Ideal-scope image request (greatly appreciated)

[MarkP1]

I have decided on two diamonds.
Unfortunately, the retailer does not have Sarin data nor ideal-scope images for either & I haven''t yet seen either diamond in person. Working by phone as I am out of town!
Would someone be willing to put these two diamonds through DiamCalc for me?
Thank-you very much as I am new to this.
Stone #1
GIA Cert. - "Excellent"
Round, 1.09
F, VS1
6.70 x 6.71 x 4.07
Depth % = 60.7
Table Size = 55%
Crown Angle = 34.5
Crown Height = 15.5%
Pavilion Angle = 40.8
Pavilion Depth = 43%
Star Length = 50%
Lower Half = 80%
Girdle = Thin - Medium, faceted
Culet = None
Polish & Symmetry = Excellent
Fluorescence = Faint
Stone #2
GIA Cert. - "Excellent"
Round, 1.02
F, VS1
6.55 x 6.57 x 3.97
Depth % = 60.5
Table Size = 56%
Crown Angle = 34.7
Crown Height = 15.2%
Pavilion Angle = 40.7
Pavilion Depth = 43%
Star Length = 50%
Lower Half = 80%
Girdle = Medium, faceted
Culet = None
Polish & Symmetry = Excellent
Fluorescence = None

Thanks again. I truly appreciate it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

No point to it - they will look great and identical and not help you - you need the real photo''s to see any symmetry deviations and additional data.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/18/2006 6:53:17 PM
Author:MarkP1

I have decided on two diamonds.
Unfortunately, the retailer does not have Sarin data nor ideal-scope images for either & I haven't yet seen either diamond in person. Working by phone as I am out of town!

Would someone be willing to put these two diamonds through DiamCalc for me?
Thank-you very much as I am new to this.

Stone #1
GIA Cert. - 'Excellent'

Round, 1.09
F, VS1
6.70 x 6.71 x 4.07
Depth % = 60.7
Table Size = 55%
Crown Angle = 34.5
Crown Height = 15.5%
Pavilion Angle = 40.8
Pavilion Depth = 43%
Star Length = 50%
Lower Half = 80%
Girdle = Thin - Medium, faceted
Culet = None
Polish & Symmetry = Excellent
Fluorescence = Faint

Stone #2
GIA Cert. - 'Excellent'

Round, 1.02
F, VS1
6.55 x 6.57 x 3.97
Depth % = 60.5
Table Size = 56%
Crown Angle = 34.7
Crown Height = 15.2%
Pavilion Angle = 40.7
Pavilion Depth = 43%
Star Length = 50%
Lower Half = 80%
Girdle = Medium, faceted
Culet = None
Polish & Symmetry = Excellent
Fluorescence = None

Thanks again. I truly appreciate it.

Hi Mark.

I notice you said both diamonds are GIA graded. If the dealer didn't have Sarin data can you tell us where you got the measurements for the second diamond (beyond dimensions, depth & table)? I ask because GIA rounds numbers on their grading reports: CA to closest 0.5 and PA to closest 0.2. To get a 34.7 CA and 40.7 PA the data is either from a different lab's grading report or a scan (?)

It's a close race based on the numbers you've provided... Actually, since GIA rounded the measurements on diamond #1, it's possible that 34.5/40.8 could truly be 34.7/40.7, or the same as diamond #2.

As Garry said, ideal-scope images would get you more detailed input.

 

[MarkP1]

John and Garry,
Thank-you very much for your time.

I received the numbers via phone from the store (a well respected outlet here in Canada).
Unfortunately, they were only able to qualify that both stones were GIA certified & that these were the numbers that they had available (from GIA or their Cert.)
I am working hard to get a good idea of cut quality on the two diamonds before I ask them to ship them to my local store from other locations. At this point in time the stones are both mounted.

It''s my understanding from both of your feedback that the two diamonds are both (on paper) very nice.

Would you suggest that I purchase an Ideal-scope and bring it in with me when the two rings arrive?
Any other suggestions?

Thanks again for your time.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Mark, I would want to know where they got the numbers for diamond #2. I expect that it may have been graded pre-2006 (before GIA reported all the numbers) and those details are from an accompanying sarin or ogi scan. You said they are respected so I am sure they can provide you with a logical explanation.

