Did anyone see how much this pink was?

[TristanC]

Hi I was too slow, but did anyone see how much this stone was listed at? Many thanks!

http://www.fancydiamonds.net/view_diamonds/6019.htm

It is a 0.52 vs2 GIA fancy light pink round diamond

 

[kenny]

I noticed that one showed up this morning, already RESERVED-at-birth like many of the most-desireable FCDs are.
I didn't see the price but I immediately thought of you when I saw it.
Since it almost certainly was from Argyle mine but didn't rank an Argyle laser inscription or report it probably was very attractively priced.
Plus the color saturation look quite strong for Fancy Light.
A round that is only 60% deep (and the side view showing the girdle was well-placed is wonderful too).
I can see why it was gobbled up so quickly.

 

[acebruin]

you can click on pink diamonds... and then sort by price... my guess is around 12-13k...

 

[LD]

Tristan look on the bright side:-

1. It has strong blue fluor - so let's hope that it makes the diamond look brown in some lights.
2. You can see the orange in the photo so let's pretend that actually that would be HORRIBLE in real life.
3. It's way overpriced ............ (ok, I don't know but let's assume it is)
4. Turn it over and it's got great big chips out of it
5. In 2 years the buyer will find out that it's really irradiated and GIA got it wrong

Ok, none of that apart from #1 (which might be true) is fact but if it was meant to be yours you'd have seen it in time! Fate usually intervenes for a reason!

 

[kenny]

you can click on pink diamonds... and then sort by price... my guess is around 12-13k...

Clever!
Thanks!

 

[T L]

Tristan look on the bright side:-

1. It has strong blue fluor - so let's hope that it makes the diamond look brown in some lights.
2. You can see the orange in the photo so let's pretend that actually that would be HORRIBLE in real life.
3. It's way overpriced ............ (ok, I don't know but let's assume it is)
4. Turn it over and it's got great big chips out of it
5. In 2 years the buyer will find out that it's really irradiated and GIA got it wrong

Ok, none of that apart from #1 (which might be true) is fact but if it was meant to be yours you'd have seen it in time! Fate usually intervenes for a reason!

LOL LD, you sound like me when I try to talk myself out of missing a fabulous gem.

In all honesty though, I do see orange in that stone, I really do.

 

[LD]

Tristan look on the bright side:-

1. It has strong blue fluor - so let's hope that it makes the diamond look brown in some lights.
2. You can see the orange in the photo so let's pretend that actually that would be HORRIBLE in real life.
3. It's way overpriced ............ (ok, I don't know but let's assume it is)
4. Turn it over and it's got great big chips out of it
5. In 2 years the buyer will find out that it's really irradiated and GIA got it wrong

Ok, none of that apart from #1 (which might be true) is fact but if it was meant to be yours you'd have seen it in time! Fate usually intervenes for a reason!

LOL LD, you sound like me when I try to talk myself out of missing a fabulous gem.

In all honesty though, I do see orange in that stone, I really do.

Me too!

More worryingly, have you noticed that the image is the same in 3 photos? Why would they photoshop like that?????

 

[VapidLapid]

Tristan look on the bright side:-

1. It has strong blue fluor - so let's hope that it makes the diamond look brown in some lights.
2. You can see the orange in the photo so let's pretend that actually that would be HORRIBLE in real life.
3. It's way overpriced ............ (ok, I don't know but let's assume it is)
4. Turn it over and it's got great big chips out of it
5. In 2 years the buyer will find out that it's really irradiated and GIA got it wrong

Ok, none of that apart from #1 (which might be true) is fact but if it was meant to be yours you'd have seen it in time! Fate usually intervenes for a reason!

LOL LD, you sound like me when I try to talk myself out of missing a fabulous gem.

In all honesty though, I do see orange in that stone, I really do.

Me too!

More worryingly, have you noticed that the image is the same in 3 photos? Why would they photoshop like that?????

AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!
It is true.

and very clever, Mr. Clever, about sorting by price.

