CONFUSED & Running out of time to decide! Should I return this diamond?

[gontama]

Date: 10/15/2007 3:32:07 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

Date: 10/15/2007 11:00:50 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 10/14/2007 4:12:11 PM

Author: surfgirl

To the OP, I think Rhino hit the nail on the head and since you seem to agree, hopefully you will realize you have a lovely stone and be happy with it.


ETA: Hopefully the dead horse beating will cease now...


ETA2: WHFSR, I just read your comments about being overly sensitive about 'recent threads' and I just wanted to say that your most recent posts are exactly why people get irritated. Continuing to dredge up issues where none exist, offering up theories based on a very recent (and often not correct) understanding of diamonds isn't particularly helpful when someone is stressing over keeping a stone or not, it just adds fuel to their angst (which is why we always welcome the experts to come in and clarify for us). And it's why you keep getting dogged about it. Honestly, at this point I'm willing to start a fund to get you a new hobby. Would you consider golf?!

A hearty AMEN to that, SG.....


This thread HAS to be one for the ages.......WHFSR (who has NO formal GG training) suggesting that BRIAN GAVIN'S (5th generation diamond cutter and OWNER OF THE A CUT ABOVE H&A BRAND) H&A tutorial 'is missing a few things.'........HAHAHAHAHHA. That HAS to be the ultimate in brazenness!


Yep - THIS is precisely why you feel dogged, WHFSR.....because you cannot seem to understand your limitations.


I think the golf thing might be a bit of a stretch, though......I'm sure within six weeks or so, you'd be feeling 'expert enough' to tell us all why Tiger's swing 'has a few faults'. LOLOL


SHEBABES - For what it's worth, I think stone you have is gorgeous. There is no such thing as a 'perfect' stone. I put a LOT of faith in Rich Sherwood (an appraiser with decades of experience), and if he says he wouldn't kick it out of bed, I'd put a lot of stock in that.


Only you can decide how important this issue is to YOUR mind....but know that almost everyone has to reach a point of 'what's good enough' since perfection isn't really possible.

Does the tutorial give an example of an AGS0 without perfect hearts?

WHFSR - the point is you have used the word "missing" for the tutorial which in fact is not missing anything for its purpose which is to iillustrate the potential correlation between AGS gradings and the observed patterns. It does not have to show every possible combination. You are right there are AGS0 that do not belong to examples here. But it does not mean the particualr pattern (AGS0 w/o nice pattern) is "omitted" or "missed". It is simply that the tutorial does not have an example you can use to convey your idea - you tried to use a wrong tool for your purpose, and claimed that tutorial is "missing".

WHFSR - I sense/feel that "OP"s may not feel irritated, may be not as much as other posters who try to help OPs, because it is clear that you try to offer help. And some are in fact helpful. But I have to agree with some of the observation, particualrly - you tend to come to conclusion too quicly even before you understand what is being really asked.

WHFSR - I have nothing negative in mind about you. Just wish you spend more time before you post and you will be a lot more appreciated, I think.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 10/14/2007 4:12:11 PM
Author: surfgirl
To the OP, I think Rhino hit the nail on the head and since you seem to agree, hopefully you will realize you have a lovely stone and be happy with it.

ETA: Hopefully the dead horse beating will cease now...

ETA2: WHFSR, I just read your comments about being overly sensitive about ''recent threads'' and I just wanted to say that your most recent posts are exactly why people get irritated. Continuing to dredge up issues where none exist, offering up theories based on a very recent (and often not correct) understanding of diamonds isn''t particularly helpful when someone is stressing over keeping a stone or not, it just adds fuel to their angst (which is why we always welcome the experts to come in and clarify for us). And it''s why you keep getting dogged about it. Honestly, at this point I''m willing to start a fund to get you a new hobby. Would you consider golf?!

Thanks surfgirl. I totally agree. WHFSR is not alone though and I see this happen sometimes in the trade as well. Not too long ago a client of ours returned a diamond based on the advice of an expert becuase of a .1 degree difference in an average pavilion angle that had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the optics/performance of the diamond. It was a perfect H&A, perfect reflector image, triple VH via Bscope, 9.x via Isee2, met both GIA/AGS top specs in every respect and a very rare size and diamond yet was returned all because of what the expert told her when in fact there wasn''t a stitch of evidence to support the experts advice.

