Need advice on H&A - Specs inside

[belle]

my turn?
are we going to continue to hijack this thread about a diamond that doesn''t exist and has a (possibly) stolen idealscope image????

 

[JohnQuixote]

LOL. Strm, take a deep breath and relax.

I’m not debating angles, I am debating the validity of this whole thread which got into hair-splitting, based on doo-doo numbers from the start.

In your haste to defend you/Rhino’s position you missed the points I made methinks.

1.The image was stolen from WF (I think this is paramount).
2.The proportions don’t match the image and don’t even agree with themselves.

If someone had requested mm measurements it would have been clear something was funky. The likeliest cause seems to be the depth, borne out by the wireframe. But (the point of my second post)...there is no way to know what the measurements really are without someone credible doing actual measurements, not lifting photos and making up numbers.

These are the points. We can discuss phantom diamonds ‘til we’re blue in the screen but it’s not what this is about. It’s about jumping to conclusions based on erroneous info.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/11/2005 6:32:29 PM
Author: belle

rhino and strm,

i applaud your efforts in trying to explain this and find it interesting, as i like playing with these programs too…BUT i have to say that i don’t think you can use a 2-d caricature (haven't seen a diamond look like that!) to split hairs and determine differences in the performance of a diamond you've never even seen. the hca score already designates it as a winner (better than 95% of all diamonds on the market) but more importantly, the idealscope image looks great besides there is the possibility that the diamond in this thread could be a 34.7 crown angle and 40.8 pavilion angle…who knows if the sarin is right?

sorry boys, i am just one of those kinda girls who doesn’t think the fake ones are as good as the real thing.

Furthering the point that all bets are off in this thread...

Same wire frame, but with 34.7 and 40.8 angles (just for fun).

 

[belle]

hey! hi sir john! glad you''re here

......you mentioned something about an award earlier

 

[JohnQuixote]

Many of us could wire-frame like I did in several posts above and come up with a number of possibilities, but guys, we just don't know what the actual proportions are. It is a stolen photo used by someone as a pretend-image for numbers that don't even measure up with themselves.

Am I just way off-base in thinking this should be important?

Date: 8/12/2005 7:42:44 AM
Author: strmrdr

All that dont change the fact that a 34.9, 40.6 combo has all the problems that myself and Jon said they do.

Not the point, Strmy.

Date: 8/12/2005 7:22:28 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Although there may be agreement about the ideal procedures of getting your diamond in question to either or both an expert, or to the lighting environment in question...with respect to other reportable data points....the sufficiency of HCA and idealscope (and never mind the H&A just now) seem to be what's in question for making a judgement.

Or am I not reading this correctly?

Ira, I would kindly suggest we can't make HCA judgments for the original poster because the measurements are not certain. As far as the ideal-scope, it doesn't even represent the diamond being represented (with bad numbers) to the OP.

Date: 8/12/2005 11:56:16 AM
Author: strmrdr

For the most part the vendors didnt used to carry those combos so it wasnt an issue.

We have none of these in ACA or Expert Selection. It's yet another indicator that something is rotten in cyber-Denmark from the start of this thread.

 

[strmrdr]

OK
This weekend I will start another thread on shallow/shallow and deep/shallow combos and we can start all over discussing it.
kinda a waste when both Jon and myself have put a lot of time into this one but if it will make ya happy then so be it :}

 

[TimeTraveller]

Date: 8/12/2005 2:09:09 PM
Author: strmrdr
OK

This weekend I will start another thread on shallow/shallow and deep/shallow combos and we can start all over discussing it.

Dear sir, if you could, please post pictures illustrating what shallow/shallow and deep/shallow mean in your new thread. I am a visual learner--as many others on here--and it would be quite helpful if you had illustrations to go along with the lecture. I know I''d digest the lecture much better.

Thanks!

 

[Regular Guy]

and I'm a numerical learner...

two items

a) talking about shallow deep, you're also talking about numerical ranges. What are they?

b) is this one of these? (eta: beautiful IS!)

Regards,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/12/2005 9:57:38 AM
Author: strmrdr

You will find that hardly any people that bought diamonds from the pricescope top vendors have diamonds that this is a problem with.
Could it be that they were filtering them out all along?
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm :}

There have been a few poping up after Garry's experments with his wife's ear rings for pendants and ear rings but before that not very many of them.
More things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm :}

Exactly what I am talking about... Strm, even YOU are a victim of the fraud here.

This whole thing has become, in effect, a smear job causing some of our customers to post here and others to PM us, concerned with their purchases (none of which could be 34.9/40.6).

Please...read...carefully...

Someone lifted an image and used it to represent numbers that top vendors here are dead against. We have nothing in inventory with 34.9/40.6 but the use of that image has made people here think those numbers go with a Whiteflash diamond. NO. This is fundamentally WRONG.

Then people come into the thread saying how bad these diamonds are - giving the impression that it IS our diamond and that our ideal-scope is no good.

Do you see where I'm coming from Strm?

It is a GOOD IDEAL-SCOPE image with FALSE NUMBERS – I showed that last night and again this morning. It seems like people are working hard to tie the original numbers to that image and reflect these comments towards a Whiteflash image we have ALREADY SAID is not tied to those numbers.

If you want to start another thread about steep/shallow that’s fine but stop talking about these angles as if they match that image.