You can also ask them for the GIA report # on that diamond. Go to GIA Report Check, enter the report # and carat weight and it should give you the same numbers, only rounded as I mentioned earlier (the CA will be listed as 34.5 and PA will be listed as 40..

If the stones are mounted it's more difficult to assess them with ideal-scope, but I think a simple $25 purchase is advisable for anyone, considering the amount normally spent on a diamond purchase.

Dave Atlas sells an array of packages, including ones with IS:

https://products.gemappraisers.com/c-1-essential-jewelry-tools.aspx

Best regards,

 

[MarkP1]

Thank-you John.

Should I be concerned about the "faint" flouro. in the first diamond?
Also, any concerns about "thin-medium" Girlde in #1? is straight "medium" better?
I haven't inquired yet to see if the Girdle's are painted or not. I don't know much about this.

Thanks

 

[JohnQuixote]

Neither is anything to worry about. And you''re welcome.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/18/2006 7:58:48 PM
Author: MarkP1
Thank-you John.

Should I be concerned about the 'faint' flouro. in the first diamond?
Also, any concerns about 'thin-medium' Girlde in #1? is straight 'medium' better?
I haven't inquired yet to see if the Girdle's are painted or not. I don't know much about this.

Thanks

GIA did the grading, so the report check would turn up a 'VG' or lower cut grade for any painting or digging beyond their tolerances. There would be a note in the comments section of the new report.

It's not a common issue. Only 2% of all rounds GIA grades are influenced by these things. For that matter, a reasonable degree of crown-only painting at the proportions you mentioned can result in desirable visual properties. An ideal-scope image would help give us an indication, but the cut grade you'll find using report check will be more decisive in this case.

You could perform a little service here Mark: Ask your jeweler about digging and painting. Find out how much he/she gets that question in-store and ask what he/she can tell you about it. I would be interested in the answers.

 

[MarkP1]

Thank-you again John.

Just to clarify... once I am able to get the GIA number and verify it at GIA Report Check, if it does in fact come back cut grade: "Excellect" with no comments, all is well & I can assume that there is no painting or digging?

Thanks. I appreciate your patience with my questions.

Take care.

 

[fire&ice]

I suppose I am the only one who thinks needing more information on these two OUTSTANDING stones is insane.

See them and pick one.

 

[MarkP1]

I was able to gain additional info. (correct info.) about diamond #1.
The GIA states the cut grade as "very good" noting "cut grade affected by brillianteering"
also, under the comments section of the actual GIA report it states "additional clouds are not shown".


John, as per your questions re. proportions on diamond #2:
As you believed, the stone was graded by GIA in 2004. The GIA report only lists depth, table, girld, and culet under the Proportions section.
The other values are listed on the retailer's Certificate.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/21/2006 1:23:23 AM
Author: MarkP1
I was able to gain additional info. (correct info.) about diamond #1.
The GIA states the cut grade as ''very good'' noting ''cut grade affected by brillianteering''
also, under the comments section of the actual GIA report it states ''additional clouds are not shown''.

John, as per your questions re. proportions on diamond #2:
As you believed, the stone was graded by GIA in 2004. The GIA report only lists depth, table, girld, and culet under the Proportions section.
The other values are listed on the retailer''s Certificate.

Mark, ok. The easy one first: Additional clouds not shown is nothing to worry about in a VS1.

Diamond #1, VG grade:

A. The comment means there is a level of painting or digging GIA believes is significant enough to influence its visual properties. That''s why it was given VG instead of EX.

B. BUT... If the GIA report was issued prior to, or in early 2006, it was at the time when they were initially introducing their grading system. Reportedly there were glitches in the early days of RC and the brillianteering judgment.

Frankly, the best way for you to assess this is to see it live. Compare it to stones of similar pedigree and see how it performs...It is possible you will see no difference between it and other stones with great numbers. Many GIA VG diamonds are quite incredible. If there is deleterious digging or painting to an extreme degree the diamond may appear dark at the edges & the optical properties won''t be as robust.

Diamond #2:

I thought so. Excellent - no worries then. Whenever someone asks about a ''GIA graded'' diamond with numbers GIA doesn''t assign it''s prudent to find out where they came from...Just to be on the safe side. By the way - did you do Report Check on that diamond? I believe it would give you the predicted cut grade from the lab (though with RC it''s subject to the same possible error as #1).

Have you been able to see them yet Mark?