FYI there are plenty of AGS Ideal cut diamonds that have a hearts pattern that most here would consider wonky. This is not shown in the PS tutorial (for what reason I do not know) but I would say the grand majority of AGS ideals have less than perfect hearts yet easily (and rightfully so) considered AGS Ideals. While there is interesting information to learn in a hearts pattern, AGS is not looking at heart patterns. They (and GIA) are looking for light performance in the face up position. As stated earlier, optical symmetry is not a consideration in either system. I happen to be a nut for details and have access to nice precision goodies however I would be less than honest if I didn''t say that stones with traditional optical symmetry can''t be as beautiful as ones that have superior optical symmetry.

Peace,

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

That was really my whole point.It is a great tutorial, and it is very educational. I would highly recommend for anybody interested in learning about hearts to read it.

But it is not all encompassing. As with all lesson plans, there are some things not included.

It speaks on how the face up optical symmetry is based on lesser numbers of facets than the face down symmetry, but alot of people seem to be confused, and have been for as long as I have been here, on the importance and visible impacts of hearts. Not to long ago in fact there was a thread covering that topic where I took up the position that hearts were not visible face up and didn't have any drastic improvements over non=perfect hearts. At that time I was totally blasted and these exact same examples from BG tutorial (the ones that do not contain enough information to draw the conclusions so many are drawing) and nobody would pay any attention to me.

Later Gary came on and confirmed that (in a later thread saying many of the same things but not having any connection to myself), at least stating is beliefs on it, and everyone started singing a different song. Often times I am wrong, to be sure, but I am not just making stuff up. When someone draws a conclusion based on the tutorial and I point out that the tutorial lacked the examples and evidence to come to that conclusion--and that other data suggest that in fact that conclusion is incorrect. Well, my saying that is in no way to argue with or disprove BG, not in anyway at all, but it is simply to point out something that wasn't particularly well covered and people are forming understandings on that are simply not true about optical symmetry.

 

[gontama]

Jonathan - I remember that great stone ... is it reasonably safe to say that AGS0 alone is no guarantee of great internal symmetry (observed pattern)? I only know examples of such but do not know how many can be generally concered as a nice h&a among AGS0. (I will leave the exaxt definition of h&a to the inventors who live where the pattern is called heart and cupid for legal reason)

WHFSR - I believe the tutorial does not carry the mission to show every possible combination.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 10/15/2007 3:59:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 10/14/2007 4:12:11 PM

Author: surfgirl

To the OP, I think Rhino hit the nail on the head and since you seem to agree, hopefully you will realize you have a lovely stone and be happy with it.


ETA: Hopefully the dead horse beating will cease now...


ETA2: WHFSR, I just read your comments about being overly sensitive about 'recent threads' and I just wanted to say that your most recent posts are exactly why people get irritated. Continuing to dredge up issues where none exist, offering up theories based on a very recent (and often not correct) understanding of diamonds isn't particularly helpful when someone is stressing over keeping a stone or not, it just adds fuel to their angst (which is why we always welcome the experts to come in and clarify for us). And it's why you keep getting dogged about it. Honestly, at this point I'm willing to start a fund to get you a new hobby. Would you consider golf?!

WHFSR is not alone though and I see this happen sometimes in the trade as well.

FYI there are plenty of AGS Ideal cut diamonds that have a hearts pattern that most here would consider wonky. This is not shown in the PS tutorial...


Peace,

Hi Mr. Rhino, I am not being defensive here at all, but I didn't understand your first line? What am I doing in which I am not alone? What I had said was the latter part of the above quotation, that the tutorial was excellent but not all encompassing, etc etc.

And to rising sun, I shouldn't have responded so heated as I did in a response or two of mine toward you. I sincerely apologize for that, I ought to have been a bit more polite and succinct. And I certainly don't mean to act as if I know more than you, only that I felt on that occasion there was some misunderstanding about optical symmetry, right or wrong I am really sorry for my manner of response though.


and to gontanamo--I never meant to imply that the tutorial should show all possible combinations. But there have been a number of comments made on the face up impacts of faulty hearts--namely some people reading the tutorial and believing that small blips in the face down optical symmetry will translate into similar blips in both face up optical symmetry and/or maked eye appearance of the diamond, when in reality neither of those is necessarily true. I wasn't meaning to attack the tutorial, but just to point out where some innaccurate conclusions being drawn from it, where there was not enough information to make such conclusions.

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/15/2007 4:19:36 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

Date: 10/15/2007 3:59:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 10/14/2007 4:12:11 PM

Author: surfgirl

To the OP, I think Rhino hit the nail on the head and since you seem to agree, hopefully you will realize you have a lovely stone and be happy with it.