 

[kenny]

Tristan look on the bright side:-

1. It has strong blue fluor - so let's hope that it makes the diamond look brown in some lights.
2. You can see the orange in the photo so let's pretend that actually that would be HORRIBLE in real life.
3. It's way overpriced ............ (ok, I don't know but let's assume it is)
4. Turn it over and it's got great big chips out of it
5. In 2 years the buyer will find out that it's really irradiated and GIA got it wrong

Ok, none of that apart from #1 (which might be true) is fact but if it was meant to be yours you'd have seen it in time! Fate usually intervenes for a reason!

LOL LD, you sound like me when I try to talk myself out of missing a fabulous gem.

In all honesty though, I do see orange in that stone, I really do.

Me too!

More worryingly, have you noticed that the image is the same in 3 photos? Why would they photoshop like that?????

I noticed that long ago.
While I don't care for it and it may seem like laziness, I'd guess it to be a time saver rather than anything deceptive.
Examples of deceptive photoshopping would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage or the other vendor I caught photoshopping out a prominent inclusion under the table, or the one who admitted photoshopping THE EXACT SAME perfect star onto every star sapphire they list.

Taking macro pics can be very time consuming.
If you can take one good pic and use it in 3 ways it may seem like an efficient use of time.

Often PS members DO go bananas over Photoshopping, sometimes unfairly IMHO.
I "correct" every image I take to bring it closer to what I feel is accurate.
There is honest use of Photoshop, and there is deceptive use of Photoshop, just like both good and bad people use telephones and cars.
That does not make cars and telephones bad things; they, like Photoshop, are just tools.
What matters is the intent of the tool user.

 

[justginger]

I saw it, at 12 and change. I also saw a pink asscher that piqued my interest...and has now completely vanished. Not on new items, not in the Argyle section, not sold.

 

[TristanC]

Hmm from the photos, it seems a touch orange. And it is graded one lighter colour than mine... but at 12+ change, it is cheap for a half carat round. I paid more than double that... Ah well. A page from LD's book is in order.

I know the one you are talking about. The 0.22ct asscher right? it was lovely and at just over 4k, i nearly bought it. Except I took a bath on some stocks so I'm spending less time on PS these days to quell the itch

 

[T L]

I think this stone is a great buy. Rare color and large size. Imagine this in rose gold.

http://www.fancydiamonds.net/view_diamonds/5815.htm

 

[acebruin]

wait... what asscher? i completely missed it! do you remember specs?

 

[LD]

I think this stone is a great buy. Rare color and large size. Imagine this in rose gold.

http://www.fancydiamonds.net/view_diamonds/5815.htm

And now imagine it NOT in rose gold and it's truly spectacular. OMG this is seriously yummy.

 

[LD]

Tristan look on the bright side:-

1. It has strong blue fluor - so let's hope that it makes the diamond look brown in some lights.
2. You can see the orange in the photo so let's pretend that actually that would be HORRIBLE in real life.
3. It's way overpriced ............ (ok, I don't know but let's assume it is)
4. Turn it over and it's got great big chips out of it
5. In 2 years the buyer will find out that it's really irradiated and GIA got it wrong

Ok, none of that apart from #1 (which might be true) is fact but if it was meant to be yours you'd have seen it in time! Fate usually intervenes for a reason!

LOL LD, you sound like me when I try to talk myself out of missing a fabulous gem.

In all honesty though, I do see orange in that stone, I really do.

Me too!

More worryingly, have you noticed that the image is the same in 3 photos? Why would they photoshop like that?????

I noticed that long ago.
While I don't care for it and it may seem like laziness, I'd guess it to be a time saver rather than anything deceptive.
Examples of deceptive photoshopping would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage or the other vendor I caught photoshopping out a prominent inclusion under the table, or the one who admitted photoshopping THE EXACT SAME perfect star onto every star sapphire they list.

Taking macro pics can be very time consuming.
If you can take one good pic and use it in 3 ways it may seem like an efficient use of time.

Often PS members DO go bananas over Photoshopping, sometimes unfairly IMHO.
I "correct" every image I take to bring it closer to what I feel is accurate.
There is honest use of Photoshop, and there is deceptive use of Photoshop, just like both good and bad people use telephones and cars.
That does not make cars and telephones bad things; they, like Photoshop, are just tools.
What matters is the intent of the tool user.

