Help- is this a fisheye?

[purduephotog]

Howdies.

Help. This is the stone photograph and ideal scope. The egl certificate defines the stone as 61.1%/55%/15%/43% . The Sarin report just run defines the stone as 61.5%/54.4%/34.3(angle 34.0-34.3)/41.2(angle 41.0-41.3) This changes the stone ranking from a 0.8 TIC to a 3.7 ....

Here''s the shot

 

[purduephotog]

Idealscope photograph

 

[valeria101]

... this is a joke, right

 

[purduephotog]

Well, the image scope makes me doubt it is, but I've never seen a stone with such a large black ring around the center.

This is the stone I had been considering until the other one popped up. The 1st one listed is a 1.07/G/SI1 ... whereas this is a .93/H/VS2 .

The special thing about the first stone is it was graded the same day I told her I'd buy her some carrots for her next birthday

(yeah I'm cheesy).

So I take it it's just a trick of photography ... and I'll have them both shipped *shiver* to me to inspect...

 

[oldminer]

Now, here is a fisheye diamond.... Thank you to the GIA for this photograph.

 

[purduephotog]

So the black ring-around-the-drain I'm seeing down the face is nothing to be afraid of?

(afraid of a ring. Geez. A little drain cleaner and some scrubbing bubbles and I'll take any ring on, including that silly DVD)...

Thanks!

 

[valeria101]

Take a look HERE

The dark bits in the center of the first diamond should be showing contrast. "Fish eye" shows differently...

 

[diamondsbylauren]

----------------
On 8/30/2004 2:48:37 PM purduephotog wrote:

So the black ring-around-the-drain I'm seeing down the face is nothing to be afraid of?

(afraid of a ring. Geez. A little drain cleaner and some scrubbing bubbles and I'll take any ring on, including that silly DVD)...

Thanks!----------------

Hi Perdue,
Thanks for those putting up the photos showing what an actual fisheye diamond looks like.

The stone at the top of the thread looks like many H&A stones.
My preference is a stone with a slightly larger table- In my opinion, the ;arger table allows more light into the top of the diamond and lightens up the look

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

How does a big table let more light in David?
A big table reduces the total crown surface area.
More light can get into a diamond from lights that are directly facing crown facets. Lights that are directly facing the table will be behind your head.

I am still waiting for you to have someone photograph you examining diamonds to show what you believe to be a good range of lighting environemnts.

 

[Rank Amateur]

When your head is as small as David's, it doesn't block much light!


ZZZZZzzzzziiinnnnnggggg!!

 

[Jennifer5973]

That's not very nice, RA.

 

[purduephotog]

Can't we all just get along?

I honestly asked this about this in this thread because I hadn't ever seen a large black region in a stone.

I'm also very concerned because... according to one individual that examined the rock this stone was a 'true G'. Another said it rates a 'solid I'. Obviously it can't be both. If I go by the angles on the EGL report, it's a solid buy. If I go by the angles listed in the sarin report, it's one I'd probably screen and pass.

I guess it comes down to trust. But everyone is trustworthy from the experiences I've researched.

Just frustrated. I thought I had it all locked away. I'm ready to book a plane ticket now... somewhere else. Maybe she'd like a nice opal, mined by myself...

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/30/2004 10:56:04 PM purduephotog wrote:




I'm also very concerned because... according to one individual that examined the rock this stone was a 'true G'. Another said it rates a 'solid I'. Obviously it can't be both. ----------------

This sounds weird. Not that I could not take an I for a G - I can definitely count on that one

But an "oficial" impression on color grades should be given using some semblance of grading conditions. Obviously I do not know how those two opinions were given, but as long as one does not have to put his signature below an estimate set of grades, many considerations (both technical and otherwise) can make those grades swing...

Well, if you do go for opal, then you'd be in Garry's backyard, right?

 

[nicknomo]

----------------
On 8/30/2004 2:04:41 PM purduephotog wrote:

Howdies.

Help. This is the stone photograph and ideal scope. The egl certificate defines the stone as 61.1%/55%/15%/43% . The Sarin report just run defines the stone as 61.5%/54.4%/34.3(angle 34.0-34.3)/41.2(angle 41.0-41.3) This changes the stone ranking from a 0.8 TIC to a 3.7 ....

Here's the shot----------------

I've seen that a couple times before, with the naked eye. I think you'd be better off staying away from stones with a dark center (although this could be as you stated a mere trick of photography). Even with an ideal cut (angle wise), a dark centered stone never seemed quite as brilliant to me.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Wow- Rank Amateur- that was a great "Rank Out" I'm soooo zinged!


Garry- first of all, I don't use any meters to measure light going into and out of a diamond- so if you say that you can prove a 57% table lets out more light than a 60%, more power to you.
To MY eye, a well cut stone with a 60% table is a brighter stone than a well cut 57% table.

Garry wrote
"More light can get into a diamond from lights that are directly facing crown facets. Lights that are directly facing the table will be behind your head."

As far as how much light is reaching the diamond- here's another example of flawed logic.
There are light sources all over. Even if a diamond is not being lit directly from overhead, there's all kinds of reflections of light which are going thru the diamond- no matter how big my head is.

Also - your statement assumes the wearer will be holding the diamond's table perpendicular to the lighting source- what if the person's hand were at an angle to the light source? This is the case almost ALL the time.

As far as how I take my photos- I tried on numerous occasions to make the following point with humor- I do not share such information.

As far as variances between EGL's measurements and a Sarin - remember, these measurements are approximate. Small differences are common when stones are measured twice.