are these bowties in my princess?

[researcher]

You are too good, Ana! If only I could learn to use Adobe Photoshop as well as you I'd look AMAZING in all photos

 

[picky]

Wait, whoa whoa. What''s going on.

Is the one on the right a modified version of my stone cut and pasted onto my setting...or is that another stone altogether? Which one do you like better? I like the sparkle of the left but it looks dark and hazy...and a little blue. Funny with no fluor.

 

[picky]

Kenny wrote:

Sorry picky
Didn''t mean to be rude.


I second the recommendation for the idealscope.
I bought one and it came very quickly.
______Be Happy! . . . or change something

Thanks I appreciate it. I apologize for being snappy...this is my 2nd return and I must have the completed ring by Dec 13th. I''m a little testy right now.

 

[RockDoc]

Been working on this most of yesterday and today, and finally got an image with the desktop ASET.

What do ya''ll think?

Rockdoc

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/25/2005 1:39:11 AM
Author: picky

Is the one on the right a modified version of my stone cut and pasted onto my setting...or is that another stone altogether?

Another ''stone''...

Look, the picture turned out too tempting not to post, but there is no way for me to guess in what light your picture was taken and then adjust all details so that the other ''diamond'' looks exactly right. All I can say is that that other stone will look like that sometimes.

Which one do you like better?

How about you ? That''s what matters.



I like the sparkle of the left but it looks dark and hazy...and a little blue. Funny with no floro.

Light is almost never ''white'' and the camera''s color balance plays tricks like that too... Pictures are a funny thing sometimes.

If you have nothing better to do, you can see a 3D model of the diamond I used in the picture. It would take downloading a viewer software (called GemAdviser from HERE ), and opening the file attached to this post with it.

One crazy way to look at diamonds, but... fun to some folk.

 

[picky]

^^^ I suppose "stone" is the wrong terminology....I will say "diamond" from here on out if I can remember. After I posted that last reply I noticed that the table of the diamond on the right was much smaller....I was too lazy at the time to repost and correct myself unfortunately.

I noticed you use the rolly eyes emoticon a lot. My posts may come across as uninformed, ignorant, stupid, whatever... But I''ve just starting learning about diamonds 2 months ago and it''s been a lot of information to take in.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/25/2005 2:21:13 AM
Author: picky

^^^ I suppose ''stone'' is the wrong terminology....

The only ''stone'' around here... are diamonds. That''s why there is a ''colored gem'' forum on the side

Clear enough!



I noticed you use the rolly eyes emoticon a lot. My posts may come across as uninformed...

Nooooo... I haven''t even noticed the overuse, but at least the couple were meant as a form of self-irony. Pictures are nice to post but cannot be true to nature and with all this talk, there is no way to show diamonds online. It would be nice to see your ring and it would also be nice for me to line up some diamonds while writing/talking about them. By neither is feasible - and pictures pale by comparison. Hence lots of

Sorry for the confusion...

 

[picky]

^^^ Ah I see. I am used to seeing a different emoticon used for irony, but I see there aren''t many choices here for that particular expression. On other boards the rolly-eye smilie is (from what I''ve seen) usually used to indicate aggression or sarcasm... but emoticons are what you put into them so, no more confusion here. But this is deviating from the topic at hand. Back to diamonds...........

 

[researcher]

Date: 11/25/2005 1:52:08 AM
Author: RockDoc
Been working on this most of yesterday and today, and finally got an image with the desktop ASET.


What do ya''ll think?


Rockdoc

That''s excellent, Rockdoc!!!

 

[squarediamondlove]

Here is an example of a stone that is clearly well cut (since its on GOG), but may not be visually appealing to some people, partially due to the contrast pattern in the stone (the location of light leakage vs. the reds).

 

[Mara]

When I read perry's post re: you are not ready to buy....I somewhat agreed because all these questions you are asking now ideally could be asked before a purchase. You noted this is your second stone, my advise is to continue to ask these same Q's *and* do more research before either returning or keeping this stone. Once you are more educated, then you'll know whether or not you have a winner and you can act accordingly.

Unfortunately researching for months on here doesn't always teach you anything but more confusion.

I was on here for a few months before buying and we still didn't pick a winner at the time...a few years later and masses of information deciphering later, and I'm supremely happy with about any stone purchase I make now, thank goodness. But at the time...

Your stone looks pretty to me, if you are unsure, I'd definitely spend the $30 on the idealscope esp when making a multi-thousand dollar purchase, it can really set your mind at ease (or do the exact opposite!!).

Good luck.

ETA: Wow, both that GOG stone and that AGS0 are simply smashing!!! when I see these exceptional princesses it makes me want one too.

3 stone AGS0 princess RHR sounding fairly divine now.

 

[squarediamondlove]

here is the lightscope image of the first picure:

Here is another image of a princess that is actually AGS ideal cut, however if you notice the photo shows a bulks of contrast rather than more dispersed contrast and it may be less pleasing to some people.

If you reduce the size of the page, making this diamond pic smaller, the areas of contrast will look similar to your diamond.

 

[squarediamondlove]

Here is an example of other factors that you may want to take into consideration that will influence the look of your diamond. Here are pics of expert selection form WF which is a very well cut stone, but to me, seems to lack good optical symmetry.

Contrast this with the stone below, also a well cut stone but it will not return as much light as the one above based on the idealscope images. However, at least to me, it appears more pleasing to the eye.

To me these images demonstrate that, particularly with princess cuts, you have to see the stone in person. Many factors influence the way princess diamonds look; that is why the princess cuts are more difficult to figure out than rounds and seem to be slightly more subjective.

 

[BlueReneeNeko]

Kaleidoscopic, in that first expert selection pic, is it a 1.78ct that has already been sold? The idealscope image looks a lot like the one that I saw. I remember looking at that one and was seriously considering whether to buy it or not but it was sold soon after I saw it. I think it was going for around $13,843 or so with wire transfer. Could it have been you that bought it?

 

[squarediamondlove]

I''m not sure which one that was, but I can definately say it was not me. I think my fiance woud kill me if I buy another diamond after I just got my e-ring