 

[Dee*Jay]

Date: 8/19/2006 10:59:15 AM
Author: fire&ice
I suppose I am the only one who thinks needing more information on these two OUTSTANDING stones is insane.

See them and pick one.

F&I - I *LOVE* you!!!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/19/2006 10:59:15 AM
Author: fire&ice
I suppose I am the only one who thinks needing more information on these two OUTSTANDING stones is insane.

See them and pick one.

I know that you don't feel that level of detail is needed, and I respect your viewpoint. But seriously.....how would you feel if someone called your method of coming to a purchase decision insane?

But I also respect that some people do need it. Some people need to satisfy their mind-clean issues as well as eye-clean issues. Mark is asking for information, so I infer from that he is one of the "mind-clean" set.

Is there some reason those people shouldn't be able to satisfy what matters to them? Is there some reason that what matters to them doesn't have to be the same that matters to you?

Not trying to be contentious at all, F&I. You make an excellent point, but I think it's also important to realize that different things matter to different people. If someone needs more than you do to make a purchase with confidence, why begrudge them that?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/19/2006 10:59:15 AM
Author: fire&ice
I suppose I am the only one who thinks needing more information on these two OUTSTANDING stones is insane.

See them and pick one.

Hi F&I. I saw your other thread. I hope you don't think my advice here is out of line:

I asked about diamond #2 because GIA doesn't report CA/PA in the manner Mark cited. My intent was to be sure the grading report was being represented to him accurately. I'm sure it's not happening in this case now, but document fraud is possible in some markets.

As for analysis, I noted at the top that these diamonds are a close race, which I still believe. Going to GIA's report check service for these diamonds (both were graded pre-2006) is just a way to extract all possible information.

Since he's choosing between 2 extremely closely matched stones I thought having the info would be helpful.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/21/2006 12:46:38 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/19/2006 10:59:15 AM
Author: fire&ice
I suppose I am the only one who thinks needing more information on these two OUTSTANDING stones is insane.

See them and pick one.

I know that you don''t feel that level of detail is needed, and I respect your viewpoint. But seriously.....how would you feel if someone called your method of coming to a purchase decision insane?

But I also respect that some people do need it. Some people need to satisfy their mind-clean issues as well as eye-clean issues. Mark is asking for information, so I infer from that he is one of the ''mind-clean'' set.

Is there some reason those people shouldn''t be able to satisfy what matters to them? Is there some reason that what matters to them doesn''t have to be the same that matters to you?

Not trying to be contentious at all, F&I. You make an excellent point, but I think it''s also important to realize that different things matter to different people, and not everyone shares the criteria for purchasing criteria.

I''ve followed his threads. He''s found stellar stones on his own no less. He is not asking for information of his own mind. He is asking because it was suggested/requested to/from him. And, yes, the minutia between the two stones is minimal. He has the opportunity to view them. Pick one.

It''s the donkey w/ two bales (love that analogy PS). He may starve pondering which one to eat. Not to mention, these stones could be gone while he gets more information to nitpick. Information that in real life could be irrelavent.

 

[fire&ice]

If he wants the info, fine. But, I think he was lead to believe that all this info is paramount to making a decision. I''ve followed the brillianteering thread. GIA can''t seem to know it''s importance. How in the world is he?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 12:54:10 PM
Author: fire&ice

I''ve followed his threads. He''s found stellar stones on his own no less. He is not asking for information of his own mind. He is asking because it was suggested/requested to/from him. And, yes, the minutia between the two stones is minimal. He has the opportunity to view them. Pick one.

It''s the donkey w/ two bales (love that analogy PS). He may starve pondering which one to eat. Not to mention, these stones could be gone while he gets more information to nitpick. Information that in real life could be irrelavent.

So are you saying that I suggest you jump off a bridge tonight, you''re going to HAVE to do that becuase I suggested it?

I would NEVER suggest that, by the way.....you know I love ya, F&I. But my point is this: people come asking for opinions, and they get several kinds. They get the esoteric opinions and the academic opinions. Being creature of free will, they can decide if they want to listen to all, some, or none of the input they get.

It''s up to each individual to decide what resonates to him more and to determine what he deems useful.

If Mark didn''t want the info, he would have disregarded the suggestion. If he does want it, he will ask.

