Radiant I am receiving for inspection! :)

[belle]

Well,
I will reserve judgement until I see stone in person today...



good idea. i think you may be overanalyzing (easy to do when you''re spending a significant amount of $$---i''m a pro at it.) i''m sure you will love this stone in person!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Here''s another photo for comparison purposes using the exact same technique and distances (I''ve got it standardized).

Does that look like too much backlighting Garry?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

An Asscher photo for comparison taken under the exact same conditions.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

The radiant photo reflected what I saw when I viewed it with the Idealscope, which is actually pretty good light return for this category of fancy.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

A princess cut...

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Emerald cut...

 

[Richard Sherwood]

An oval...

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Let''s try that oval again. First photo came out fuzzy...

 

[chris143007]

Hi guys, hi Rich

I''m killing time waiting to go to FedEx...Rich, give me a call when you get a chance so we can go over the app...

I think what is ''bugging'' me is the difference in IS images. One seems to show very good light return while the other shows good light return FOR this shape. I probably am overanalyzing, but as belle said, it''s over $$$

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Give me a call after you''ve had a chance to look at the diamond for a while. That''s the crucial test, the visual presentation. I think your anxieties will disappear once you see it.

 

[chris143007]

Rich,
will do...and don''t think I''m not going to comment on your appraisal! Great job...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yes Rich -too much light- the 8* ACA new line type girdle leakage should be only vaguely able to be visible.
How are you holding the stone?

 

[chris143007]

Hi guys,
I''ve been working on the road today and at every stop light pulling the stone out and looking at it!

Here are some pics that were taken during appraisal...

 

[icelady]

WHOA!! That''s pretty gorgeous!

 

[belle]

how''ya like it now????

 

[chris143007]

I''m liking it more and more...

the one thing that was bugging me was the IS images; I felt/feel like the search vs results were contradictory...

Ex: I find a great #s stone, see a great IS image, get it appraised by a top notch appraiser, he sends me an ''off'' IS image and I receive the diamond w/ 3 days to decide if this is the one I spend my hard earned $ on for my gf. Now, I''ve only seen maybe 20 radiants and some were not nice and others performed well. What makes this one stand out? Well, that''s where I was depending on the experts...but in an ironic way, it comes down to my rookie eyes.

 

[belle]

it''s your $$$$''s, should be good in your eyes!!!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/21/2004 8:40:43 PM
Author: chris143007

I''m liking it more and more...

the one thing that was bugging me was the IS images; I felt/feel like the search vs results were contradictory...

Ex: I find a great #s stone, see a great IS image, get it appraised by a top notch appraiser, he sends me an ''off'' IS image and I receive the diamond w/ 3 days to decide if this is the one I spend my hard earned $ on for my gf. Now, I''ve only seen maybe 20 radiants and some were not nice and others performed well. What makes this one stand out? Well, that''s where I was depending on the experts...but in an ironic way, it comes down to my rookie eyes.

Chris, as the vendor here I would like to help clarify. Different methods of taking IS imagery explain the difference you observed.

My understanding is that Rich uses a setup like figure A (Rich if I misunderstood, please correct me). It assures the stone''s table will be level, but requires more intense backlighting. I believe ambient light could have had an effect on the image in his setup.

We use the tray setup in figure B. It requires less intense backlighting and the table of the diamond falls inside the IS to eliminate irrelevant reflections. The only trick is making sure the table is level.

Additionally, we use a controlled environment. The only light source is the main backlight. Rich may do this too - not sure.

Clearly this is not a criticism, as IS photo methods are not standardized. We hold Rich in very high regard. A difference in photography resulted in this issue, not the quality of your awesome diamond, or the quality of the honorable Mr. Sherwood. I have a PM in to Rich to comment as well, but wanted to post this ASAP, as you should be able to enjoy this day.

Hope this helps.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Just to show our own evolution - and the difference approach can have on these images - here are photos of the same diamond using 2 different systems.

The left image was taken using Garry's tray system (diagram B above)
The right image was taken using our old system.

(For those not familiar with the "Rapid Photo System Tray" - click here.)

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/21/2004 8:40:43 PM
Author: chris143007

Well, that''s where I was depending on the experts...but in an ironic way, it comes down to my rookie eyes.

Would you call "expert" someone who tries to tell you what to like ? Seriously...

I would call yours a very thoroughly educated guess indeed, after all that''s been said and done on this thread. There aren''t many appraisals brought into question around here, you must have noticed.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hi John (and Garry). That's an accurate rendition of the photo taking method I use. A couple comments -

1. I also use a controlled lighting environment (darkroom), with no ambient light
2. The pane of glass on the camera is very thin compared to that diagrammed. The end result is a diamond held at the distance Gary demonstrates on his "how to use" section of his site.
3. The image produced by my system matches what I see with my eyes using the Idealscope. The only way I could get the image to match your photograph was to hold the stone slightly inside the rim. At this distance, the image is out of focus and darker in color, such as your IS photo of the radiant. A diamond which is at the correct distance will be in focus.

Let me state here that I have the highest regard for Whiteflash's methods and integrity. I have always found their diamonds to be properly represented, with no signs whatsoever of "sleight of hand". I agree as well that this is a photography issue. The question is whose photography is more near the actual image.

Regardless, I found the radiant to be a compelling stone, with tons of sex appeal...

I'll experiment more with the backlighting, and order one of Garry's backlighting units as well.

Thanks,

 

[Richard Sherwood]

An excerpt from Garry's site:

--------------
Note:
- Do not hold the stone inside the pink edge of the Ideal-Scope
--------------

 

[JohnQuixote]

(and he counters with...)

An excerpt from Garry''s site:

------------------

- Place pink reflector over the stone

------------------

You''re looking at the page instructing use when tweezing a stone, Rich.
See here in the manufacturer''s section for info on using the tray.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Very busy - no time to comment - I will though - but it may take a while

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Is that pane of glass shown "over" the stone...?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

...

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Nothing like a good technique debate three days before Christmas...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Rich, the stone is on top of the glass in the tray system - as in diagram B.

TomAYto. ToMAHto.

Date: 12/22/2004 12:21

7 AM
Author: Richard Sherwood
Nothing like a good technique debate three days before Christmas...

LOL...(balancing on stool...putting star on tree...)

 

[chris143007]

Hi guys,

Another pic...

I always enjoy the dialogue back and forth as I learn alot from it and I hope that it helps others.

 

[icelady]

Chris! Talk about cracked ice look!!! You commented about it coming down to your "rookie" eyes. You have educated yourself well before making this purchase. You have also found out why you have to see a Radiant to know how it performs and whether it is for you or not.

This looks like a lovely stone, are you going to keep it? Even Garry commented that "this is a fairly nice radiant as radiants go". Lord knows how he feels about colorless Radiants!

I think you have a winner!