Diamond Thoughts?

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/4/2008 7:49:06 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 11/4/2008 6:43:52 AM
Author: arjunajane
SC, I don't see where Lorelei told you once 'you can't say something'..she simply added to your comments, and rightfully so.

I must say I am starting to find this bickering of yours slightly embarassing, it has happened in at least 2 new posters threads that I am aware of, and it gives an unpleasant view of PS to our new mbrs.

As Lorelei mentioned, we have All been corrected at some stage by those who have been around longer and have more knowledge than us - I don't see why you feel you should be exempt from this, you are not being singled out as it seems you may think.

The last time this issue came up, a number of us tried to explain as politely as possible the real issues behind the corrections. I fear you have simply ignored us all, which doesn't bode well for anyone.

Personally, this sort of arguing would have been a turn off for me when I was a new poster, especially the accusations of 'mummying', 'babying'etc..

Please try to see things from the OP's POV.

To Onemax, I apologize for the interruption, and wish you good luck in your search

I interpret this as Lorelei is trying to shut me up
'And don't use those warnings to choose stones by categorizing them as ' young person's stone' or ' older person's' stone otherwise you could miss out on some great diamonds. Basically you need to carefully evaluate the more shallow stones as you noted earlier SC, but otherwise onemax these warnings are guidelines and not meant to be used as a rule.' Just as she interpret my observation in another post wrongly today

Yes, I simply ignore you guys because how you go about using the HCA is wrong, you have no idea what the bands are for, what the warnings are actually about. The choice is still with the OP on what he intends to do with the stone, I have never said do not go with that stone, ever. You brought this up and expect me to not defend myself when I find your opinions is wrong or contradictory to what and how I do things and expect me not to defend myself?

You are completely wrong.

You linked the HCA usage warnings in this thread, I wanted the new poster to understand not to dismiss a diamond which might be perfectly suitable for them if such a stone should come along, that fell into the ' younger person's stone', or ' older person's stone.' There are many grey areas with diamonds, they are unpredictable and the HCA cannot physically see any diamond to definitely predict it will behave in a certain way, or will only be suitable for such and such a person. There are too many variables, cutters tricks, individual eyesights, personal ideals of beauty and many other factors which can influence whether a diamond will be the right one for a given person. And this can't be definitively predicted by an admittedly incredible invention which has been so generously shared with us all by such a wonderful guy. It has its limitations and he would tell you that himself most likely. And it is important to remember that the HCA predicts light performance and is not a live analysis of any diamond.


The diamond in question is a shallower combo, and as I said before might look darker at close scrutiny to some, but also like I said, it might not be a problem for that particular buyer - the best person to advise them on that would be an expert and experienced vendor who actually has the diamond in hand.

You said concerning the shallower stone " On the HCA, it is within the pendant/ear-ring stone range, it is probably going to be a dark stone under close observation so not a good stone for a ring."

The poster took that to mean that this diamond was not a good stone for a ring. You may not have said ' do not go with this stone ever' in so many words, but the poster apparently believed it was not an option for her due to your advice. Therefore I advised her to let WF investigate further as it seems she has already requested that the diamond be called in for evaluation, rather than reject it out of hand.

And also I understand how the HCA works perfectly well thank you, and what the bands and warnings mean. There is indeed no need for the nasty remarks and I again would appreciate it if you would not use them.

I also don't want to stop you posting here, that is not my intention. Again as I have said to you before, I have seen many times how easily new posters get confused with the advice offered and we have to be mindful of the advice we offer them in order to help them best. It is not personal I assure you, and I am not trying to ' shut you up' - but help you to understand the effect your well meant I am sure advice can have on those who are already nervous and uncertain when making the biggest purchase of their life in some circumstances.

GG - I also wonder if that was a mistake on the listing, but as you say I guess we will find out!

 

[strmrdr]

ok in general Lorelei is right the warnings need to applied with caution but Stone-cold11 is right about the Abazias' diamond.

The angles work out to 33.09/40.03 which is guaranteed to have obstruction issues.
It gets a potential score of ags5 because of it.

edit: looking further they are the same diamond from different vendors.

Pass on this one.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/4/2008 8:58:59 AM
Author: strmrdr
ok in general Lorelei is right the warnings need to applied with caution but Stone-cold11 is right about the Abazias' diamond.

The angles work out to 33.09/40.03 which is guaranteed to have obstruction issues.
It gets a potential score of ags5 because of it.

I didn't say he wasn't right about this shallower diamond if you read my earlier posts, but that it would be best for an expert to properly evaluate whether it would be suitable for a ring stone or not, as it appears WF are already calling it in on behalf of the client. Then they can say for sure.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/4/2008 9:02:30 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/4/2008 8:58:59 AM

Author: strmrdr

ok in general Lorelei is right the warnings need to applied with caution but Stone-cold11 is right about the Abazias'' diamond.


The angles work out to 33.09/40.03 which is guaranteed to have obstruction issues.

It gets a potential score of ags5 because of it.

I didn''t say he wasn''t right about this shallower diamond if you read my earlier posts, but that it would be best for an expert to properly evaluate whether it would be suitable for a ring stone or not, as it appears WF are already calling it in on behalf of the client. Then they can say for sure.