I'm sorry Kenny I don't agree. I can't see how you can apply one rule to one and another to others! I know that you have the highest regard for Leibish as do many of us but for the prices they charge they shouldn't be sloppy or trying to save time. They should spend the time by photographing several images to help buyers make informed choices. Most of their "adverts" for want of a better word, do have multiple different images and I admire that. However, once a vendor starts enlarging the same image to make it appear different or cropping out tweezers I get concerned. There is simply no need for this.

 

[T L]

I think this stone is a great buy. Rare color and large size. Imagine this in rose gold.

http://www.fancydiamonds.net/view_diamonds/5815.htm

And now imagine it NOT in rose gold and it's truly spectacular. OMG this is seriously yummy.

They just listed a grey diamond in rose gold, I love it, but I know it's not your thing.

 

[kenny]

Tristan look on the bright side:-

1. It has strong blue fluor - so let's hope that it makes the diamond look brown in some lights.
2. You can see the orange in the photo so let's pretend that actually that would be HORRIBLE in real life.
3. It's way overpriced ............ (ok, I don't know but let's assume it is)
4. Turn it over and it's got great big chips out of it
5. In 2 years the buyer will find out that it's really irradiated and GIA got it wrong

Ok, none of that apart from #1 (which might be true) is fact but if it was meant to be yours you'd have seen it in time! Fate usually intervenes for a reason!

LOL LD, you sound like me when I try to talk myself out of missing a fabulous gem.

In all honesty though, I do see orange in that stone, I really do.

Me too!

More worryingly, have you noticed that the image is the same in 3 photos? Why would they photoshop like that?????

I noticed that long ago.
While I don't care for it and it may seem like laziness, I'd guess it to be a time saver rather than anything deceptive.
Examples of deceptive photoshopping would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage or the other vendor I caught photoshopping out a prominent inclusion under the table, or the one who admitted photoshopping THE EXACT SAME perfect star onto every star sapphire they list.

Taking macro pics can be very time consuming.
If you can take one good pic and use it in 3 ways it may seem like an efficient use of time.

Often PS members DO go bananas over Photoshopping, sometimes unfairly IMHO.
I "correct" every image I take to bring it closer to what I feel is accurate.
There is honest use of Photoshop, and there is deceptive use of Photoshop, just like both good and bad people use telephones and cars.
That does not make cars and telephones bad things; they, like Photoshop, are just tools.
What matters is the intent of the tool user.

I'm sorry Kenny I don't agree. I can't see how you can apply one rule to one and another to others! I know that you have the highest regard for Leibish as do many of us but for the prices they charge they shouldn't be sloppy or trying to save time. They should spend the time by photographing several images to help buyers make informed choices. Most of their "adverts" for want of a better word, do have multiple different images and I admire that. However, once a vendor starts enlarging the same image to make it appear different or cropping out tweezers I get concerned. There is simply no need for this.

No problem.
I respect your opinion.

Perhaps they will see the thread and see that using the same image more than once to make it appear as more than one pic is ill-advised

 

[Rockdiamond]

Tristan look on the bright side:-

1. It has strong blue fluor - so let's hope that it makes the diamond look brown in some lights.
2. You can see the orange in the photo so let's pretend that actually that would be HORRIBLE in real life.
3. It's way overpriced ............ (ok, I don't know but let's assume it is)
4. Turn it over and it's got great big chips out of it
5. In 2 years the buyer will find out that it's really irradiated and GIA got it wrong

Ok, none of that apart from #1 (which might be true) is fact but if it was meant to be yours you'd have seen it in time! Fate usually intervenes for a reason!

LOL LD, you sound like me when I try to talk myself out of missing a fabulous gem.

In all honesty though, I do see orange in that stone, I really do.

Me too!

More worryingly, have you noticed that the image is the same in 3 photos? Why would they photoshop like that?????

I noticed that long ago.
While I don't care for it and it may seem like laziness, I'd guess it to be a time saver rather than anything deceptive.
Examples of deceptive photoshopping would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage or the other vendor I caught photoshopping out a prominent inclusion under the table, or the one who admitted photoshopping THE EXACT SAME perfect star onto every star sapphire they list.

Taking macro pics can be very time consuming.
If you can take one good pic and use it in 3 ways it may seem like an efficient use of time.

