Any online vendors that show as much info as WF and GOG?

[BigToque]

I really like these two sites because they show you so much info about their stones.

Are there any other sites like this?

 

[decodelighted]

I haven''t seen one. Some vendors will give more photos of a specific diamond - but you have to narrow down based on specs only. There''s an Asscher thread going on with lots of pics from Excel Diamonds (Superbcert?).

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

We supply our dealers with similar info on each stone.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/5/2006 9:47:11 PM
Author: decodelighted
I haven''t seen one. Some vendors will give more photos of a specific diamond - but you have to narrow down based on specs only. There''s an Asscher thread going on with lots of pics from Excel Diamonds (Superbcert?).

While I know there needs to be a better way to represent the cut quality of asschers and radiants and many other cuts - it irritates me to see vendors showing their best photo''s, out of hundreds, for these stones.
When we see some of these dealers using the same lighting set up for rounds and fancies - we see how deceptive and how much the camera can lie. (SC have different lighting for rounds).

 

[devientdrow]

I got my stone from www.jamesallen.com On thier regualr stock they will send you the grading report. I was fortunate to go look at my stone but Jim looked it over himself and I *think* I have read of him sending people other images/info after he inspects the stone. If you look at his signature series you can not only view the grading report but they have a megascope report, Ideal scope image and magnified image. Hope this helps!

 

[WinkHPD]

Paul Antwerp is very good to arrange this for his vendors, as it is extremely time consuming for a jeweler to do. It can take an hour or more to properly examine each diamond that a jeweler adds to his site. That may include things like a top photograph, an idealscope photograph, inspect each diamond under the microscope to confirm the grade given and compare to a color master set for confirmation of color.

When you add things like the brilliancescope, Sarin, ICEE 2, ASET, and other tools you are talking not only a time commitment, but significant monetary investment in equipment. The "good" Sarin machine is something like $25,000 if my memory serves and the "cheap" one is over $5,000 last time I looked. I had one for a while, but it was so inconsistent that I sent it back, so as far as I am concerned the "cheap" one is worthless.

When you put a value on the time it takes to do all this work it is easily $50 to $100 per stone to provide all of this information. That is why it is not seen on many sites other than on request. Many of the dealers will get in parcels of many stones at a time and the time and expense to do what WF and GOG provide are beyond the capabilities of many vendors to provide.

I hope this gives you a little insite into the commitment required to provide all that information.

Wink

 

[RockDoc]

Wink is very correct, particularly about the time it takes, and the accuracy of the non contact analysis machines, based on the model, and brand of the equipment.

The $5k Sarin ( called the Brilliant Eye) is absolutely "junk" as compared to the more precise models costing 5 times as much.

I don''t know if this is true, but I''ve been told the number reported with the megascope can be "tweaked". I don''t have a Megascope, so I don''t know if it is possible.

On the Sarin, there are "adjustments" that can be made, but they are more directed at accurate calibration than they are at "fudging" the outcome.

A lot of this has to do with WHO is doing the testing. There is certainly a interest in someone selling a stone, to use the most "attractive" results based on multiple scans, than someone who is attempting to get a more accurate scan of the item.

Currently, I have a diamond that was graded a few years ago. The GIA report claims it is EX EX. It has an abbreviated Sarin label that says AGS 0 EX EX. My scans show it is off just a hair in the symmetry, and it tips the scale just enough for my Sarin Software ( the DIA Pro latest version) to result in an AGS 1 result.. So which is correct? In my opinion this EX EX is an Ex/ VG. But I don''t know yet. I do know that the slightest piece of dust or dirt on the diamond, the stage or the lenses will skew the result. I also don''t know what Sarin machine generated the original label, or what version of the software was used to get the result.

As Wink correctly pointed out - the time to get this right can be very intense. The one reasonably reliable assumption of the testing is that if the result is ex ex the Sarin won''t grade it "better", it will grade it worse. So if the result represents and EX symmetry, it isn''t going to "overstate" the resultant grading when using the advanced equipment particularly in the symmetry analysis.

Rockdoc

 

[Patty]

Excel/Superbcert gives a lot of information on each stone.

I'm not sure what you are saying, Garry, about the lighting.

Also, isn't it natural for a site to post their best pictures of each stone?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/6/2006 6:18:52 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/5/2006 9:47:11 PM

Author: decodelighted

I haven''t seen one. Some vendors will give more photos of a specific diamond - but you have to narrow down based on specs only. There''s an Asscher thread going on with lots of pics from Excel Diamonds (Superbcert?).

While I know there needs to be a better way to represent the cut quality of asschers and radiants and many other cuts - it irritates me to see vendors showing their best photo''s, out of hundreds, for these stones.

When we see some of these dealers using the same lighting set up for rounds and fancies - we see how deceptive and how much the camera can lie. (SC have different lighting for rounds).

Aset once the bugs are work out taking the photos as long as the stone continue to sit on the table is going to be the best tool for asschers and EC.

Second best is helium scan based gem files.

with a high crowned asscher the time required to properly center it for taking a great photo could be hours.
A decent one can be taken in minutes with a little luck.

I agree on the lighting.
Would be nice if there was an industry standard, self calibrating photo system.
but then what is stopping someone from messing with the photos after they are taken, nothing.