 

[strmrdr]

Unless I missed something no one said the diamond was from WF?
I know i didnt.

Those specs could belong to a diamond with an IS image that looked good but I think im seeing your point.
Ill start another thread....

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/10/2005 6:08:01 PM
Author: strmrdr



few other ways:
1> Trusted vendor looking over the diamond.
2> general rule of thumb is that if 34.x and 40.y that if y > x by more than .1 to .2 it might be an issue. But if the P angle is below 40.75 it may be more of an issue. More data is need on that.
3> .gem file using the Gem Advisor software using the office lighting setting.
4> diamcalc
5> side by side comparison in person is of course best.

Storm says:

"Unless I missed something no one said the diamond was from WF?"

Ok...but I''m talking about one from WF. See above.

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

LOL... I knew I had originally backed out of this thread for a reason.

This is one reason why I don''t trust IS images anymore especially from firms we know nothing about. Too much imagery theft going on and MANY sellers not thinking anything about stealing the images to falsely represent their own stones. This has happened to me as well more than once.

Even at that ... Neil and I are working on a joint project and Neil has sent the same stone to mutliple vendors featuring IS images and none of them even come close to the actual way the stone looks. I would no longer recommend IS images UNLESS it is accompanied by a virtual model to *prove* that it is indeed the stone in question or some other means to confirm the IS image. Admittedly my experience converting images to DiamCalc models is nil since I don''t have a specific need for that as we just generate the models directly from the diamond. Belle probably has more experience doing that than I do.

Sir John, thanks for your input and clarification. I didn''t know the image was stolen but quite frankly I wasn''t paying too much attention to it as much as I was the Sarin numbers and my experience with those numbers. As I had stated earlier I would never recommend or not recommend a stone unless I physically examine it myself and you know I prefer quite a few more numbers than have been provided.

Now that this thread is moot.... lets move on to happier things.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/12/2005 2:40:43 PM
Author: strmrdr
Unless I missed something no one said the diamond was from WF?
I know i didnt.

Those specs could belong to a diamond with an IS image that looked good but I think im seeing your point.
Ill start another thread....

Good idea Strm.

You didn’t say it was from WF but many people assumed it was.

This whole thing doesn’t feel right.

Someone posts an image with erroneous and out-of-bounds numbers along with an obviously WF ideal-scope of a perfectly good diamond. The original poster would not disclose who the seller was (just ID’d as ebay), has not returned my last two PMs.
Now people have pulled apart what is a perfectly good IS based on WRONG numbers. The result is consumers posting here and calling in about their perfectly good diamonds - and now Ira has associated this mess with another piece in our inventory!?

 

[Regular Guy]

and now Ira has associated this mess with another piece in our inventory!?

Frankly, I was just as happy to talk about a perfectly non-existent stone. I was just interested in understanding the idea.

But, that didn''t seem to work. So I tried to find a real one.

Still interested in the idea.

Regards,

 

[belle]

Date: 8/12/2005 2:09:09 PM
Author: strmrdr
OK
This weekend I will start another thread on shallow/shallow and deep/shallow combos and we can start all over discussing it.
kinda a waste when both Jon and myself have put a lot of time into this one but if it will make ya happy then so be it :}

i guess since i put less effort than you and jon into this one, it won''t be such a waste for me.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/12/2005 3:56:37 PM
Author: belle

Date: 8/12/2005 2:09:09 PM

Author: strmrdr

OK

This weekend I will start another thread on shallow/shallow and deep/shallow combos and we can start all over discussing it.

kinda a waste when both Jon and myself have put a lot of time into this one but if it will make ya happy then so be it :}

i guess since i put less effort than you and jon into this one, it won''t be such a waste for me.

Sorry belle yes ya put a lot of time into it.
Will ya ever forgive me for not mentioning ya?

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 8/12/2005 3:07:02 PM
Author: Rhino

Even at that ... Neil and I are working on a joint project and Neil has sent the same stone to mutliple vendors featuring IS images and none of them even come close to the actual way the stone looks.

I have indeed been working on a project where I’ve sent the same diamond to be photographed by several people, some with a lot of experience and others who are comparative beginners. The idea is to see what the differences were with the procedures used, the types of equipment and the varying skills of the photographer. Both Rhino and John have generously agreed to take pictures of the stone and, not surprisingly, both took great shots. I have to say that I’ve not come to the same conclusion as Jon although the project is still ongoing and I'm happy to be supportive of his project. I find that the images from the highly experienced photographers are quite similar to one another, although definitely not identical. Some of the ‘amateur’ images and those taken with deliberately skewed procedures are quite different. My most immediate observation in the project is that a standardized procedure for taking the images would make them far more useful, especially if there is some way to tell from the image how it was taken. This is something that Garry has been driving at for years. Both Brian Gavin and John from Whiteflash have been very supportive in this effort and have been extremely cooperative in sharing their techniques, their skills, their time and their desire to make the most out of this tool. I hope that we will all have something useful to report reasonably soon. Unfortunately, Rhino’s lightscope is a proprietary tool and the techniques and setups can’t be replicated by different photographers although they are very useful for comparing several stones where he has taken each picture using the same setup.

There are quite a few non-pricescope participants and I’m not sure they would like all their names mentioned here but I would also like to specifically thank Wink and Rockdoc for their contributions.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver