Diamond search continues (now w/pics and idealscope)

[Garysax]

WF just got the diamond I was talking about in an earlier thread...

Princess 0.90 G VS2 GIA 71 68 5.26*5.20*3.69 stk-tk no gd ex no

Despite assurances from WF that it is a very pretty diamond in person and decent sarin stats, it''s going to be pretty hard not to send it back and continue the search after this idealscope.

Ah well!

 

[Hansel]

It doesn't look that bad, but best of luck.

 

[princessv]

Wow..when I first saw your IS I thought "is this a IdealScope glitch?" I guess because I''m so spoilt thanks to PS looking at super ideal IS

But that being said..just trust your eyes when you actually see it! Good luck.

 

[strmrdr]

ewwwww
train wreck of an IS image.

 

[Garysax]

Date: 1/18/2006 6:20:00 PM
Author: Princess V
Wow..when I first saw your IS I thought ''is this a IdealScope glitch?'' I guess because I''m so spoilt thanks to PS looking at super ideal IS

But that being said..just trust your eyes when you actually see it! Good luck.

Good point--It''s definitely a challenge to lower your expectations and be realistic if you spend your time on these forums educating yourself because of the absurd (at my price range) quality of diamonds people around here generally buy. I''m still trying to get realistic expecations myself about what the best I can do is.

Nevertheless, even with my ~3500 budget I hope I can do better than that IS on a stone.

Re: Nathan--it''s not the worst thing ever, and staff there say that it looks very nice in person.

 

[squarediamondlove]

It is an odd looking image; not very eye friendly. My guess (and I am definately no expert) is that it will have a crushed glass look to it, at least on its sides/edges. You may find that it looks appealing and unique. However, the gravity of whiteness in the middle may be of some concern.

 

[researcher]

I trust Brian''s eye when it comes to stones, but I don''t like the cut of that one. It may be a nice stone, but it definitely will look different than most! I would pass on this one....

If nothing else this is the perfect example of why you need to find out more than just the numbers!

 

[researcher]

Quick question---

Is there any chance the diamond was tilted in this photo?

 

[Garysax]

Date: 1/18/2006 7:03:02 PM
Author: researcher
Quick question---


Is there any chance the diamond was tilted in this photo?

I don't think so, but I suppose it's possible. Bob from WF said he was quite puzzled by the IS as well when he and others did/looked at it.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to eat the shipping and keep working to find a new one.

Edit: also, just so there's NO confusion, this is NOT one of WF's own stones (expert selection), just one I had called in from a search.

 

[Hest88]

Not great, but I did a quick search and I''m not convinced you''ll easily find another princess of this size that is cut a whole lot better. To compare, this is a .85 from Good Old Gold that''s not much more than $3500. 5.23x5.21x3.75 so it faces up around the same size.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_854ct_h_vs2_pr_ags-ideal.htm

 

[tulip928]

Date: 1/18/2006 7:03:02 PM
Author: researcher
Quick question---

Is there any chance the diamond was tilted in this photo?

It looks tilted to me. The left side is shorter than the right and it doesn''t look square. I''m new at this, but that''s how it looks to me.

 

[Garysax]

Date: 1/18/2006 7:17:30 PM
Author: Hest88
Not great, but I did a quick search and I''m not convinced you''ll easily find another princess of this size that is cut a whole lot better. To compare, this is a .85 from Good Old Gold that''s not much more than $3500. 5.23x5.21x3.75 so it faces up around the same size.

Yeah, it''s a pretty tough size to get a great cut in, something WF commented on as well. I''m struggling a bit right now. I honestly can''t afford a great 1 carat cut (where most of the good cuts are) but I can afford a pretty good .9 (if it exists!).

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/18/2006 7:09:30 PM
Author: Garysax

I don't think so, but I suppose it's possible. Bob from WF said he was quite puzzled by the IS as well when he and others did/looked at it.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to eat the shipping and keep working to find a new one.

Edit: also, just so there's NO confusion, this is NOT one of WF's own stones (expert selection), just one I had called in from a search.

I did not see it live, but heard about this one (the puzzlement). We consider the IS test a component of our own approval process Garysax, so you may not need to 'eat' shipping, even it it's nice to the eyes. Check back with Bob about that, as I don't know what your arrangements were.

 

[researcher]

Date: 1/18/2006 7:33:54 PM
Author: tulip928

Date: 1/18/2006 7:03:02 PM

Author: researcher

Quick question---


Is there any chance the diamond was tilted in this photo?

It looks tilted to me. The left side is shorter than the right and it doesn''t look square. I''m new at this, but that''s how it looks to me.

