1.17 IF/G Review Please
- Thread starter dameisers
- Start date
- Status
No, you are just arguing semantics. This is getting ridiculous. I don't think this stone is for her *because* she herself questioned the price. She herself expressed the desire for a 2c - 1.17 is a big difference. I've been around these boards long enough to have a pretty good handle on what posters are saying.
And, I'm not here to argue with you.
aljdewey
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 9,170
If you had read my post carefully you would have noted ......I didn't write that anyone was wrong.
No, you didn't write it, but telling people what questions they should ask before offering input is tantamount to the same thing. If F&I thought she needed such clarification before offering an opinion, she would have asked for it. She's certainly done it before, and she's not particularly shy about doing it again. Again, there was no need to clarify...it was evidently obvious to several people that she was buying the IF as a buffer, not as a desired preference.
And yet none spoke about any of the other properties of the stone. There is much more to see in/from a diamond than inclusions.
Untrue. Plenty of folks commented how beautiful the diamond was, etc.....they were speaking of the many properties of the stone collectively. Saying that the diamond looks lovely IS commenting on it's crown/pavilion/table, etc properties.
Yes, there is much more to a diamond than it's inclusions. However, THE POSTER HERSELF commented that she wanted a larger stone. (I point this out again because it seems like some of you either keep missing it or ignoring it.)
When I look at the properties of this stone that could be tweaked without visual sacrifice to get her to the larger stone....well, sorry, Dave, but clarity's where I see that adjustment potentially happening.
I personally wouldn't suggest dropping to an L color to preserve clarity...nor would I suggest dropping back on cut. That leaves clarity.
What she's being told (by several people) is: you CAN have the larger stone you desire if you drop back on clarity (which you've selected as a buffer, not as a preference).
No, you didn't write it, but telling people what questions they should ask before offering input is tantamount to the same thing. If F&I thought she needed such clarification before offering an opinion, she would have asked for it. She's certainly done it before, and she's not particularly shy about doing it again. Again, there was no need to clarify...it was evidently obvious to several people that she was buying the IF as a buffer, not as a desired preference.
And yet none spoke about any of the other properties of the stone. There is much more to see in/from a diamond than inclusions.
Untrue. Plenty of folks commented how beautiful the diamond was, etc.....they were speaking of the many properties of the stone collectively. Saying that the diamond looks lovely IS commenting on it's crown/pavilion/table, etc properties.
Yes, there is much more to a diamond than it's inclusions. However, THE POSTER HERSELF commented that she wanted a larger stone. (I point this out again because it seems like some of you either keep missing it or ignoring it.)
When I look at the properties of this stone that could be tweaked without visual sacrifice to get her to the larger stone....well, sorry, Dave, but clarity's where I see that adjustment potentially happening.
I personally wouldn't suggest dropping to an L color to preserve clarity...nor would I suggest dropping back on cut. That leaves clarity.
What she's being told (by several people) is: you CAN have the larger stone you desire if you drop back on clarity (which you've selected as a buffer, not as a preference).
wanderlost
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Messages
- 124
Hey guys... I think we scared dameisers away.... Let's let this thread rest so that if she does come back she doesn't have to see this mess (and we get to look at another pretty stone she finds)...
- Status
300x240.png)