Jump to content

Your Opinion, Please ...


orchid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I'm interested in this diamond, it has medium blue fluorescence with an ideal spec, triple Ex: 55% table, 61.7% depth, 34 CA, 40.8 PA, crown height 15%, pavilion depth 43%. However, I'm seeing black shadow reflected on the stone table (see attachment). Should I concern? What should I look out for in a stone with blue fluorescence? Please advise. Thank you for your help.

post-131962-0-88676500-1423669330_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading anything into a single, small scale photo is not easy. Or perhaps it's too easy... it could be anything. A photographic effect, a cloud - and BTW what about the white line at about 8 o'clock? Is it a feather? No way of saying for sure.

 

Who graded the stone? What clarity is it according to the lab? Can you find out the lab report number? Based on that info

 

The fluorescence issue is overblown. Or perhaps overbluewn. Anyway - don't worry about it, certainly not with a medium fluorescence. This GIA paper - although coming up for 20 years of age - is still THE reference study in the area: http://www.gia.edu/doi/10_5741-GEMS_33_4_244

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a VVS2, then it's nothing we would see in a photograph with that level of magnification - so a piece of lint of a photographic artefact it is!

 

Interestingly, this also rules out any other inclusions for the dark areas - for which two explanations are possible:

 

1. Again photographic artefacts (lighting, shadows in the environment, support for the stone, lens angle relative to the stone, ...)

2. The stone is not cut in a very symmetrical fashion, which leaves darker and brighter areas distributed irregularly

 

To test against 2, then ask the vendor for a reflector image such as an ASET or IdealScope photo; these are generally (if well taken) pretty good diagnostics.

 

On fluorescence: it will affect price negatively by about 5-10%. Saleability is correspondingly lower... whether you are looking at dealer sale or private resale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There is some asymmetry in the cut - easily visible in the "arrows" view, and with more difficulty in the ASET and IS images. It seems somehow to correspond with some of the darker areas in the first photo you posted, but as usual with these things the only way to be sure is to see the stone.

 

Does it even matter? Only you can answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, thank you for your input. I'm not very impressed with the stone and even though GIA gave it a triple Ex rating, I just learned from you that the arrow view has showed potential asymmetry issue and that could be the reason for the black shadow seen in the original photo of the stone. The Vendor said that the light went out on his video equipment (?), since then, they provided the new image of the stone. I'm not sure that I should pursue this stone at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equipment  light goes out,  lint gets into  equipment,  post fuzzy/linty pictures,   doesn't know if  pictures can be provided.    Hmmmmmm    Sounds like more than just the diamond has problems.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equipment  light goes out,  lint gets into  equipment,  post fuzzy/linty pictures,   doesn't know if  pictures can be provided.    Hmmmmmm    Sounds like more than just the diamond has problems.  

All perfectly possible, even very likely things - keeping a diamond clean is very difficult and taking good quality photos isn't easy. Ultimately it comes down to:

 

1. How much do you trust the vendor to tell the truth. It's not in his interest to ship you something just to see it returned 2 days later - particularly if they pay for return shipping (many do).

 

2. How critical perfect symmetry is to you; the H&A viewer is built on some pretty arbitrary assumptions to make the nice arrows and hearts come out, but there is nothing in optics (and in the way people form aesthetic judgements) that dictates "H&A is better".

 

3. What other options/diamonds you are considering, and their relative pros and cons.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably should not make  harsh judgements about the vendor since I am clueless about how the diamond business works.  I would have thought that since vendors have access to certification  lab reports and  images  there would be no need for the vendor to take pictures and no reason not to send the certification and images immediately.  Also stating that the vendor might not have an Ideal Scope seemed strange.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pictures don't come from the labs.  Some are taken by the dealers themselves and some are taken by their suppliers.  Obviously it's necessary for SOMEONE to actually have the stone in hand to take the picture and for them to be both willing and able to do it.  Skills and interest in this vary tremendously.   You'll notice, for example, that you almost never see images of crappy stones.  The options are superb and pretty close.  That's not because there are no crappy stones but because the people selling them know that images wouldn't help.  They either don't take them or they don't pass them through to the dealer.  The dealer, in turn, can pass them on, bury them, or take their own (assuming they have the stone). 

 

Ideascopes are cheap and readily available, but the photo setups are not.  It takes a fair amount of practice, it takes time and, as mentioned above, a bad image does the seller more harm than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that while getting hold of a lab report's copy is generally easy (at least with the major labs - they all have them available online), images of any kind are not a given, and they do honestly require a bit of skill with a camera and lighting to take. Not having an IS is not a grave sin either (nor is not having an ASET) - not everybody finds them useful, and outside of a relatively narrow set of people (largely frequenting a certain forum), particularly the IS has a restricted following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL  OK OK  I was definitely too harsh and judgmental.  I did not realize that the labs did not provide images.   Now I'm wondering why not.  They certainly have looked the diamond with all the latest  scopes, x-rays, viewers, analyzers,  etc why not take the pictures of the images then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, some labs do. AGS includes ASET images with its top-level reports for shapes where it grades cut; GCAL , GSI and EGL also include images of various types on some reports. GIA provides photos on some reports (coloured gems, but I think also diamonds) for a significant extra charge. I'm sure there are more - these are the first that come to mind. Most labs record a large amount of information additional to what is printed in the final "consumer" report; some of it is available on request (and sometimes a fee), and some is buried in the lab's records, to be used for example in identification of the stone if it were to be resubmitted.