ETA: Hopefully the dead horse beating will cease now...


ETA2: WHFSR, I just read your comments about being overly sensitive about 'recent threads' and I just wanted to say that your most recent posts are exactly why people get irritated. Continuing to dredge up issues where none exist, offering up theories based on a very recent (and often not correct) understanding of diamonds isn't particularly helpful when someone is stressing over keeping a stone or not, it just adds fuel to their angst (which is why we always welcome the experts to come in and clarify for us). And it's why you keep getting dogged about it. Honestly, at this point I'm willing to start a fund to get you a new hobby. Would you consider golf?!

WHFSR is not alone though and I see this happen sometimes in the trade as well.

FYI there are plenty of AGS Ideal cut diamonds that have a hearts pattern that most here would consider wonky. This is not shown in the PS tutorial...


Peace,

Hi Mr. Rhino, I am not being defensive here at all, but I didn't understand your first line? What am I doing in which I am not alone? What I had said was the latter part of the above quotation, that the tutorial was excellent but not all encompassing, etc etc.

And to rising sun, I shouldn't have responded so heated as I did in a response or two of mine toward you. I sincerely apologize for that, I ought to have been a bit more polite and succinct. And I certainly don't mean to act as if I know more than you, only that I felt on that occasion there was some misunderstanding about optical symmetry, right or wrong I am really sorry for my manner of response though.


and to gontanamo--I never meant to imply that the tutorial should show all possible combinations. But there have been a number of comments made on the face up impacts of faulty hearts--namely some people reading the tutorial and believing that small blips in the face down optical symmetry will translate into similar blips in both face up optical symmetry and/or maked eye appearance of the diamond, when in reality neither of those is necessarily true. I wasn't meaning to attack the tutorial, but just to point out where some innaccurate conclusions being drawn from it, where there was not enough information to make such conclusions.

I believe you do not intend to say/do anything wrong/meaningless. You have a point in this case, and I said I agree with what you are trying to say. But you can do a lot better by being a little more carefully in choosing a method for communication.

For example, you could have said that the tutorial alone is not sufficient to describe a vartiery of diamonds that exsit and receive 0 or 1 gade, and that use of this tutorial alone therefore is not necessarily appropirate for the discussion here. But you may not want to say that the tutorial is missing, because it did not know it would be used for that purpose, which was not intedned.

 

[iheartscience]

3Shebabes: I''m so glad you are leaning towards keeping that beauty of a stone you have! It''s really special and gorgeous.

WHFSR: Shhhh! Just let it go. I have an idea for you-if you have questions about hearts and arrows or whatever, stop hijacking other people''s threads and start your own. I think that would make a lot of posters here less irritated with you because then they wouldn''t be subjected to the multi-paragraph posts of yours that have little to do with the OP''s question. I have nothing against you but your long-winded, uninformed tirades are definitely wearing on everyone''s nerves. I also think they can be misleading because the sheer length of your posts might lead other, newer posters to believe you are an expert when you are far from it.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 10/15/2007 3:59:50 PM
Author: Rhino

WHFSR is not alone though and I see this happen sometimes in the trade as well. Not too long ago a client of ours returned a diamond based on the advice of an expert becuase of a .1 degree difference in an average pavilion angle that had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the optics/performance of the diamond. It was a perfect H&A, perfect reflector image, triple VH via Bscope, 9.x via Isee2, met both GIA/AGS top specs in every respect and a very rare size and diamond yet was returned all because of what the expert told her when in fact there wasn't a stitch of evidence to support the experts advice.

Yes, in fact, it happens more frequently than one thinks.

If memory serves, Rhino, I recall that same client had been considering another stone from another vendor prior to considering yours, and I recall she seemed pretty high on that stone....that is, until right around that same time, another expert suggested painted diamonds were inferior and should be avoided. That same expert even went so far as to suggest that one of the chief wigs at AGS would always prefer diamonds with no painting (or digging).

As in your claimed situation, the diamond in question at that time was not deficient in any way, and there wasn't a shred of evidence to support that painting negatively affected the diamond she was considering, either. But, I seem to recall that once the seed of doubt was planted by that other 'expert', she couldn't get by that one, either.

I'm sure you know which expert I'm referring to.

That said, it's one thing to watch all the 'experts' agree/disagree. That by itself can cause confusion and distress to customers. It's yet another thing entirely for someone with no training, no credentials, and no actual experience to raise the FUD flags needlessly. I think that's what SG was getting at.

