dazedandc0nfused
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2014
- Messages
- 7
interesting.dazedandc0nfused|1406785608|3723595 said:Sure Karl.
AGS 104070836007 1.026c
Gypsy|1406832998|3723901 said:Great post Wink!
dazedandc0nfused|1406930963|3724652 said:Wink,
I agree with you wholly that seeing the stones in person is a huge factor and numbers/images can't tell the stone's entire story but unfortunately it wasn't an option for me to purchase stones and return them if I did not like them. And ever since I discovered PS a couple years ago, I learned that shopping online is the best bet in terms of "options". I was not a fan of buying jewelry online in years past.
But I feel that even bottom of the barrel AGS0's should have a better IS than that one in the OP. My mission is to do my due diligence on PS in order to find the best stone that I can based on the tools and information that are available to me such as the IS image, ASET, advice from members, etc. Otherwise, I'd just walk into big chain jewelry store and pick the shiniest diamond in my price range. If I saw that IS image in the OP without knowing any other information such as it's 0 rating, I would most likely pass on it without a second thought. I'd like to throw in that I wasn't a cut elitist until I started lurking PS.
I would just recommend that everyone request a IS image even for AGS0 stones.
Here's another one I ran into with a IS that I wouldn't have expected.
http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104071516004-PLDQRH.PDF
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3178625.htm#
dazedandc0nfused|1406930963|3724652 said:
Gypsy|1406832998|3723901 said:Great post Wink!
Hi Gypsy,Gypsy|1406945989|3724750 said:dazedandc0nfused|1406930963|3724652 said:
In the last few months I've been seeing more and more stones at WF, especially in the ES line, that have this issue. AGS0 but under-performing idealscope. I feel that WF has relaxed their criteria too far and it makes me very wary when selecting stones from them for others.