He should feel free to ask for whatever he wants....not what you would want, and not what I would want.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/21/2006 12:50:43 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 8/19/2006 10:59:15 AM
Author: fire&ice
I suppose I am the only one who thinks needing more information on these two OUTSTANDING stones is insane.

See them and pick one.

Hi F&I. I saw your other thread. I hope you don''t think my advice here is out of line:

I asked about diamond #2 because GIA doesn''t report CA/PA in the manner Mark cited. My intent was to be sure the grading report was being represented to him accurately. I''m sure it''s not happening in this case now, but document fraud is possible in some markets.

As for analysis, I noted at the top that these diamonds are a close race, which I still believe. Going to GIA''s report check service for these diamonds (both were graded pre-2006) is just a way to extract all possible information.

Since he''s choosing between 2 extremely closely matched stones I thought having the info would be helpful.

And, respectfully - if these are so extremely matched - why not go with what his eyes desires? I don''t see how all these other tests are going to help him decide what *his* eyes will like.

The GIA report thing is valid. I noticed that & just thought it could be that someone reported what they saw instead of taking the extra step to round. It''s not robotic to GIA at this point. It''s relatively new to their graders. But, you certainly have a point that seems to be falling on deaf ears & focusing all efforts to get the other tests done.

Personally - make them into earrings!

 

[fire&ice]

Al - the free will thing?

Can''t cha come up with something better.

No, he doesn''t have to follow advice. But, PS is sort the doctor of diamonds. If a person with experience (DD - doctor of diamonds) suggests a course of action. One usually will listen.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 1:05:10 PM
Author: fire&ice
Al - the free will thing?

Can't cha come up with something better.

No, he doesn't have to follow advice. But, PS is sort the doctor of diamonds. If a person with experience (DD - doctor of diamonds) suggests a course of action. One usually will listen.

F&I.....look, I understand totally what you're saying, but you're position seems to be that no one should suggest anything beyond basic information, and I disagree.

You and I have different buying styles. When I bought my last car (not new), I had it taken to an independent inspection station to be checked out. I went onto Autotrader and cars.com to get comparative data on what other comparable cars were available. I went to Kelly Blue book to find out what the appropriate valuations were for the car. I asked for and received a Carfax report for it. I drove 4.5 hours from my house to go test drive it.

Those are the things that *I* needed to feel confident in my purchasing decision. You may have said "well, just go test drive the car and if you like it, buy it." But for ME, that's not enough information to feel confident in a purchase.

I don't think you should have to buy according to my criteria, and I don't think I should have to buy according to yours.

If someone came here asking for opinions about what information would help them select a good buy on a used car, we would likely give them different opinions. It's up to the person asking to decide what to do with the opinions given.

I respect your argument for balance, and I'd suggest that the best way to achieve that balance is for both buying types to give opinions.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 1:00:36 PM
Author: fire&ice
And, respectfully - if these are so extremely matched - why not go with what his eyes desires? I don't see how all these other tests are going to help him decide what *his* eyes will like.

Who said that asking for that information is meant to be a substitute for what his eye desires?

This is a mind-clean issue....I don't know how else to make that resonate. You require only mindclean....and that's great. Others require both, and if they do, what's the problem with them getting it?

You are approaching the issue from an either/or perspective, and it doesn't have to be. People who want data can still pick with their eyes; the methods aren't mutually exclusive. You can pick what satisfies your eyes AND your mind.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 8/21/2006 12:59:37 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/21/2006 12:54:10 PM
Author: fire&ice

I''ve followed his threads. He''s found stellar stones on his own no less. He is not asking for information of his own mind. He is asking because it was suggested/requested to/from him. And, yes, the minutia between the two stones is minimal. He has the opportunity to view them. Pick one.

It''s the donkey w/ two bales (love that analogy PS). He may starve pondering which one to eat. Not to mention, these stones could be gone while he gets more information to nitpick. Information that in real life could be irrelavent.

So are you saying that I suggest you jump off a bridge tonight, you''re going to HAVE to do that becuase I suggested it?

I would NEVER suggest that, by the way.....you know I love ya, F&I. But my point is this: people come asking for opinions, and they get several kinds. They get the esoteric opinions and the academic opinions. Being creature of free will, they can decide if they want to listen to all, some, or none of the input they get.

Dare I add that people themselves have the option to give input or not as well... no one has to give their opinion if they''re bored or tired of giving it for the same questions again and again...

It''s up to each individual to decide what resonates to him more and to determine what he deems useful.