That's not a new theme on PS either, as I'm sure you know.

 

[Ellen]

shebabes, I''m so glad to read your most recent post! Now, is it time to talk settings??!

 

[JohnQuixote]

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 10/15/2007 4:47:03 PM
Author: thing2of2
3Shebabes: I'm so glad you are leaning towards keeping that beauty of a stone you have! It's really special and gorgeous.

WHFSR: Shhhh! Just let it go. I have an idea for you-if you have questions about hearts and arrows or whatever, stop hijacking other people's threads and start your own. I think that would make a lot of posters here less irritated with you because then they wouldn't be subjected to the multi-paragraph posts of yours that have little to do with the OP's question. I have nothing against you but your long-winded, uninformed tirades are definitely wearing on everyone's nerves. I also think they can be misleading because the sheer length of your posts might lead other, newer posters to believe you are an expert when you are far from it.

thing2, you cracked me right up! Thanks, I needed that.

John, that's a great example, thanks so much for that!

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 10/15/2007 5:52:49 PM
Author: Ellen

shebabes, I''m so glad to read your most recent post! Now, is it time to talk settings??!

Me too!! Let''s get on to setting this baby!!!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/15/2007 5:55:21 PM
Author: surfgirl

John, that''s a great example, thanks so much for that!

SG you''re welcome. I think the diamonds in this thread, seen live in H&A viewers, would display exquisite craftsmanship. Any diamond lover will probably agree that flat 2D photos don''t do these beauties justice anyway

(at the same time, in defense of overanalysis, it''s easy to lose sight of the forest around these parts).

 

[belle]

Date: 10/15/2007 6:15:16 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 10/15/2007 5:55:21 PM
Author: surfgirl

John, that''s a great example, thanks so much for that!

SG you''re welcome. I think the diamonds in this thread, seen live in H&A viewers, would display exquisite craftsmanship. Any diamond lover will probably agree that flat 2D photos don''t do these beauties justice anyway

(at the same time, in defense of overanalysis, it''s easy to lose sight of the forest around these parts).

agreed on all points!

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 10/15/2007 6:01:09 PM
Author: Kaleigh

Date: 10/15/2007 5:52:49 PM
Author: Ellen

shebabes, I''m so glad to read your most recent post! Now, is it time to talk settings??!

Me too!! Let''s get on to setting this baby!!!

Me three! I''m jonesing for some hand shots of that puppy set. So lets get back to the eternity, shared prong versus fishtail issue... Lynn''s set but with larger melee to satisfy the bling qoutient still has my vote, if that''s of any interest to you.

 

[surfgirl]

Yeah OP! How can you come here and complain about such a stone without any photos!? Shame on you! Bring on the pictures!

 

[Rhino]

Hi WHFSR,

Comments between the lines.

Date: 10/15/2007 4:03:31 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
That was really my whole point.It is a great tutorial, and it is very educational. I would highly recommend for anybody interested in learning about hearts to read it.

But it is not all encompassing. As with all lesson plans, there are some things not included.

Good observation. I''ve never taken note of that before.

It speaks on how the face up optical symmetry is based on lesser numbers of facets than the face down symmetry, but alot of people seem to be confused, and have been for as long as I have been here, on the importance and visible impacts of hearts. Not to long ago in fact there was a thread covering that topic where I took up the position that hearts were not visible face up and didn''t have any drastic improvements over non=perfect hearts.

Sorry to have missed this. I certainly don''t get the time to participate here as often as I''d like. Since it is my day off I thought I''d catch up on reading this thread but I would whole heartedly agree with your commentary above WHFSR. A precise hearts pattern does demonstrate great craftsmanship but to say it is the dictator of face up beauty would be misleading. I would have defended your statement. In fact I am purposely having some stones recut with obvious clefts in the hearts pattern because of some people''s preference for its face up appearance.

At that time I was totally blasted and these exact same examples from BG tutorial (the ones that do not contain enough information to draw the conclusions so many are drawing) and nobody would pay any attention to me.

Interesting.

Later Gary came on and confirmed that (in a later thread saying many of the same things but not having any connection to myself), at least stating is beliefs on it, and everyone started singing a different song. Often times I am wrong, to be sure, but I am not just making stuff up. When someone draws a conclusion based on the tutorial and I point out that the tutorial lacked the examples and evidence to come to that conclusion--and that other data suggest that in fact that conclusion is incorrect. Well, my saying that is in no way to argue with or disprove BG, not in anyway at all, but it is simply to point out something that wasn''t particularly well covered and people are forming understandings on that are simply not true about optical symmetry.