Often PS members DO go bananas over Photoshopping, sometimes unfairly IMHO.
I "correct" every image I take to bring it closer to what I feel is accurate.
There is honest use of Photoshop, and there is deceptive use of Photoshop, just like both good and bad people use telephones and cars.
That does not make cars and telephones bad things; they, like Photoshop, are just tools.
What matters is the intent of the tool user.

Interesting statement Kenny- especially since you've been so constantly critical of certain vendors and seem to be specifically referring to one in your post.
As a photographer yourself, you surely understand that using available light to take pictures is nothing like using Photoshop to digitally alter images- isn't that correct?

 

[kenny]

Intent is key.

Using Photoshop to remove tweezers, add a cast shadow or rotate a pic is in no way deceptive about the diamond.
It's not like anyone expects a pair of tweezers will be superglued to the diamond or not, or a diamond may or may not cast a shadow on a reflective surface, or the diamond will always and only be oriented horizontally or vertically or at 45 degrees.

IOW, what they are changing doesn't really matter any more than displaying the same painting in a different frame, which doesn't come with the painting anyway.
It's the painting itself that you are buying.

They are not using Photoshop in an unethical way, such as altering hue or saturation or concealing windowing or inclusions.
Shining light into the pavilion of a diamond may conceal windowing and leakage in diamonds that may be poorly cut; That is deceptive IMHO.

Taking one pic and presenting that same pic in 3 ways is disappointing to me.
It could be argued to be efficient use of time or at worst laziness, but it is in no way deception.
When buying online I also would certainly prefer to see 3 separately-taken pics, since I feel that would tell me more about the diamond than the same pic presented 3 ways.

People with little understanding of what's actually being done with photoshop may jump to the uninformed opinion that all Photoshopping is bad.
Let's be smart about tools like photoshop or lighting.
Tools themselves are not bad, but a vendor's intent when using them (and what exactly they do with the tools) is key.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Kenny,
In the effort to preserve the post I was responding to I included the entire post- but I was only responding to the following statement

"Examples of deceptive photoshopping would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage"

I say this just to clarify the fact that I am making no comment whatsoever about any other vendor.

I do agree with you 100%- intent is exactly what makes or breaks a photo. Or a song, painting, written word, etc.....

 

[kenny]

Here is a quote of what I wrote:

...
Examples of deceptive photoshopping would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage or the other vendor I caught photoshopping out a prominent inclusion under the table, or the one who admitted photoshopping THE EXACT SAME perfect star onto every star sapphire they list.


After my 45-minute editing window expired I noticed an error since lighting is not photoshopping.
My sentence should read . . .

Examples of deception would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage or the other vendor I caught photoshopping out a prominent inclusion under the table, or the one who admitted photoshopping THE EXACT SAME perfect star onto every star sapphire they list.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here is a quote of what I wrote:

I noticed that long ago.
While I don't care for it and it may seem like laziness, I'd guess it to be a time saver rather than anything deceptive.
Examples of deceptive photoshopping would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage or the other vendor I caught photoshopping out a prominent inclusion under the table, or the one who admitted photoshopping THE EXACT SAME perfect star onto every star sapphire they list.


After my 45-minute editing window expired I noticed an error, lighting is not photoshopping.
My sentence should read . . .

Examples of deception would be that vendor who backlights diamonds to make it impossible to evaluate windowing/leakage or the other vendor I caught photoshopping out a prominent inclusion under the table, or the one who admitted photoshopping THE EXACT SAME perfect star onto every star sapphire they list.

And just to be clear since you're making a rather serious insinuation/accusation of deceptive behavior, who are you referring to?

 

[justginger]

Back to earlier discussion - acebruin, the asscher I saw was a fancy pink, .22 as Tristan said, and an "eye clean" SI2. I have very good vision though (actually, poor vision that results in microscopic nearsightedness!), so I am sure it would not have fit eye clean for me. It had a large feather that was prominent in the photos. But it was also Arglye, gorgeous, and about 4400. I was *this* close to snatching it - but then I thought about my upcoming holiday and closed the browser.

