Closing In on the Rock Open to Inputs

[orgopeach]

I got the following images: 40X, ASET, IS from Whiteflash. A Sarin report will be issued Monday. Knowing that the 3Cs are relatively fixed, I'm focused on the Cut and its effects on fire, brillance, and scintilation. Is there any more information I should ask for? It scores a 1.7 on HCA (Excellent everything except very good spread) and a 1A by AGA on everything except crown angle (1B). The planned setting is Tiffany knife edge.

 

[orgopeach]

ASET

 

[orgopeach]

40X

 

[orgopeach]

IS

 

[JoeNewbie11]

There''s definitely a ring of leakage as shown in the IS image. Depending on the size of this stone, it may are may not make a difference.

 

[orgopeach]

Thanks. Now that you mention it. It does have some leakage. I'm looking at another stone too. Does this second IS picture look better?

 

[orgopeach]

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond.php?d=4384&shape=1&ctMin=1.35&ctMax=1.4&clarity=31&color=7&resultsColumns=268435471&singleResult=1#script

 

[stone-cold11]

Prefer the GOG stone.

 

[swingirl]

If you are fixed on cut why not look at WF''s ACA? Is their inventory low for your specs?

 

[orgopeach]

Yes, I did consider but they had no inventory for my specs...

 

[orgopeach]

If you had to pick one or the other? Which one would you go for?

 

[swingirl]

I like the GOG stone much better. I am guessing it is more expensive?

 

[orgopeach]

Correct. It is 14.2 k WF versus 15.3 k for GOG.

WF brought the diamond from an outside vendor. From what they sent me below, if I decided not to purchase and let them know, am I off the hook for the 75? It sounded to be me like if I decide not to purchase AND do not let them I will be responsible for 75. That was how I read it.

"3. Should the diamond meet all Whiteflash standards of performance and you then decide not to purchase the diamond or fail to
respond within 24 hours of notification of diamond images sent and provided to you, then you will be charged $75.00 to return the diamond to the
manufacturer. "

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 1/2/2009 11:32:08 PM
Author: orgopeach
Correct. It is 14.2 k WF versus 15.3 k for GOG.

WF brought the diamond from an outside vendor. From what they sent me below, if I decided not to purchase and let them know, am I off the hook for the 75? It sounded to be me like if I decide not to purchase AND do not let them I will be responsible for 75. That was how I read it.

'3. Should the diamond meet all Whiteflash standards of performance and you then decide not to purchase the diamond or fail to
respond within 24 hours of notification of diamond images sent and provided to you, then you will be charged $75.00 to return the diamond to the
manufacturer. '

You pay them IF the stone meets their standards and you decide not to purchase. If they bring it in and say "It's a dog!" then you don't pay. Did they tell you it meets their standards? That is all that matters. The "or" means that if they say "it is a dog" and you don't reply within 24 hours, you still pay.

ETA: the GOG stone looks to have better performance, but it isn't clear to me that you will be able to really see the difference between the two in person. The WF stone has a little leakage around the center, but will it matter? Only you can really decide that and also only you can decide whether it is worth the extra $1000 to ensure that the stone is "perfect".

 

[orgopeach]

Thanks for the response. On second read, it makes sense what you said.

Is the WF stone "Very Good" according to this chart?
http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart.asp

Is the GOG "Excellent"?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 1/3/2009 12:24:51 AM
Author: orgopeach
Thanks for the response. On second read, it makes sense what you said.

Is the WF stone ''Very Good'' according to this chart?
http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart.asp

Is the GOG ''Excellent''?

I think the GOG stone certainly is, and it was hand selected by the GOG people and they are real optics nuts so it is probably a very good performer. But I''m not sure about the WF, perhaps it is between VG and Excellent. But the HCA says different, so I am not sure... I think you need to ask WF their opinion of the stone. They are very honest. How do they comment on the light performance?

Maybe Gary H will interpret the IS image, or other experts when things "pick up" around here over the next couple days.

 

[orgopeach]

What''s the best way to get Garry''s attention? Is there a PM function?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 1/3/2009 1:04:48 AM
Author: orgopeach
What''s the best way to get Garry''s attention? Is there a PM function?

You can start a new thread with the pictures and say "Experts, how does this idealscope look to you?" That may get their attention... or like I said, you can just wait a bit, this is a slow time on night here on PS, it is busier during the week. Just bump your thread periodically and people will see it.

 

[swingirl]

Whether you owe the $75 is up to WF. They may decide they want to keep it for their inventory or they may not.

This might help evaluate the idealscope.

http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart.asp

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/3/2009 1:04:48 AM
Author: orgopeach
What''s the best way to get Garry''s attention? Is there a PM function?

Just start a thread titled Would Like Garry''s Assistance or something similar, he should see it.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 1/2/2009 11:32:08 PM
Author: orgopeach
Correct. It is 14.2 k WF versus 15.3 k for GOG.

WF brought the diamond from an outside vendor. From what they sent me below, if I decided not to purchase and let them know, am I off the hook for the 75? It sounded to be me like if I decide not to purchase AND do not let them I will be responsible for 75. That was how I read it.

''3. Should the diamond meet all Whiteflash standards of performance and you then decide not to purchase the diamond or fail to
respond within 24 hours of notification of diamond images sent and provided to you, then you will be charged $75.00 to return the diamond to the
manufacturer. ''

Orgo,

It would be good to understand better what seems the discrepancy between the poor performance of the IS on this diamond vs by the numbers and looks would perform better. It''s like...why does WF even use the IS in pictures, if documentation like that is used to confirm a stone''s good performance. If you do reject it...you might like ask them to back up their practices altogether, before accepting their charge to you of $75.

 

[orgopeach]

Date: 1/3/2009 9:29:05 PM
Author: Regular Guy

It would be good to understand better what seems the discrepancy between the poor performance of the IS on this diamond vs by the numbers and looks would perform better. It''s like...why does WF even use the IS in pictures, if documentation like that is used to confirm a stone''s good performance. If you do reject it...you might like ask them to back up their practices altogether, before accepting their charge to you of $75.

Thanks, good point. There is no flush language on the "Whiteflash standard" It''s worth a shot.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/4/2009 12:07:35 AM
Author: orgopeach

Date: 1/3/2009 9:29:05 PM
Author: Regular Guy

It would be good to understand better what seems the discrepancy between the poor performance of the IS on this diamond vs by the numbers and looks would perform better. It''s like...why does WF even use the IS in pictures, if documentation like that is used to confirm a stone''s good performance. If you do reject it...you might like ask them to back up their practices altogether, before accepting their charge to you of $75.
Ira I think this is a standard charge to call in a stone and take the photo''s and scans etc. It covers shipping and services and is less than an appraisal fee.

Thanks, good point. There is no flush language on the ''Whiteflash standard'' It''s worth a shot.

Hi Orgopeach,
You have posted in a couple of places - this one seems to have more info.
The GOG stone has a better cut, but there is a price difference and the WF stone is cheaper and did I read that it is also a better clarity?
So the issue is the trade off between cut and ''value''. Afraid i cant help you there - its your $''s not mine.
But the portions of the WF stone that will not be as sparkley are perhaps 5% - certainly less than 10%.
Also the WF lighting for the ideal-scope is quite a lot brighter than what GOG use, so the leakage difference may be exaggerated.

 

[orgopeach]

Thanks for the response Garry. The clarity and carat is higher on the WF. The 1k makes no difference to me, so I guess the tradeoff is higher clarity and carat vs better cut.