IS and ASET images - ideal, or just ok?

[Lorelei]

Even if the diamond in question does have some painting Storm, and I know it seems you are not a fan of it from old threads, can you prove to us for educational purposes, that it has a negative effect on this particular diamond, especially when you haven't seen the actual stone in question?

Also I have copied Brian Gavin's words on the matter which may be useful to those reading here.

"I hope this article allows others to understand that the stereotyping of 'painting' or 'digging' is erroneous when the diamond is not in-hand. To make decisive evaluations one must know the diamond's configuration, what type of painting or digging was done, and to what degree. To speculate or stereotype will lead to invalid conclusions.

This study reinforces my assertion" These words are taken from Brian's article which those who are interested can read here.

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/1/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx

So I would really be interested to know how you can predict with any accuracy that this diamond is showing any negative effects from any painting, when you can't see the diamond, or have unlike some in the industry, seen enough diamonds to be able to tell with any certainty or authority?

I am asking purely out of interest so I and others can learn more and get the facts. The diamond in question looks stunning to my non expert eyes from the info provided.

 

[strmrdr]

uniform painting, the real diamond isnt as uniformly painted with some variation in a couple facet sets.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/22/2008 9:48:46 AM
Author: Lorelei

Even if the diamond in question does have some painting Storm, and I know it seems you are not a fan of it from old threads, can you prove to us for educational purposes, that it has a negative effect on this particular diamond, especially when you haven''t seen the actual stone in question?

Also I have copied Brian Gavin''s words on the matter which may be useful to those reading here.

''I hope this article allows others to understand that the stereotyping of ''painting'' or ''digging'' is erroneous when the diamond is not in-hand. To make decisive evaluations one must know the diamond''s configuration, what type of painting or digging was done, and to what degree. To speculate or stereotype will lead to invalid conclusions.

This study reinforces my assertion''

So I would really be interested to know how you can predict with any accuracy that this diamond is showing any negative effects from any painting, when you can''t see the diamond, or have unlike some in the industry, seen enough diamonds to be able to tell with any certainty?

I am asking purely out of interest so I and others can learn more and get the facts. The diamond in question looks stunning to my non expert eyes.

The effects of painting are well understood and studied.
The strongest selling point of a painted diamond is marketing gee golly it has an all red IS.
GIA rejected painting beyond a very small amount as a legitimate tool for diamond performance, AGS allows a little more but kicks it down also beyond a point particularly in certain c/p combos.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2008 10:05:34 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 9:48:46 AM
Author: Lorelei







Even if the diamond in question does have some painting Storm, and I know it seems you are not a fan of it from old threads, can you prove to us for educational purposes, that it has a negative effect on this particular diamond, especially when you haven't seen the actual stone in question?

Also I have copied Brian Gavin's words on the matter which may be useful to those reading here.

'I hope this article allows others to understand that the stereotyping of 'painting' or 'digging' is erroneous when the diamond is not in-hand. To make decisive evaluations one must know the diamond's configuration, what type of painting or digging was done, and to what degree. To speculate or stereotype will lead to invalid conclusions.







This study reinforces my assertion'

So I would really be interested to know how you can predict with any accuracy that this diamond is showing any negative effects from any painting, when you can't see the diamond, or have unlike some in the industry, seen enough diamonds to be able to tell with any certainty?

I am asking purely out of interest so I and others can learn more and get the facts. The diamond in question looks stunning to my non expert eyes.

The effects of painting are well understood and studied.
The strongest selling point of a painted diamond is marketing gee golly it has an all red IS.
GIA rejected painting beyond a very small amount as a legitimate tool for diamond performance, AGS allows a little more but kicks it down also beyond a point particularly in certain c/p combos.

Thanks for the reply! But can you show and prove how any painting is negatively affecting this diamond? If I am understanding Paul correctly, who is another expert whose opinion and judgement I hold in high esteem, he seems to think this diamond is fine? I just want to be sure I am posting the best info, to my non expert eyes the diamond looks lovely. If it is your personal preference to avoid painted stones as seems to be the case then that is one thing, but if the diamond in question has been painted and this doesn't affect it's beauty or performance, especially when an expert who can actually see the diamond has told a potential buyer that it is a great diamond, then I would think they have the most accurate opinion of that particular stone.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/22/2008 10:06:42 AM
Author: Lorelei

Fine, thanks for the reply! But can you show and prove how any painting is negatively affecting this diamond? If I am understanding Paul correctly, who is another expert whose opinion and judgement I hold in high esteem, seems to think this diamond is fine?

sure, potential AGS score drops when the painting is applied.
now the reverse prove it dont :}

Frankly my comment was:
"funky aset and IS is a result of painting.
Its not a stone I would buy."

