What should have I noticed in the vendor's picture

[hay joe]

What should have I noticed in the vendor's picture to avoid picking and buying such a dud? The vendor says it is a " NATURAL UNHEATED 3.71CT CUSHION CUT BLUE SAPPHIRE VVS GEMSTONE"
The first picture is the vendor's, the rest are mine. Are they the same stone?

 

[Rosebloom]

I'm definitely not an expert at interpreting photos of colored stones yet but this one seems like the seller must have done some photoshopping to the image. If that's the case there's not a lot that one can do except avoid that vendor (and let us know to avoid them too!). The most helpful pictures for me are on the back of a hand. I learned that from Chrono. They are harder for the seller to manipulate and easier for the buyer to honestly appreciate the stone's qualities. Sorry it wasn't what you were hoping for!

 

[deskjockey]

I don't think that's just photoshopping - almost looks like a completely different stone. The cut doesn't look the same to me (but I'm a newb, so may be looking at things wrong), like the facets don't meet the same way or in the same places (there's a facet that looks similar that is on the top in the vendor picture and the bottom in the buyer picture, but it doesn't meet it's neighbor the same way as the vendor pic). Am I crazy?

 

[Mico]

Wow, that looks totally different! I'm interested in hearing the feedback on this as well!

 

[chrono]

There is no photoshopping involved; the stone is one and the same as pictured. The cut looks the same and the colour differences you noted is due to the different lighting. The stone in all 3 of your photographs are tilted at an angle, hence you see a tilt window.

Can you please explain why you think this stone is a dud?

 

[deskjockey]

Huh. The angles on the top and bottom of the table look much more open in his pics than in the vendor's, but I'm pretty inexperienced at looking at these things.

 

[katharath]

I agree that it looks like the same stone but different lighting.

I'd like to see a pic from the OP that's dead on like the vendor's is - my guess is that the vendor's pic minimizes the tilt window (which looks large to me but not necessarily an "actual" window), while the OP's pics maximize the tilt window, since they all appear to be at angles. Too hard to tell without pics that show the stone from the same angle. I don't think I'd be particularly happy with the gem if the tilt window is that noticeable though. I don't feel that the vendor pic is "deceptive", though.

 

[NOYFB]

I'm certainly no expert, but it doesn't look like the same stone to me. In the vendor pic the corners are more rounded than in the OPs pics. It looks like a different shape and hence, different dimensions, to me.

 

[VapidLapid]

I concur that it looks to be the same stone but in different lighting. The vendor photo is pretty much straight on. You can see that it has a window. Look at the center, vertical facet and the ones at 6,7 and 11 o'clock from it. There is the window. It is, however a different window than the one in you photos. In yours there is a tilt window, which is to be expected.In your second picture looks it looks to be tilted at perhaps 20 degrees, which is well in the range of normal for tilt windows. The saturation looks a little different, but given the different lighting and different vantage points, that can be expected. Actually, for a 3.71 carat unheated sapphire it looks pretty good. Care to tell us what you paid and what the stone's stats are? If the window bothers you enough there may be a possibility for a recut, even staying above three carats if the dimensions are favorable.

 

[T L]

It is hard to tell from your photos, but it looks like the crown facets, and the table don't match up to the one in the vendor photo, although the general shape is the same.

Can you hold stone stone so that the table is perpendicular to the camera line of sight, and then take a new photo?

 

[hay joe]

As far as the dud comment goes, it has to be positioned carefully to not see the tilt window or extinction or lack of saturation or all three. It was cheep, so I guess I got what I paid for. I'm trying to learn to notice the nuances of stones in vendor's photos to aviod buying a dud. I was able to get a straight on shot and some others that show the stone looking better.

 

[T L]

As far as the dud comment goes, it has to be positioned carefully to not see the tilt window or extinction or lack of saturation or all three. It was cheep, so I guess I got what I paid for. I'm trying to learn to notice the nuances of stones in vendor's photos to aviod buying a dud. I was able to get a straight on shot and some others that show the stone looking better.

Not the same stone, the crown angles at the top and bottom of the table in the vendor stone are smaller than your stone. The table also looks larger in your stone. It's a similar cut, and shape, but not the same stone.

 

[chrono]

Do you have more of the vendor's pictures? The one you posted initially is quite blurry and I want to try to match up the facets. It's looking like the cut design is different now that you've posted better pictures. The original has larger facets whilst yours looks more splintery, not just the crown but the pavilion facets as well.

1. If it is cheap, there are good reasons why.
2. Picture theft can be quite bad on eBay, if that's where you purchased this one.
3. Any proof from a reputable lab that the sapphire is untreated?
4. Do the measurements of the stone match up to the lab report / vendor description?

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Yes that is what struck me as well- the table is different. The color of the stone can vary in due to lighting but the table of the stone looks different then the vendor pics.

 

[katharath]

Wow, with the better pics I definitely see what others are saying now. Particularly in the table. I'm very curious as to who the vendor is! Hay-joe, I'm not asking for specifics or anything, but I'm just curious if you feel that it was a "cheap price" or a "too good to be true" price?

As far as whether or not it's the same gem, I'm much less inclined to agree now!

 

[katharath]

But your new pics certainly make the gem appear much nicer, IMO.

 

[hay joe]

There was only 1 vendor picture, specs are "7.96x9.97x3.22 mm". I thought the shape looked slightly different also. Yes it was a ebay stone but it has a "full refund" option.

 

[T L]

There was only 1 vendor picture, specs are "7.96x9.97x3.22 mm". I thought the shape looked slightly different also. Yes it was a ebay stone but it has a "full refund" option.

That's good, but in case you have any issues, you have proof they're not the same stone, and the seller should be reported to ebay if you cannot get a refund.

 

[chrono]

I would return the stone ASAP whilst you are within the return window. You can say that the item isn't the same as the one pictured. I have suspicions that the stone isn't it is claimed to be. Seems like it doesn't have a lab report proving that it is untreated, correct?

 

[hay joe]

There was no proof of statments made about the stone. Back it goes. Thanks for all the help, again.

 

[VapidLapid]

wow, your head on shots show it is not the same stone very clearly. Good decision to send it back. Would you care to tell us who the vendor is? Perhaps it would be better to wait until you've returned it and been refunded before you tell us.

 

[txgreeneyes]

I found the auction on ebay. Not hard to find if you know how to search completed auctions.

The vendor has a lot of auctions for sapphires that sold for around $100.

Here's one: 3.78 carat cushion cut natural unheated blue sapphire for $60. Um.. Right.

I think it's wise to send this one back. Be sure to get the proper tracking to send it back to China.

Good luck!

 

[eastjavaman]

Man, and I paid thousands of dollars for the same item(unheated blue sapphire)

 

[hay joe]

.