 

In general, more info is not provided for 3 reasons - some already covered in the posts above:

 

1. Intellectual property (and pride). ASET is a patented technology by AGS, and GIA would offer itself to nuclear holocaust followed by an invasion of rabid zombies before it adopted anything that came from AGS. Etcetera.

 

2. Trade interests and (lack of) consumer education. Too much information is not necessarily a good thing - distracting the consumer with a huge amount of detailed, difficult to interpret and sometimes outright irrelevant information is asking for being shot in the foot. For example your thread on the famous "blue triangles close to the bottom of the pavilion" - I'm not calling you out for asking a perfectly valid question, but there's one of you asking and a few of us answering on this forum, and most of us really enjoy the consumer education aspect of what we do. You are a highly interested, intelligent and pleasant person to deal with; the vast majority of consumers are not. I'm not flattering you: the vast majority of consumers cannot be bothered to read anything about diamonds beyond some vendor-provided literature, never mind frequent a dedicated forum and post several times on it. Can you imagine what happens when you provide even more info to people that want to buy a 3 carrot diamond without a cutlet and a medium griddle? Or was it a lamb stew?

 

On the other hand, providing the consumer with some relevant information - which however reveals a little too much - is asking for being shot in the other foot. See for example the images provided in this thread... I'm still not sure that they provide a set of consistent information, but they have nevertheless resulted in Orchid deciding to pass on the stone. I am on the hand pretty sure that if Orchid had received the diamond and looked at it in person she would not have been quite so disappointed. Some asymmetry is there, but I doubt it is visible, or that it makes any difference in practical life; however it is present, and Orchid has full rights to demand it in the stone (s)he buys, if it's important to him/her.

 

3. Time, skills, equipment (together ultimately known as "cost") and difficult decisions to be made. Which images should be provided to the consumer? Something like this:

r4578-infinity-shot.jpg

or like this?

r4578-infinty-fire-diamond.jpg

The style of the first one is (in my opinion) a lot less interesting from a consumer point of view than the second, but it is a.) much easier to take (and still demands skills) and b.) far more comparable across stones. BTW, they are two images of the exact same diamond. Would you have guessed, had you seen them in two different places, posted by two different people?

Edited by davidelevi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replying to points 1, 2, and 3

 

!.  I did not know that there was a tension, rivalry, competition  between the two institutions.  (LOL at the zombie invasion.)  I'm guessing  then each has its dedicated and loyal followers extolling the virtues of their chosen institution and denigrating the rival lab.  

 

2. I can see what you mean about too much information for those just interested in getting the buying over and done with.   However, sometimes the search and the learning are as much fun as the the owning. How all the  parameters of a diamond work together or don't work together,  means they are complex and  there is a lot to learn.  Also, if I'm going to  spend large sums of money I'd like to know enough so I have greater chance of being happy with my purchase. 

 

3.  No,  I would not have been able to pick out the images as the same diamond.    I'm guessing the actual diamond picture is the one vendors should use for people that don't ask too many questions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The tension is there - though it's more intellectual/academical than commercial (GIA won that battle) or "football-fan-like"; people in the industry generally respect both labs.

 

2. Absolutely agree with you - but you and I are part of a tiny percentage of people. I have been actively posting here for the last 7.5 years, and I can recall fewer than 20 people that have reached 100 posts. Even people that post once - on this or any other forum (and "lone posters" are surprisingly common; not even a "thank you for the advice" or a "so we went for this" update is the norm) represent a tiny minority of the diamond purchases happening in the world.

 

3. I don't understand what you mean by "the actual diamond picture" - both are actual diamond pictures, just taken using very different techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One image is from a scope of some kind;  the other is a photograph  of the diamond  as it actually looks in real life just magnified.   It's very interesting to have both images to look at and compare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the first image is not from a scope at all; it's a high contrast image with overhead lighting and a dark background. I agree that it looks less like "a diamond" than the other one

 

It's the same type of image that Orchid attached to the first post in this thread - just in a slightly different environment (dark rather than light background) and of course it's larger - though the latter is more an effect due to post-processing (vendor resizing and compressing to email; Orchid possibly doing the same, and finally the forum software doing its best to make the image unreadable) than to an initial "higher quality" in one image than the other.

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...