You 2 were bickering so much that I didn''t read every post just ran the numbers.
I would be very very shocked if WF agrees to sell this diamond.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/4/2008 9:10:47 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/4/2008 9:02:30 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/4/2008 8:58:59 AM

Author: strmrdr

ok in general Lorelei is right the warnings need to applied with caution but Stone-cold11 is right about the Abazias' diamond.


The angles work out to 33.09/40.03 which is guaranteed to have obstruction issues.

It gets a potential score of ags5 because of it.

I didn't say he wasn't right about this shallower diamond if you read my earlier posts, but that it would be best for an expert to properly evaluate whether it would be suitable for a ring stone or not, as it appears WF are already calling it in on behalf of the client. Then they can say for sure.

You 2 were bickering so much that I didn't read every post just ran the numbers.
I would be very very shocked if WF agrees to sell this diamond.

I wasn't bickering.

And yes it is quite possible that this diamond won't pass muster as I said, but as the poster is on a tight budget, wants a large stone and it would appear has already called it in to WF, then they might as well at least see what an expert thinks before dismissing it out of hand.

 

[strmrdr]

another consideration is that stones with EGL reports aren''t eligible for WF trade-up which may or may not be important to the OP.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/4/2008 9:20:05 AM
Author: strmrdr
another consideration is that stones with EGL reports aren''t eligible for WF trade-up which may or may not be important to the OP.

Yep absolutely.

 

[Regular Guy]

Personally...I think it''s healthy practice to slap each other on the back (in a good way) when we want to...but also, give each other a wide birth...to both say what we think, and document it as well.

For example, although we can be grateful to WF for being available to provide critical feedback when we need it, and I, too specifically suggest they be used for this purpose frequently enough...some things are subtle. Also, actually, some things are not...and so, for example, if you use the search by cut to only search for options good to poor...there''s not a ton...and a majority are from JA. But...a good number are from WF...and you can see some...like in the size between .8 and .9, like this one...where I''ve never seen an HCA score so high. And...that''s supposed to be cherry!

So...make sure you know who butters your bread...and let''s be nice to each other.

 

[Onemax]

Wow, I didn''t mean to cause so much tension here. Sorry.

I''ve called WF and my only decision now is to bring the diamond in at my cost. (They are only charging me because WF doesn not believe this diamond to be eye-clean... even though the vendor does say it is.

So what should I do? For the price ($7,200) is it worth a look (shipping is only $65)? or should I agree with others an pass on it?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/4/2008 3:06:53 PM
Author: Onemax
Wow, I didn't mean to cause so much tension here. Sorry.

I've called WF and my only decision now is to bring the diamond in at my cost. (They are only charging me because WF doesn not believe this diamond to be eye-clean... even though the vendor does say it is.

So what should I do? For the price ($7,200) is it worth a look (shipping is only $65)? or should I agree with others an pass on it?

You have nothing to apologise for onemax.
As to the diamond, it depends on you. As has been said earlier, this diamond might have obstruction issues at close scrutiny if worn in a ring and the lab report means that it would not be eligible for WF upgrade policy should that ever be a consideration. What I would do is tell WF what you are looking for and budget, and see if they can suggest any diamonds which might fit the bill for you and if in their opinion this diamond is worth calling in and might be suitable for your purposes, if they do not believe this diamond is eyeclean though then it probably won't be what you want regardless.

I just had a quick look at WF inventory, they have two Expert Selection stones of 1.5 cts, J colour and SI1 clarity which might be worth inquiring about and which might fit the budget,

Also they have this hearts and arrows ACA.

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-1466967.htm

If this one is verified eyeclean then it could be worth consideration and get you 1.5cts for the budget

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1181430.htm

 

[Onemax]

Thank you very much for all your help. I am considering the diamonds you suggested as well!

I was wondering if I could impose and ask you to look at this diamond as well.

http://www.whiteflash.com/round/Round-cut-diamond-1372220.htm

http://search.virtcert.com/cgi/u/1012/v.cgi?stock=8448529&_s=1012&_p=sdf348gd743&_c=&_fs=1&prestock=&_ln=ps

http://www.solomonbrothers.com/DiamondDetail.aspx?sku=38HH8Y56&affiliate=9318613A-AD0C-4530-A456-0409DFEFB8DE

. Carat: 1.76
. Depth %: 61.5
. Table %: 58
. Crown Height %: 16
. Pavilion Depth 41%
. Girdle: M
. Measurements: 7.65-7.70X4.72
. Polish: Excellent
. Symmetry: Excellent
. Culet: None
. Fluorescence: None

Thanks!

 

[Onemax]

Here''s the HCA on the above Stone:

Light Return Very Good
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread
or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.3 - Excellent
within FIC range

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/4/2008 3:55:03 PM
Author: Onemax
Here's the HCA on the above Stone:

Light Return Very Good
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread
or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.3 - Excellent
within FIC range

You could ask WF whether they think it is worth calling it in certainly. Personally I would rather stick with one of the smaller diamonds listed above, but if you really want that bit of extra carat weight then you might need to search within the other labs and or drop the colour.