If Mark didn''t want the info, he would have disregarded the suggestion. If he does want it, he will ask.

He should feel free to ask for whatever he wants....not what you would want, and not what I would want.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/21/2006 1:00:36 PM
Author: fire&ice

And, respectfully - if these are so extremely matched - why not go with what his eyes desires? I don't see how all these other tests are going to help him decide what *his* eyes will like.

The GIA report thing is valid. I noticed that & just thought it could be that someone reported what they saw instead of taking the extra step to round. It's not robotic to GIA at this point. It's relatively new to their graders. But, you certainly have a point that seems to be falling on deaf ears; focusing all efforts to get the other tests done.

Personally - make them into earrings!

Ahh. Earrings would be great! That would be some pair of lobe strobes.

I respect where you are coming from. Supplicants here are asking for advice. If they've never heard of X and we say ‘you should check X,’ they are going to make X a priority; even if X is meaningless, or the most minor ‘nano-spec’ (which is a great term). We need to keep it real.

Also respectfully, I suggest that this particular thread wasn't rife with nano-spec-ism.

In this case, ‘X’ was a suggestion to validate report authenticity. Numbers were necessary to explain why the document was in question, there were no tests. Garry and I knew it would be a close race from the start and agreed that if Mark wanted further input here, actual images would be necessary (for us). Mark asked if IS would be a good purchase. I think it is - others may not. My ‘service’ request for his jeweler was only curiosity, not a test; I’m simply interested in knowing how many people in the retail word away from PS even discuss painting.

Perhaps this thread just got its tail caught in the door?

This is a constantly relevant topic: One of my duties here is to speak with clients trying to make a decision between closely matched diamonds who may have 'paralysis by analysis.' When this happens I find out their priorities and level of education/analytic desires, and offer perspective on the importance of factors they're analyzing. People are different. Some just want a description of face-up color. Others obsess on tenths of degrees, a microcosmic portion of an ideal-scope image, or clarity characteristics in VVS (truly nano-fide). I'm delighted to address all comers - I love this stuff - but ultimately it's about keeping it real... With stones of equal caliber, even those sitting right here, we can only describe things to a point until it becomes a matter of taste. Brian has long held this philosophy, and I couldn't agree more. I described this for you because I hope it helps to know that professionals are making your argument for you regularly.

It depends on the client more than anything else.

You're entirely correct in that the ‘eyes’ have it. That is fundamental and should always be reinforced. Perhaps I could have emphasized it more while discussing lions and tigers and report checks, above. It’s a good reset; and I still plan to contribute to your other thread.

By the way, thanks for noticing the ‘points’ we’re pointing out to GIA. In fact, we have had direct dialogue. There are good people there willing to listen. I just hope they will hear us. More to come... And in case you thought you got away with it – you’ve been ‘outed!’

Keeping track of brillianteering threads is nano-spec-addiction, missy.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 1:44:03 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 8/21/2006 12:59:37 PM
Author: aljdewey


I would NEVER suggest that, by the way.....you know I love ya, F&I. But my point is this: people come asking for opinions, and they get several kinds. They get the esoteric opinions and the academic opinions. Being creature of free will, they can decide if they want to listen to all, some, or none of the input they get.

Dare I add that people themselves have the option to give input or not as well... no one has to give their opinion if they''re bored or tired of giving it for the same questions again and again...

Oh, sure......absolutely agree with that.

There are days I just don''t feel like going through the same thing over and over again either. There are plenty of days I look and go "ehhhhhhhh.....can''t handle it today. Someone else can chime in."

BUT...... on those days, I don''t call out for non-ideal lovers to "stop the insanity" of suggesting to buy without data (gasp) as a way to balance the fact that I don''t feel like participating.

 

[fire&ice]

My whole point is - how is any test going to determine what the posters *eye* preferences are. It can't. I can only give concrete data - none of which could tell what his eyes prefer. And, you have to assume that the information will be read correctly. Maybe he will love brillianteering in a stone. Maybe he will *actually* see he doesn't like it. How can one do this without seeing the stones side by side? Which as far as I know, he can do with ease. Am I missing that he can't do that?