I don''t really care if the rest of the world would buy it, I wouldn''t and said so.
Nor am I really interested in rehashing the whole marketing of the all red reflector image debate again.
Which has been debated in sickening detail.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2008 10:26:37 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 10:06:42 AM
Author: Lorelei

Fine, thanks for the reply! But can you show and prove how any painting is negatively affecting this diamond? If I am understanding Paul correctly, who is another expert whose opinion and judgement I hold in high esteem, seems to think this diamond is fine?

sure, potential AGS score drops when the painting is applied.
now the reverse prove it dont :}

Frankly my comment was:
'funky aset and IS is a result of painting.
Its not a stone I would buy.'

I don't really care if the rest of the world would buy it, I wouldn't and said so.
Nor am I really interested in rehashing the whole marketing of the all red reflector image debate again.
Which has been debated in sickening detail.

I am not interested in rehashing all that either

, but I wanted to know if it was personal preference, or whether there was the real possibility of any painting spoiling the beauty of the diamond, especially so I can provide the most accurate advice to other posters in my consumer role.

Thanks Storm

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/22/2008 10:30:00 AM
Author: Lorelei

I am not interested in rehashing all that either

, but I wanted to know if it was personal preference, or whether there was the real possibility of any painting spoiling the beauty of the diamond, especially so I can provide the most accurate advice to other posters in my consumer role.

Thanks Storm

unfortunatly a scientific discussion is not possible on this subject.
Too much $$$ both past present and future involved.
Most of the time it doesnt matter that much so I just let it go as it was a third level consideration in the combos it has been seen the most on here with a small visible effect.
When it might be an issue then I consider bringing it up otherwise the difference isnt worth the hassle I get everytime I do.
I would love to have a rock solid black and white answer but in the world of diamond there are none.

have a great day!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2008 10:48:26 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 10:30:00 AM
Author: Lorelei

I am not interested in rehashing all that either

, but I wanted to know if it was personal preference, or whether there was the real possibility of any painting spoiling the beauty of the diamond, especially so I can provide the most accurate advice to other posters in my consumer role.

Thanks Storm

unfortunatly a scientific discussion is not possible on this subject.
Too much $$$ both past present and future involved.
Most of the time it doesnt matter that much so I just let it go as it was a third level consideration in the combos it has been seen the most on here with a small visible effect.
When it might be an issue then I consider bringing it up otherwise the difference isnt worth the hassle I get everytime I do.
I would love to have a rock solid black and white answer but in the world of diamond there are none.

have a great day!

I am honestly not trying to hassle you Storm, just trying to get the best info, so that I can understand and pass that on to other consumers. That is why I was asking how you could tell if there was a true adverse effect on that particular diamond without seeing it, from any painting. Also I always consider it is a trusted vendor such as Brian who has the most accurate opinion of any diamond they physically have and can examine, and I think it should be that way anyway. I want to make sure we are doing other consumers the best service we can, by letting the ultimate opinion and judgement on a large dollar purchase of a diamond, come from the professional vendor who has seen enough diamonds and has the proven experience to judge correctly. Just my thoughts

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 4/22/2008 10:48:26 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 10:30:00 AM
Author: Lorelei

I am not interested in rehashing all that either

, but I wanted to know if it was personal preference, or whether there was the real possibility of any painting spoiling the beauty of the diamond, especially so I can provide the most accurate advice to other posters in my consumer role.

Thanks Storm

unfortunatly a scientific discussion is not possible on this subject.
Too much $$$ both past present and future involved.
Most of the time it doesnt matter that much so I just let it go as it was a third level consideration in the combos it has been seen the most on here with a small visible effect.
When it might be an issue then I consider bringing it up otherwise the difference isnt worth the hassle I get everytime I do.
I would love to have a rock solid black and white answer but in the world of diamond there are none.

have a great day!

