Can a video show you everything you need to know about a diamond?

[kmoro]

Uber Can Be Risky: The Risks for Passengers
Uber might seem like an ideal way to get around — you can get a ride anywhere with just the push of a button! And it may sound like an easy way to make some spare cash. All you need is a car that is less than ten years old and a clear driving record, and you can sign up to be an Uber driver!

But like many things that read well on paper, Uber is riskier than it sounds. Before hailing an Uber car, consider the following.

UBER CAN BE RISKY: LACK OF PROFESSIONAL DRIVING QUALIFICATIONS
Cab drivers adhere to specific standards. In San Francisco, for example, cab drivers must show proof of residency, good health, and hygiene, and have a driver’s license. They also must speak English, have a clean criminal record, and complete taxi driving training. In Los Angeles, prospective taxi drivers must have fingerprints on file and must pass a nationwide FBI criminal background check.

By contrast, Uber drivers just need to have a car in working order.
UBER CAN BE RISKY: FAULTY BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
While Uber does claim to perform a DMV and a federal/multi-state criminal background check, these checks are unreliable. NBC4 ran a three-month-long investigation of Uber and found multiple cases of drivers with criminal records. For example, drivers convicted of burglary, battery and assault, and drunk and reckless driving were part of the discovery.

NBC4 also asked a reformed ex-con with a 20-year rap sheet (including burglary, drug possession, and assault) to apply to drive for Uber. She filled out the application and agreed to a background check. Four weeks later, in spite of her criminal record, Uber approved her request.

While concerning, faulty background checks are an issue. A similar investigation by NBC Bay Area found that cab drivers with lengthy traffic records were also allowed to continue working.

Hi @Serg ... would you mind sharing who is using this star filter?

ETA sorry at first I thought the Uber post was an error ... lol

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I compared my H&A to other diamonds outside,under trees, under desk and all the dimly lit areas etc and still no difference. I dragged my husband a long (he’s an engineer and picks up on these things) and he didn’t see any difference. The stores we went to (recommended by price scopers) were very competitive on the pricing (especially once they knew I was shopping around online),and I can actually see my diamond which is huge plus. I like the upgrade policy too, free ring inspections/cleaning every 6 months is a plus.

JT I have standing offer for a bet with any trade person to identify the H&A's diamonds out of 10 diamonds. I am prepared to tell them how many are strict H&A's and how many are what everyone here would identify as not H&A's. No tools, just eyes.
$1,000. Any takers?
Have made the offer many times over many years.

But then, in fairness, Flawless diamonds also have a value even though none of us can separate a nice VS from a flawless with just our eyes. So its a mind thing, like a hand stitched suit.

 

[arkieb1]

I think lighting and viewing distance and even the way they photoshop their videos & images has a huge impact on things like if you can see inclusions, the point is moot with most of the good vendors here ie most of them show up everything in their stones intentionally so the buyer knows what they are getting but there are still a few that seek to hide inclusions that are eye visible in their stones. This annoys the @#*# out of me because when you are trying to explain it to a new person buying a stone it's not an "apples to apples" comparison, or even a real depiction of what they are buying.

 

[Serg]

Hi @Serg ... would you mind sharing who is using this star filter?

ETA sorry at first I thought the Uber post was an error ... lol

@kmoro
I did not do any statement about video with star filters.
I do not know any big video suppler who uses a star filter.
vision360, Segoma, Octonus, Lexus, do not use a star filter.
( I believe Sarin does not use a star filer also)
Of course it is very easy to install a star filter but a video, a photo will very unrealistic .
If somebody from our Vibox, Dibox users would use star filter we definitely will ban him on cutwise.com immediately .

 

[Serg]

JT I have standing offer for a bet with any trade person to identify the H&A's diamonds out of 10 diamonds. I am prepared to tell them how many are strict H&A's and how many are what everyone here would identify as not H&A's. No tools, just eyes.
$1,000. Any takers?
Have made the offer many times over many years.

But then, in fairness, Flawless diamonds also have a value even though none of us can separate a nice VS from a flawless with just our eyes. So its a mind thing, like a hand stitched suit.

Garry,
Diamonds with better facet flatness and less roughness have to have better brightness and be more crispy in compare with diamonds with same color, proportions,..
H&A diamonds have usually better facet flatness . Highest level symmetry is not important for Brilliancy, Fire, but facet flatness( polishing quality) is important

 

[kmoro]

@kmoro
I did not do any statement about video with star filters.
I do not know any big video suppler who uses a star filter.
vision360, Segoma, Octonus, Lexus, do not use a star filter.
( I believe Sarin does not use a star filer also)
Of course it is very easy to install a star filter but a video, a photo will very unrealistic .
If somebody from our Vibox, Dibox users would use star filter we definitely will ban him on cutwise.com immediately .