No, haven't been outed - just think that when an entity like GIA can vascilate on the effect - it's a non issue until it is an issue then becomes a non issue until the issue is decided.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:31:31 PM
Author: fire&ice

My whole point is - how is any test going to determine what the posters *eye* preferences are. It can't. I can only give concrete data - none of which could tell what his eyes prefer. And, you have to assume that the information will be read correctly. Maybe he will love brillianteering in a stone. Maybe he will *actually* see he doesn't like it. How can one do this without seeing the stones side by side? Which as far as I know, he can do with ease. Am I missing that he can't do that?

No, haven't been outed - just think that when an entity like GIA can vascilate on the effect - it's a non issue until it is an issue then becomes a non issue until the issue is decided.

IT'S NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goodness! You keep insisting that people are suggesting that tests will tell you what your eye likes, and no one.....NO ONE has said that. No one has said that any test/measurement, etc. can tell your eye what beauty is!

Testing satisfies the MIND. Images of idealscopes satisfy the MIND.

NO ONE has said that tests are going to tell him which stone is more BEAUTIFUL, more pleasing to his eye, or any such thing! No one has said "hey, you don't need to look at them - just get this measurement/picture/image instead."

Why are you insisting that people are suggesting tests will tell them what their EYES like? The only one I hear saying that is you.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:36:51 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/21/2006 4:31:31 PM
Author: fire&ice

My whole point is - how is any test going to determine what the posters *eye* preferences are. It can''t. I can only give concrete data - none of which could tell what his eyes prefer. And, you have to assume that the information will be read correctly. Maybe he will love brillianteering in a stone. Maybe he will *actually* see he doesn''t like it. How can one do this without seeing the stones side by side? Which as far as I know, he can do with ease. Am I missing that he can''t do that?

No, haven''t been outed - just think that when an entity like GIA can vascilate on the effect - it''s a non issue until it is an issue then becomes a non issue until the issue is decided.

IT''S NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goodness! You keep insisting that people are suggesting that tests will tell you what your eye likes, and no one.....NO ONE has said that. No one has said that any test/measurement, etc. can tell your eye what beauty is!

Testing satisfies the MIND. Images of idealscopes satisfy the MIND.

NO ONE has said that tests are going to tell him which stone is more BEAUTIFUL, more pleasing to his eye, or any such thing! No one has said ''hey, you don''t need to look at them - just get this measurement/picture/image instead.''

Why are you insisting that people are suggesting tests will tell them what their EYES like? The only one I hear saying that is you.

Ummmm.....no, I''m saying that.

Lots of words here.

F&I, would you recommend a Lazarre Kaplan diamond to someone, readily? Why?

 

[aljdewey]

Ok, maybe I have something that will make it clearer. Let's talk about food.

There are many aspects to food - one is "what is it's nutritive value". Another is "do I like the taste of it". Some people go strictly on taste....until their doctor tells them they have to pay more attention to nutrition. W

When the do, they go to a FOOD FORUM (heheheheheh) to find out if there is a way to satisfy BOTH criteria....what they like, and what will taste good.

Others who've found things that work for them can make suggestions......Rod may come in and say he likes beets. He can give me all the ways to determine the *nutritive* value of beets. Does that mean he's telling me that I *will* like beets? No.

If he gives me information that shows me why spinach is considered nutritious, does that mean he's telling me that I will think spinach tastes good? Again, No.

If someone comes asking about spinach, it's entirely appropriate to say "well, did you get the information from the label? How much potassium does it contain? How many calories per serving?" Telling me to find out about that doesn't suggest they are saying the label will determine if I like the taste. It's just saying that's how I can determine the nutritional value. If the nutritional value doesn't meet my initial criteria (whatever that is), then I may eliminate it (or not) from the list of foods I'm gonna try.

Beauty is ONE aspect of diamonds. Technical excellence is another. How much weight any given buyer gives to either side is a personal choice.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 4:41:39 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 8/21/2006 4:36:51 PM
Author: aljdewey

Why are you insisting that people are suggesting tests will tell them what their EYES like? The only one I hear saying that is you.

Ummmm.....no, I'm saying that.

Well, if you're saying that, Ira, then I guess I'd disagree with you too.

There are folks who've learned about diamonds, bought ideal stones, and then not cared for the way they look. There are a few posts here that go something like "Ok, so I bought this ideal stone - why does it look dark?"

Knowing that they were "ideal" stones doesn't force their eyes to like them.....and some don't. All the 'tests', scopes, H&A viewers, etc. didn't make their eyes like them.