You are correct. I honestly don''t have the time to read every jot and tittle of this forum so I can''t confirm/deny everything you or anyone here has ever written but what you are saying above is right on as Garry himself expressed.

Peace,

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/15/2007 5:55:21 PM
Author: surfgirl


John, that''s a great example, thanks so much for that!

Ditto!

 

[Rhino]

Hi gontama,

Date: 10/15/2007 4:11:58 PM
Author: gontama
Jonathan - I remember that great stone ... is it reasonably safe to say that AGS0 alone is no guarantee of great internal symmetry (observed pattern)?

Correct. Just because the diamond is AGS "0" is no guarantee of superior optical symmetry. I see plenty that aren't.

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 10/15/2007 4:19:36 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

Date: 10/15/2007 3:59:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 10/14/2007 4:12:11 PM

Author: surfgirl

To the OP, I think Rhino hit the nail on the head and since you seem to agree, hopefully you will realize you have a lovely stone and be happy with it.


ETA: Hopefully the dead horse beating will cease now...


ETA2: WHFSR, I just read your comments about being overly sensitive about ''recent threads'' and I just wanted to say that your most recent posts are exactly why people get irritated. Continuing to dredge up issues where none exist, offering up theories based on a very recent (and often not correct) understanding of diamonds isn''t particularly helpful when someone is stressing over keeping a stone or not, it just adds fuel to their angst (which is why we always welcome the experts to come in and clarify for us). And it''s why you keep getting dogged about it. Honestly, at this point I''m willing to start a fund to get you a new hobby. Would you consider golf?!

WHFSR is not alone though and I see this happen sometimes in the trade as well.

FYI there are plenty of AGS Ideal cut diamonds that have a hearts pattern that most here would consider wonky. This is not shown in the PS tutorial...


Peace,

Hi Mr. Rhino, I am not being defensive here at all, but I didn''t understand your first line? What am I doing in which I am not alone?

Stressing about minutia. I see it all the time. We often refer to it as analysis paralysis.

This is why on our site I teach/demonstrate both positives and negatives about technologies we employ or study. Some of these trickle into the practical analysis (with the eyes) but when they don''t there''s no need to stress. Hence my comments to 3shebabes.

All the best,

 

[Rhino]

Greetings Aljdewey,

Comments below.

Date: 10/15/2007 5:36:34 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 10/15/2007 3:59:50 PM
Author: Rhino

WHFSR is not alone though and I see this happen sometimes in the trade as well. Not too long ago a client of ours returned a diamond based on the advice of an expert becuase of a .1 degree difference in an average pavilion angle that had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the optics/performance of the diamond. It was a perfect H&A, perfect reflector image, triple VH via Bscope, 9.x via Isee2, met both GIA/AGS top specs in every respect and a very rare size and diamond yet was returned all because of what the expert told her when in fact there wasn''t a stitch of evidence to support the experts advice.

Yes, in fact, it happens more frequently than one thinks.

If memory serves, Rhino, I recall that same client had been considering another stone from another vendor prior to considering yours, and I recall she seemed pretty high on that stone....that is, until right around that same time, another expert suggested painted diamonds were inferior and should be avoided. That same expert even went so far as to suggest that one of the chief wigs at AGS would always prefer diamonds with no painting (or digging).

Where did said expert make such comments??? I''d like to see this.

As in your claimed situation, the diamond in question at that time was not deficient in any way, and there wasn''t a shred of evidence to support that painting negatively affected the diamond she was considering, either. But, I seem to recall that once the seed of doubt was planted by that other ''expert'', she couldn''t get by that one, either.

Where and when did this expert discourage this person from any particular stone? I''d like to see the proof.

Kind regards,

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/15/2007 6:37:12 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi gontama,

Date: 10/15/2007 4:11:58 PM
Author: gontama
Jonathan - I remember that great stone ... is it reasonably safe to say that AGS0 alone is no guarantee of great internal symmetry (observed pattern)?

Correct. Just because the diamond is AGS '0' is no guarantee of superior optical symmetry. I see plenty that aren't.

Regards,

Thanks Jonathan. I have seen many comments saying "stick with AGS0 with light performance". It is true that the light performance is, to some extent, guaranteed. Having seen AGS0 stones lacking crisp face-up patterns however, I have been curious if these comments really apply to every AGS0 diamond, especially for consumers who might believe they are all very much like stones you or WF sells.