I''m glad you see it too. The reason I asked this question is my stone (which is GREAT) looks rather odd when it''s even slightly tilted. I just thought this might add to the strange pattern. But, Bob would know if that''s the case as he''s got the stone

Random note: How great are the people at WF? They continue to amaze me with their customer service!

 

[Garysax]

Date: 1/18/2006 8:01:39 PM
Author: researcher

Date: 1/18/2006 7:33:54 PM

Author: tulip928

Date: 1/18/2006 7:03:02 PM


Author: researcher


Quick question---



Is there any chance the diamond was tilted in this photo?

It looks tilted to me. The left side is shorter than the right and it doesn''t look square. I''m new at this, but that''s how it looks to me.

I''m glad you see it too. The reason I asked this question is my stone (which is GREAT) looks rather odd when it''s even slightly tilted. I just thought this might add to the strange pattern. But, Bob would know if that''s the case as he''s got the stone

Random note: How great are the people at WF? They continue to amaze me with their customer service!

Yeah, I haven''t talked to him again yet after the initial e-mail/phone call where I got these pictures, but Bob has the stone and probably knows better than I do.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/18/2006 6:53:32 PM
Author: Kaleidoscopic

It is an odd looking image; not very eye friendly. ... You may find that it looks appealing ...

Second that. Interesting IS, but I would not expect a bald patch in the middle of the diamond for that much.

Aside the obvious eye catcher there, well, nothing wrong with edge-to-edge red in that picture. Quite on the contrary. Was there a picture for the stone too? I would rather look for the appearance in that one than the IS image.

Pattern.. ok, up to you. It doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

My 2c.


At this point, you bet I am curious to hear about what this one turns out like in person.

 

[Garysax]

Date: 1/18/2006 11:41:27 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/18/2006 6:53:32 PM

Author: Kaleidoscopic


It is an odd looking image; not very eye friendly. ... You may find that it looks appealing ...

Second that. Interesting IS, but I would not expect a bald patch in the middle of the diamond for that much.


Aside the obvious eye catcher there, well, nothing wrong with edge-to-edge red in that picture. Quite on the contrary. Was there a picture for the stone too? I would rather look for the appearance in that one than the IS image.


Pattern.. ok, up to you. It doesn''t mean a whole lot to me.

My 2c.



At this point, you bet I am curious to hear about what this one turns out like in person.

Might as well throw up the other info here if you''re curious (I don''t think there''s anything wrong with doing it). There is a pic and as you can see, the Sarin numbers put this stone as a very nice stone. Just goes to show, you never know! I''m going to think about it tommorow and make my decision, but right now I''m definitely strongly leaning toward sending it back, even though the fact that it supposedly looks very nice in person is tempting.

 

[Garysax]

Throw up the pic too, it looks very nice in the pic.

 

[researcher]

I don''t love the "pattern" of the facets on this stone. It looks weird to me.

 

[Kaleigh]

Have to say I''m not loving it either. Take it with a grain of salt though. Princess cuts are not my forte. But if researcher doesn''t love it, then that''s it for me. She knows this cut very well. Good luck.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/19/2006 12:48:37 AM
Author: Garysax
Throw up the pic too, it looks very nice in the pic.

'Guess so. IMO, the spaced out chevron facets there and resulting lack of large 'window' facets on the pavilion only helped ... and their absence is not usual. 'Unusual' may just be better this time

The content of your posts (IS, picture, numbers...) would get my expectations rather high about this piece. I hope it measures up in person to yours.

My 2c.



Researcher, what is weird about it? The gorgeous princess cut diamond on your hand must know allot I don't about his species

 

[researcher]

Date: 1/19/2006 1:04:43 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/19/2006 12:48:37 AM

Author: Garysax

Throw up the pic too, it looks very nice in the pic.

''Guess so. IMO, the spaced out chevron facets there and resulting lack of large ''window'' facets on the pavilion only helped ... and their absence is not usual. ''Unusual'' may just be better this time

The content of your posts (IS, picture, numbers...) would get my expectations rather high about this piece. I hope it measures up in person to yours.


My 2c.




Researcher, what is weird about it? The gorgeous princess cut diamond on your hand must know allot I don''t about his species

I dunno. There is nothing bad about this stone per se, but it doesn''t look like the typical princess cut to me. I can''t say that it would lack in performance as the numbers and everything are good (look at all those reds in the IS image!), but it just doesn''t look like I would expect. Here''s mine for comparison....

 

[researcher]

And here's the infamous WF expert selection photo which is probably of a diamond closer to yours in size....

 

[researcher]

And finally, here is the diamond in question (top) compared to a similar sized Infinity cut stone. I put them both in B&W so you can see the difference in the facets.

