray of 30 emerald cut diamonds that meet your outside criteria.  Do this without initial regard for price or measurements.  When you've worked your way down to 5-10% acceptable candidates, then examine the ASET (and the rest of the technical details).

 

You may find that the stone(s) you like tend to have similar ASET characteristics, and you've been eliminating pieces on the basis of what you think you should be seeing, rather than the proof of your own eyes.  If this is the case, great -- now you know how much weight to give to the ASET representation.  And incidentally, you're now down to a final selection.  You may also find certain types or locations of inclusions like white specks don't bother you at all, and so you're able to go to a lower step of clarity (or even color) to complete your search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two more but both of them seems leaking light...

sigh...I'm not anywhere closer to finding a well cut one...frustrated

Reality check: you will NOT find an emerald cut stone with an ASET that looks like a round (mostly red, a little green and some blue with almost no white/black). That's part and parcel of what an emerald cut looks like; they reflect less on-axis light than rounds, and they unavoidably have windows. It's what makes them look different and beautiful in their own way.

 

These last two, particularly the first one, are really quite good (based on "classical" criteria) - showing a symmetrical pattern with alternating bright and dark bands (which will switch place as the stone moves), no large windows and some less bright reflections from the corners.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...