Consumers will see the difference between top of the world GOG/WF stones and many AGS0s without high optical symmetry. So I cannot deny the claim "H*F is better than AGS0". It does not mean the difference is important to everyone however.

I woild 100% choose a GOS stone with GIA report and information GOG provides over an AGS0 without additional information.

TO OP: my "concern" really does not apply to your stone. Many AGS0s probably do not have as nice IS images as yours. I just wanted to make sure your eye is satisfied. And you confirmed so. Great diamond!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/15/2007 7:09:34 PM
Author: gontama

Date: 10/15/2007 6:37:12 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi gontama,

Date: 10/15/2007 4:11:58 PM
Author: gontama
Jonathan - I remember that great stone ... is it reasonably safe to say that AGS0 alone is no guarantee of great internal symmetry (observed pattern)?

Correct. Just because the diamond is AGS ''0'' is no guarantee of superior optical symmetry. I see plenty that aren''t.

Regards,

Thanks Jonathan. I have seen many comments saying ''stick with AGS0 with light performance''. It is true that the light performance is, to some extent, guaranteed. Having seen AGS0 stones lacking crisp face-up patterns however, I have been curious if these comments really apply to every AGS0 diamond, especially for consumers who might believe they are all very much like stones you or WF sells.

Consumers will see the difference between top of the world GOG/WF stones and many AGS0s without high optical symmetry. It does not mean the difference is important to everyone however.

I would 100% choose a GOS stone with GIA report and information GOG provides over an AGS0 without additional information.

I agree.

As for recommending AGS0 stones to people, sometimes, it is the lesser of two evils Gontama. When you have someone shopping in a B&M, or online without additional info, wanting to know what to look for (and not wanting to take the crash course and shop where''s there''s more info), I just feel better recommending an AGS0, that has a better (?) chance of being fairly nice, than a GIA rounded stone that gives us even less of a clue...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Whew! Hope you can just skim the last 50 posts or so and come to the conclusion that we all think your stone is great and we look forward to helping you with the setting (which should be less controversial!!!)

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/15/2007 7:26:11 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Whew! Hope you can just skim the last 50 posts or so and come to the conclusion that we all think your stone is great and we look forward to helping you with the setting (which should be less controversial!!!)

Should be. I suppose it all depends on who ends up helping....

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

for the record on all future post JQ:

you will never find me disparaging or trying to insinuate that there was a problem with an ACA diamond. From everything I have learned they are nothing but the top quality. So if you ever see me drawing a comparison like this it is NOT to suggest that there is a problem with an ACA diamond, but to suggest that the diamond in question falls within a top echelon of incredibly beautiful and masterfully cut gems.


And so my whole point was, her diamond appears to me to face up just as well as many ACA do, and those variations are obviously caused by some other element (such as those you pointed out), as in her case it appears to my eye to fall within a certain "margins of error" so to speak present in diamond photography and that such small margins of error in photographs (and even in naked eye viewing of optical symmetry) even exist even amongst images of Mr. Gavin''s top notch brand.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 10/15/2007 7:38:38 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/15/2007 7:26:11 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Whew! Hope you can just skim the last 50 posts or so and come to the conclusion that we all think your stone is great and we look forward to helping you with the setting (which should be less controversial!!!)

Should be. I suppose it all depends on who ends up helping....

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 10/15/2007 7:26:11 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Whew! Hope you can just skim the last 50 posts or so and come to the conclusion that we all think your stone is great and we look forward to helping you with the setting !!!

Yay!!! Your stone is gorgeous

 

[3shebabes]

Wow. I don''t even know how to give this thread closure...but let''s just say I somewhat dropped out of the recent postings because the conversation had gotten way over my head! Very interesting, though -- I think I learned a thing or two!

I only have until the 21st to return this stone and after that it is mine. I am almost certain I will keep it. It is beautiful. It really truly is. I love the size on my hand. The G color is "just right" in my view.

So, barring any unforeseen changes of heart, I think this is the one.

Now, as many of you have pointed out, I need to settle down and commit to a setting. I am so excited about eventually having a finished ring -- but so overwhelmed by the choices out there...

Anyway, one more THANKS goes out to all of you who took time to give me your opinion and to try to educate me. I appreciate it! The Pricescope community really, truly is an amazing gathering of intelligent, articulate people. THANK YOU!