 

[researcher]

I think I''ve figured out what I don''t like. In most princess cuts, all four corners are usually pretty close to mirror images of one another. In other words, no matter which two corners you compare they will look close to the same. In this princess cut the bottom corners look alike and the top two look alike, but they don''t all look the same. Also (and I apologize in advance for my lack of technical terminology), the faceting on princess cut diamonds usually draws my attention down to the middle of the stone but with this stone it doesn''t because the bottom half reminds me of a house of mirrors in an amusement park. I dunno. I think I''ve finally lost it. Enough of staring at princess cuts for me!

Seriously, I would trust the experts with this stone--and Ana (Valeria101) is MUCH more one than me! What did Brian have to say about this stone? He really has a good eye, and because he has it in his possession he can tell you a lot more than a fun little tool or a static image can

 

[Garysax]

Researcher, thank you for your personal attention to my stone, I didn't really notice the size of the asymmetry (w/that extra facet up top) in the stone until you specifically pointed it out.

Also, in regards to...

Date: 1/19/2006 1:14:05 AM
Author: researcher
I can't say that it would lack in performance as the numbers and everything are good (look at all those reds in the IS image!), but it just doesn't look like I would expect. Here's mine for comparison....

I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that, as to me the IS image with that significant pass through right down the middle makes me very nervous and question how it would perform under idealscope or something like it. The Sarin numbers are pretty ideal though, which is why when I looked at the idealscope (after being impressed by the Sarin!) I was a bit shocked. I am very satisfied with the IS performance of the rest of the stone though, and without that large area would be all over the stone.

Also, re: Brian. I'm not sure what his opinion was; I talked to Bob very briefly (near 5) right after I had seen the pictures and told him I needed to think about it. Bob said that it was a bit of an oddity because the hole in the bottom was unexpected, but I'm not sure what Brian's opinion on the stone really was. Perhaps I should ask.

 

[researcher]

I was thinking in terms of overall performance. Most princesses leak a lot more light in the corners, so I think, overall, the light leakage is not that bad. It''s not my favorite IS image, but when you take everything into account and aren''t looking at a static image, there''s a chance this stone could be a good performer. The reason I asked about Brian''s opinion is I wonder how this stone would look if tilted just a bit. It might be that big hole in the middle is actually light pink or much smaller (more like the GOG pic). You see, I just can''t quite understand how this stone got such a good symmetry rating when the stone looks off to me. My guess is it was titled in these photos, which could explain why everything looks good but doesn''t quite add up. However, I''m in no way an expert!

I have to say, I would be frustrated if I were in your shoes. There''s so much to like about the stone, but there''s just something that''s not right. I''ll keep my fingers crossed that Brian will give it his vote of approval and that the stone was just tilted or something!

 

[Garysax]

Date: 1/19/2006 2:51:25 AM
Author: researcher
I have to say, I would be frustrated if I were in your shoes. There''s so much to like about the stone, but there''s just something that''s not right. I''ll keep my fingers crossed that Brian will give it his vote of approval and that the stone was just tilted or something!

Haha, you''re telling me. Especially since I''ve got a relatively tight budget and I''m looking at a less popular size (.9). As Bob was telling me on the phone last week, basically any princess that approaches 1.0 carats gets sized up. Which means it''s dang hard to find .9s that are handsomely cut!

 

[researcher]

Can they run the Asset on it? I would trust that above all else. Well, that and Brian''s eyes.

Although I''m not an expert I will do a search tomorrow to see if I can find any winners. I would not give up on this one until you hear what Brian has to say. Call WF and ask to speak with him personally. He will be extremely blunt with you. He talked me out of a 3.65ct princess I had my heart set on because he said it would not meet my criteria. As a result I saved my now hubby a few thousand dollars and got a better stone (it was extremely obvious when I was sent the photos of both stones)

So, I would trust him.

Good luck and please keep us updated!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/19/2006 2:57:20 AM
Author: Garysax

Haha, you''re telling me. Especially since I''ve got a relatively tight budget and I''m looking at a less popular size (.9). As Bob was telling me on the phone last week, basically any princess that approaches 1.0 carats gets sized up. Which means it''s dang hard to find .9s that are handsomely cut!

Dang is true.

This diamond was sought for Garysax specifically for size/budget. I echo the suggestions to speak to an expert with the diamond in hand. Brian is out of the country, but Bob is our senior gemologist. He has been in the diamond business for over 30 years. He has GIA, ASA and AGS credentials and worked as a GIA diamond grader and colored stone instructor, so you''re in pretty good hands there. We are buying a camera that will enable us to do ASET photos, but are not set up for them yet.