Forgive me, Storm,

But if you know that there is not a black and white answer, why do you give a black and white comment?

I am not saying that you are wrong in your assessment, and definitely, you are not wrong in your personal opinion (that is why opinions are personal, no?), but you are phrasing a personal opinion as a scientific black or white, and as a result, you are scaring a consumer. So even if your assessment is correct, the result is bad, simply because you did not put it in perspective.

May I just say that it is not a disgrace to use the words ''may'', ''might'' or ''possibly''?

Live long,

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/22/2008 11:01:51 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Forgive me, Storm,

But if you know that there is not a black and white answer, why do you give a black and white comment?

I am not saying that you are wrong in your assessment, and definitely, you are not wrong in your personal opinion (that is why opinions are personal, no?), but you are phrasing a personal opinion as a scientific black or white, and as a result, you are scaring a consumer. So even if your assessment is correct, the result is bad, simply because you did not put it in perspective.

May I just say that it is not a disgrace to use the words ''may'', ''might'' or ''possibly''?

Live long,

And not just this consumer, as painting has now been questioned on another stone, in another thread, where none had been mentioned before. Just something to think about.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/22/2008 11:11:12 AM
Author: Ellen
And not just this consumer, as painting has now been questioned on another stone, in another thread, where none had been mentioned before. Just something to think about.

Is that really a bad thing?
It is something too consider along with c/p, lgf%, stars, girdle thickness, inclusions, color, light return, what type of light return, durability, interpreting IS/ASET images, fluorescence and value.

 

[TorontoBuyer]

For my part, I appreciate strm''s questioning/pessimistic nature as it causes me to ask questions I otherwise wouldn''t have known to ask, as I search for the ''perfect'' stone for my engagement ring. I also really appreciate the other viewpoints, from both experts and well-educated prosumers... all of this is helpful in getting me to the right decision. I understand how many people might be frightened off of perfectly good stones by some of the comments, though... if I might suggest, what would be helpful when raising concerns with a stone would be an indication of the magnitude of the potential problem. For example, in this case... are we saying, possibly, that scintillation might be 2% lower than if not painted? Or 10%? Or is it closer to 50%? I realize this has the effect of making opinions seem even more like fact, but in my case would be very useful.

I''ve sent a note off to WF, and will see what response I get... knowing Sheerah she''ll be calling me in a few minutes. Thanks again for the ongoing advice/input/debate. It is extremely valuable and, for me, more helpful than frightening.

Thanks also for the positive opnions on the stone, Lorelei and Ellen. Those are very helpful too.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/22/2008 11:38:13 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 11:11:12 AM
Author: Ellen
And not just this consumer, as painting has now been questioned on another stone, in another thread, where none had been mentioned before. Just something to think about.

Is that really a bad thing?
It is something too consider along with c/p, lgf%, stars, girdle thickness, inclusions, color, light return, what type of light return, durability, interpreting IS/ASET images, fluorescence and value.

To me it is, if there's no painting to begin with. Then it just creates an unwarranted fear/worry. And many posters already have enough of those when they get here.

strm, I have no problem with you or anyone else alerting a poster to a potentially disasterous stone from painting. But, we rarely see those. And certainly not from WF, or the other reputable vendors on here. I see stones from time to time that have characteristics I'm not fond of, and wouldn't want in one of my own stones. But I don't mention it, because it's just a personal preference. Unless I see something that will truly, adversely affect a diamond, I let it go.

Posters tend to hang on our words (like it or not), so we must be mindful of what we say. Our "opinion/preference" can easily become their "fact".

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/22/2008 11:59:03 AM
Author: TorontoBuyer

Thanks also for the positive opnions on the stone, Lorelei and Ellen. Those are very helpful too.

You''re welcome!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2008 12:11:52 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/22/2008 11:38:13 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 11:11:12 AM
Author: Ellen
And not just this consumer, as painting has now been questioned on another stone, in another thread, where none had been mentioned before. Just something to think about.

Is that really a bad thing?
It is something too consider along with c/p, lgf%, stars, girdle thickness, inclusions, color, light return, what type of light return, durability, interpreting IS/ASET images, fluorescence and value.