Ooops, sorry @Serg, I got the wrong poster!

@Paul-Antwerp ... I believe it was you that mentioned the star filters ... may I ask you the same question? Who is it that uses the star filter in their videos?

Thanks!

 

[JT123]

If you have an H&A diamond, it means that it has a beautiful and symmetrical cut, like the diamonds we recommend on PS. If you were comparing to similar ideal cuts, I would expect that you see no or very little difference. If you compared your H&A to poorly cut diamonds and said you saw no difference, then I would really wonder what you were seeing.

Yes I agree! I compared the WF H&A to other ideals and even some excellent cuts with similar PS worthy specs. No difference in my (or husband’s eyes).
My own diamond, which is a very good cut, didn’t sparkle quite as much as the H&A I returned. The independent appraiser I used (from PS)didn’t place more value over the H&A.That’s when I decided to go hit stores and see for myself. If a buyer does see a difference (I sure didn’t)then yeah it would probably be worth it to them to buy a H&A.

 

[JT123]

JT I have standing offer for a bet with any trade person to identify the H&A's diamonds out of 10 diamonds. I am prepared to tell them how many are strict H&A's and how many are what everyone here would identify as not H&A's. No tools, just eyes.
$1,000. Any takers?
Have made the offer many times over many years.

But then, in fairness, Flawless diamonds also have a value even though none of us can separate a nice VS from a flawless with just our eyes. So its a mind thing, like a hand stitched suit.

I would love to do a blind test.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great topic Karl!
As good as any video is it can’t tell a buyer everything they need to know. Still, some videos are better than others.
One of the things I have found is that different types of diamonds require different techniques if one wants to accurately represent them in videos.
The prominent systems are designed for ease and quickness of use, - and standardization. For this reason they will make some diamonds look better then they do in real life and others worse than IRL.
The ViBox is definitely better than the most commonly used systems. It does require a lot more skill and time per stone. Still - with all due respect for the genus it took to design it, I abandoned its use.
A simple real life video seems to work best for us. We can pick the angle and lighting that best represents the stone or ring in question.
We have far lower than average return rates- and I believe this is an important reason why.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I would love to do a blind test.

Join the trade please JT. You consumers are the best! I would probably loose $1k

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Ooops, sorry @Serg, I got the wrong poster!

@Paul-Antwerp ... I believe it was you that mentioned the star filters ... may I ask you the same question? Who is it that uses the star filter in their videos?

Thanks!

Hi kmoro,

That is an old reference, related to me knowing about 'older' effects, not aware in detail how the 'new' techniques are called. A star-filter goes in front of a lens, using etching to boost diffraction in photography. Reputable gemstone sellers have historically condemned star-filters as unnatural special effect. They are largely dormant.

But some providers of modern diamond-video solutions are pushing beyond normal conditions to promote their systems. We see supplemental “fire and sparkle” enhancement filters built into their platforms. Some of these alter appearance beyond any normally observed conditions, and may be unique, even, to their single closed environment. At the least, I believe such special effect videos should be clearly labeled for what they are.

I am not opposed to modern filters. We all have them for Instagram selfies, which is fun. But I daresay we would not be permitted to use such filters to enhance our passport identification photos. That’s where I am coming from.

Live long,

 

[kmoro]

Hi kmoro,

That is an old reference, related to me knowing about 'older' effects, not aware in detail how the 'new' techniques are called. A star-filter goes in front of a lens, using etching to boost diffraction in photography. Reputable gemstone sellers have historically condemned star-filters as unnatural special effect. They are largely dormant.

But some providers of modern diamond-video solutions are pushing beyond normal conditions to promote their systems. We see supplemental “fire and sparkle” enhancement filters built into their platforms. Some of these alter appearance beyond any normally observed conditions, and may be unique, even, to their single closed environment. At the least, I believe such special effect videos should be clearly labeled for what they are.

I am not opposed to modern filters. We all have them for Instagram selfies, which is fun. But I daresay we would not be permitted to use such filters to enhance our passport identification photos. That’s where I am coming from.

Live long,

Thank you for taking the time to explain, @Paul-Antwerp! I’m still left wondering (and guessing) who uses these filters ... but I also respect that sometimes it’s not cool to mention names