 

[acebruin]

whoah! good thing i didn't see it, or i might have snapped it as well! hahahah

but i did see these wicked pair a couple of days ago...

http://www.fancydiamonds.net/view_diamonds/5997.htm

 

[TristanC]

There was a definitely visible feather. So eyeclean from like a foot away, definitely. Eyeclean from 1 inch staring for your life to find it? I think not.

It was ridiculously nice in all other regards, with an argyle inscription and not too deep for only 4400 before discounts and stuff... Instant buy territory. I was surprised it made it through more than 1 day.

I wish Rockdiamond would stop stirring the pot. I can't imagine him ever winning fans. Ugh. Why don't vendors go for tact classes.

And from what i remember, Kenny has been on this side before regarding photography of sapphires from online vendors. Saying that photo shop is acceptable if the intent was not to deceive.

 

[LD]

There was a definitely visible feather. So eyeclean from like a foot away, definitely. Eyeclean from 1 inch staring for your life to find it? I think not.

It was ridiculously nice in all other regards, with an argyle inscription and not too deep for only 4400 before discounts and stuff... Instant buy territory. I was surprised it made it through more than 1 day.

I wish Rockdiamond would stop stirring the pot. I can't imagine him ever winning fans. Ugh. Why don't vendors go for tact classes.

And from what i remember, Kenny has been on this side before regarding photography of sapphires from online vendors. Saying that photo shop is acceptable if the intent was not to deceive.

I have the greatest respect for you Tristan but I'm sorry this is totally out of order.

I have bought from David (DBL) and he was a pleasure to work with. He found my chameleon for me and sold it at a price that Leibish could never match so I'm sorry but unless you've bought from him, I don't think it's fair to judge. David's a straight talker and some don't appreciate that and yes, he doesn't always make many fans along the way (sorry David) however Kenny has made references in his post above that are a direct attack on David. I recognised who he was referencing and I'm sure others did. I chose to ignore it because it wasn't part of this thread but David responded. I'm not siding with anybody and so haven't said anything until now but the continual attacks against David are really getting a bit tiresome (sorry Kenny but that's my opinion). If David misrepresents his diamonds with his photography (and I don't believe he does as I've bought 3 separate times from him) he also has a good returns policy which is more than some companies have! So give the bloke a break, please!

 

[kenny]

I am just explaining what I see.
Lighting the pavilion can conceal leaky cut.

The more a person knows about lighting, photography and cut the more they will get it.
Only a few here have first hand knowledge and experience at this level of macro photography.

That there are happy customers is great but frankly that has nothing to do with this technical issue.
Perhaps when I get time I'll start a new thread with various examples of the lighting of a leaky diamond that I own.

This is nothing personal.
I have demonstrated some knowledge of macro photography and am posting as a consumer advocate.
Over the years I have raised concerns about several vendors, even the ones I love and buy from.

 

[LD]

Kenny I understand what you're saying but I'm a happy customer of Davids and don't have a problem with his photography.

I don't know if you've ever bought from David but if you're interested in a diamond he will take additional photos and I'm attaching one for you to see that he took for me. I was interested in the marquise ring but wanted to compare it for size with a few other rings he had. David readily took additional photos. So purchasers don't have to rely on his videos, he will go the extra mile etc. As it happens I didn't have the funds and then lost out to somebody else (a big regret because I WANTED that marquise ring)!

I hate to see you and David spat all the time and it's usually about the photography. I don't know enough (or need to know) more than I already do but I appreciate you both have very different ideas on the subject.

As I said, I'm really not siding with anybody (and hope you understand that) but I didn't like seeing David being attacked and judged unfairly - hence my post above.

I wish I'd kept my mouth shut about seeing Leibish's lazy photography now.

 

[kenny]

Thanks LD.
No worries.

Actually all these discussions, while awkward, are healthy.
I may look like a jerk to folks who were trained as children to only say nice things, and to people who are not adept with the astonishing flexibility and the power of photography to tell many different stories, but I think in the long run the consumer wins.

 

[LD]

Thanks LD.
No worries.

Actually all these discussions, while awkward, are healthy.
I may look like a jerk to folks who were trained as children to only say nice things, and to people who are not adept with the astonishing flexibility and the power of photography to tell many different stories, but I think in the long run the consumer wins.

And as you know, I've never been one of those people!