To me it is, if there's no painting to begin with. Then it just creates an unwarranted fear/worry. And many posters already have enough of those when they get here.

strm, I have no problem with you or anyone else alerting a poster to a potentially disasterous stone from painting. But, we rarely see those. And certainly not from WF, or the other reputable vendors on here. I see stones from time to time that have characteristics I'm not fond of, and wouldn't want in one of my own stones. But I don't mention it, because it's just a personal preference. Unless I see something that will truly, adversely affect a diamond, I let it go.

Posters tend to hang on our words (like it or not), so we must be mindful of what we say. Our 'opinion/preference' can easily become their 'fact'.

I agree.

 

[TorontoBuyer]

So I''ve read Brian''s painting/digging article (http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/1/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx) - thanks Lorelei - and to me, I can now see what strm is referencing on the IS... though the effect (1.5-3deg of crown painting, by my semi-educated eyes) seems fairly minimal.

Looks like it would likely be called ''Small'' on a helium report? I''ve seen this quite a few times with other diamonds that have been recommended highly and haven''t paid it much attention... I can appreciate the purist approach to rejecting such stones and would be very hesitant myself if this was a 1.01ct diamond (that would presumably benefit more from painting to hit the magic 1ct mark?) but would painting a ~1.22ct stone provide this degree of benefit, or is it more likely to help the diamond "acquire desirable visual properties" as Brian puts it?

Thanks

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/22/2008 12:43:25 PM
Author: TorontoBuyer
So I''ve read Brian''s painting/digging article (http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/1/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx) - thanks Lorelei - and to me, I can now see what strm is referencing on the IS... though the effect (1.5-3deg of crown painting, by my semi-educated eyes) seems fairly minimal.

Looks like it would likely be called ''Small'' on a helium report? I''ve seen this quite a few times with other diamonds that have been recommended highly and haven''t paid it much attention... I can appreciate the purist approach to rejecting such stones and would be very hesitant myself if this was a 1.01ct diamond (that would presumably benefit more from painting to hit the magic 1ct mark?) but would painting a ~1.22ct stone provide this degree of benefit, or is it more likely to help the diamond ''acquire desirable visual properties'' as Brian puts it?

Thanks

That was my "guess" from the beginning. But again, Brian can discuss this stone with you best. He will be totally forthright about it, as he is with all his stones.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2008 12:52:11 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/22/2008 12:43:25 PM
Author: TorontoBuyer
So I've read Brian's painting/digging article (http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/1/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx) - thanks Lorelei - and to me, I can now see what strm is referencing on the IS... though the effect (1.5-3deg of crown painting, by my semi-educated eyes) seems fairly minimal.

Looks like it would likely be called 'Small' on a helium report? I've seen this quite a few times with other diamonds that have been recommended highly and haven't paid it much attention... I can appreciate the purist approach to rejecting such stones and would be very hesitant myself if this was a 1.01ct diamond (that would presumably benefit more from painting to hit the magic 1ct mark?) but would painting a ~1.22ct stone provide this degree of benefit, or is it more likely to help the diamond 'acquire desirable visual properties' as Brian puts it?

Thanks

That was my 'guess' from the beginning. But again, Brian can discuss this stone with you best. He will be totally forthright about it, as he is with all his stones.

Ditto and glad to help!

 

[Allison D.]

Folks, I'm all for an academic discussion when it's framed as such, but this is getting a little beyond that, so let's do a little reset for a minute, ok?

IS and ASET are great tools BUT..... diamond beauty is judged with the human eye. On Pricescope consumers who are not actually looking at real diamonds can become so accustomed to seeing reflectors, reports and data that those things seem to take priority.....wrongfully.

They are helpful, yes, but they don't trump reality.

I'll say it again..........they don't trump reality.

Academic knowledge is great, but it's not a substitute for real world experience. Let's say you're going into the hospital for surgery. Who do you want operating on you: the guy who has read every surgical textbook but never held a scalpel in his hand, or the renown surgeon with decades of REAL, successful surgeries under his belt?

Yep........me too.

I want the guy who has the theory AND the real-world experience.....and you should, too.

Taking that back to diamonds.....what matters is actual appearance and Brian’s eyes have few rivals in the business.

Anyone who knows our company understands Brian is absolutely committed to cutting for visual balance. May I respectfully suggest that what “may/might/possibly” be something someone is implying in a reflector photo on a computer monitor takes a back seat to the words of a reputable diamantaire who actually has it in his hand???

