Radiant I am receiving for inspection! :)

[Nicrez]

I would never personally trust that much money and such an important purchase to anyone but my on eyes. After all, it''s your eyes that need to live with the stone, right? Everyone has an opinion, but it''s yours that counts, and it''s your money...

Good luck, and I am sure you will enjoy your stone!

 

[chris143007]

Hi guys,

Rich is doing appraisal now...

I was just reading a diff. post on another site and someone was asking about a radiant...they mentioned the radiant they were looking at had an x type design in center. Someone else asked if they were sure the stone wasn''t a recut....that scared the beejeebeez out of me as I too notice some bit of an x in the middle...

 

[icelady]

Date: 12/16/2004 2:27:17 AM
Author: chris143007
Hi guys,

Rich is doing appraisal now...

I was just reading a diff. post on another site and someone was asking about a radiant...they mentioned the radiant they were looking at had an x type design in center. Someone else asked if they were sure the stone wasn''t a recut....that scared the beejeebeez out of me as I too notice some bit of an x in the middle...

Hi Chris,

I am not sure why they asked if the stone was a ''recut''? If there is a specific X pattern (rather than the cracked ice look) then I would think the stone in question (from the other site) is a cut corner Princess rather than a Radiant. Non branded Radiants have many different looks, making it important to visually inspect them.

As for it being a recut, I don''t see a problem as a recut would indicate to me that the stone is in better shape after the recut. The only reason I can think of to recut a stone is if it would improve it in some way. It is, however, a problem if the stone was recut and then not recertified, but Rich would see this right away as the stone would not match the cert.

You must be on pins and needles!!!! Did you have a chance to actually see the stone before it was sent to Rich? It is hard to tell much about the details of a stone in a photo!

Keep us posted!

 

[chris143007]

Hi ice,

I didn''t see the stone yet, it went straight to Rich. From what you can see in the pics I provided here, does this stone look like an actual radiant as opposed to recut princess?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/16/2004 107:36 AM
Author: chris143007
Hi ice,

I didn''t see the stone yet, it went straight to Rich. From what you can see in the pics I provided here, does this stone look like an actual radiant as opposed to recut princess?

You can find cut corner princesses, so to speak, but your is not one.

Here''s a portrait:

 

[moremoremore]

Radiant 100%. I really want to see this sucker. The image is awesome with SO much dark red!

 

[chris143007]

yeah, I can see the princess is kinda ''really square'', and I see the x....i wonder if my stone has that crushed ice look like Nicrez'' ?

 

[icelady]

Hey Chris,

I agree with the others, yours is definitely a Radiant, should have that cracked ice look!

 

[chris143007]

Hi guys,

I''m getting anxious to see it in person already! Oh the insanity!! lol....

 

[chris143007]

hey guys another question...you know back in the past, that unbranded radiant I was considering...it was an 1.03 e vs2....but @ $1000 more....

do you think there''s a ton of difference in the e to the f with these pesky radiants?

 

[moremoremore]

No.

 

[icelady]

No, mine is an F colored Radiant. It is very hard, if not impossible to tell the difference!

 

[windowshopper]

no difference --you are worrying needlessly

 

[chris143007]

Rich will complete appraisal this weekend

He emailed me back after I asked him to tell me first impressions from opening the package. He said "sharp looking radiant...real talker with lots of personality".....I told him I hope that means it is sparkly, brilliant, fiery, and oh, perfect! lol....we''ll see.

btw guys,

He has the GIA, but I asked him to not look at it (i think it''s his policy anyway), but should I inform him at this time that I also have IS/sarin?

I believe he would be making his own IS image anyway....

 

[Nicrez]

Your stone looks like a raidant pattern. The image that ana posted was a princess through and through...they have very obvious differences.

Radiants have two types of cuts. Some with shallower pavillions, that have more white sparkle. These usually have the more random patterning than most radiants. The next cut with deeper pavillions has more fire, and also exhibits that round ring that the majority of radiants show. Usually this is see on the majority of radiants that are typically "radiants".

I am sure yours will absolutely STUN!!!! Congrats and good luck!

 

[chris143007]

Hi Nicrez,

Your radiant is more of the ''ring'' one isn''t it?


I can''t wait to see my stone!

 

[chris143007]

Hey guys,

I was wondering, from what you see here, does the stone look larger than 1 ct? You know how sometimes, you all talk about it looking larger than it is?

 

[icelady]

Chris,

Thats a tough question. There are so many variables that go into it and no standards for fancies. All I can say is that because your depth is 64.9 (according to the Sarin) your diamond should have a lovely spread.

Any word from Rich yet??? When do you get it back?

 

[chris143007]

Rich said he would complete it this weekend....so depending on whether he ships today, I may get it tomorrow, but definitely by Tuesday I would suspect.

 

[chris143007]

Ok Rich, sent stone out to me today, will be here Tues. morning...

What a thorough appraisal he did (he emailed a copy to me)...

Some highlights he brought up:

He listed stone as faint blue fluorescence, where GIA had None.
He listed color as ''low F'', but remaining in F category
VVS2, with it hard to see anything at even 30x mag. (loupe clean)
Graded at 1b on the AGA charts...

Here is his IS image of stone...I think it looks different than the vendor supplied one...
There are sooo many other pics to show and pages of info....what do you guys think?
It''s getting near crunch time, and I''m getting nervous....

 

[chris143007]

Ok,
just did a bunch of reading up on fluorescence, and the faint designation by Rich is negligible.

What is next on my list is the difference in IS images...I''m pretty sure people will tell me IS images aren''t consistent, but the one Rich took seems to have more leakage...

 

[valeria101]

"Consistent" you say... well, no idea what happened here. Taking each picture at face value, one shows the top and the other the bottom of the scale!

I know there has been some attempt to standardize at least the professional version of the Ideal Scope. This is definitely a question for Garry already

 

[chris143007]

Hi Valeria,
I''m not sure which IS to go with either, I''ll use my eyes tomorrow. I need to call Rich tomorrow and go over the appraisal, there are some parts that I''m not sure about.

"Fair to good non-fisheye effect"
and some other things I''m not sure about...

 

[valeria101]

Hm... I can see the (minor) "fish" , but no idea where did the red go from the 'scope image unless either photo suffered from Holiday Season Rush.

There is always an explanation for the optics (the red background in the appraisal photo tells me that the camera was too far from the stone... say). Too bad there is need for one

 

[chris143007]

There''s so much I want to ask/know about now. I wish I could email you the critique page...

This IS stuff is making me ponder....

 

[chris143007]

Valeria,

What do you mean by ''too bad there is need for one''?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/21/2004 2:59:42 AM
Author: chris143007
Valeria,

What do you mean by ''too bad there is need for one''?

That was "too bad there is need for any explanation" now, at the end of the process.

Hopefully things will work out.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is a rather good example of the need to standardise ideal-scope or any type of red reflector type lighting and photo formats (I am sure you all agree?)
I do not know who the vendor is.

The vendor image has grey / brown where there is obvious leakage - the lilly could have been gilded because some clearly full on leakage in Rich''s images are dark areas in the vendors.

But Rich needs to turn his light source down a bit - there are almost white pale areas that would be making around 50% plus light return - these are almost white in Rich''s image.

I would say that this is a failry nice radiant as radiants go. Many of you know I am not a colorless radiant fan. I am glad it is a top color - an H radiant can show a lot of color.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I can not make the pale grey areas in the vendor image go white. But now Rich''s photo looks better?

 

[chris143007]

Well,
I will reserve judgement until I see stone in person today...but I really don''t know what I''m going to do now...

I am disturbed by the huge difference in IS images...