Moreover, anyone who's knows Brian knows that the idea a diamond would be cut to acquire a “look” in the ideal-scope at the expense of any kind of visual beauty is completely ludicrous. That's just not consistent with his "RAISE the standards" outlook.

Brian......an accomplished cutter and leader in the market.....has visually inspected the stone and given it a 'thumbs up'. I cannot imagine how one would expect to trump that opinion with anyone who hasn't also visually inspected the stone.

 

[Ellen]

Perfectly said Allison, thank you.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2008 2:27:21 PM
Author: Ellen
Perfectly said Allison, thank you.

Indeed, thanks Alj.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/22/2008 2:11:23 PM
Author: Allison D.

Anyone who knows our company understands Brian is absolutely committed to cutting for visual balance.

In the ACA line yes but in ES cut quality is not the criteria.
I can point too several examples of that and even you saying so.
Even in the ACA line this level of painting has disapeared.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/22/2008 12:11:52 PM
Author: Ellen
To me it is, if there''s no painting to begin with. Then it just creates an unwarranted fear/worry. And many posters already have enough of those when they get here.

strm, I have no problem with you or anyone else alerting a poster to a potentially disasterous stone from painting. But, we rarely see those. And certainly not from WF, or the other reputable vendors on here. I see stones from time to time that have characteristics I''m not fond of, and wouldn''t want in one of my own stones. But I don''t mention it, because it''s just a personal preference. Unless I see something that will truly, adversely affect a diamond, I let it go.

Posters tend to hang on our words (like it or not), so we must be mindful of what we say. Our ''opinion/preference'' can easily become their ''fact''.

Well that gives you the opportunity too teach what too look for if a diamond has painting or not, then it eventually becomes common knowledge in the PS community and another bit in the PS knowledge box.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/22/2008 3:09:54 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 2:11:23 PM
Author: Allison D.


Taking that back to diamonds.....what matters is actual appearance and Brian’s eyes have few rivals in the business.

Anyone who knows our company understands Brian is absolutely committed to cutting for visual balance.

In the ACA line maybe but in ES cut quality is not the criteria.
I can point too several examples of that and even you saying so.
Even in the ACA line this level of painting has disapeared.

The stone we are talking about is probably not or or very lightly painted.
If Whiteflash doesn''t paint ACA''s like before, it''s because of the GIA, not because painted diamonds are ugly.
Painted diamonds often provide bigger flashes of fire, for example.
But who cares about GIA? I have a painted diamond, and it looks better than a lot of H&A''s I saw.
GIA is not the "Diamond Bible".
Could a diamond with 62% Table, 33.5° Crown and 41.6° Pavilion be "Excellent"?
If you believe in the GIA, then it could be.
But I don''t believe it.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2008 3:14:00 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 12:11:52 PM
Author: Ellen
To me it is, if there's no painting to begin with. Then it just creates an unwarranted fear/worry. And many posters already have enough of those when they get here.

strm, I have no problem with you or anyone else alerting a poster to a potentially disasterous stone from painting. But, we rarely see those. And certainly not from WF, or the other reputable vendors on here. I see stones from time to time that have characteristics I'm not fond of, and wouldn't want in one of my own stones. But I don't mention it, because it's just a personal preference. Unless I see something that will truly, adversely affect a diamond, I let it go.

Posters tend to hang on our words (like it or not), so we must be mindful of what we say. Our 'opinion/preference' can easily become their 'fact'.

Well that gives you the opportunity too teach what too look for if a diamond has painting or not, then it eventually becomes common knowledge in the PS community and another bit in the PS knowledge box.

Storm, I have great respect for you, but I still believe and will continue to recommend that posters take the advice of an expert who can actually see the diamond, and has the real life expertise and experience to give consumers an accurate opinion of a particular stone, and regarding any painting. As we are consumers who don't have access to that many diamonds, and certainly not in a professional capacity, or the level of knowledge and experience to give really meaningful advice, I feel personally this is the right thing to do for the sake of those who come here seeking opinions. You said it yourself a while back, we need to use our positions here responsibly, and accept that we do have limitations as consumers.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/22/2008 12:43:25 PM
Author: TorontoBuyer
So I''ve read Brian''s painting/digging article (http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/1/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx) - thanks Lorelei - and to me, I can now see what strm is referencing on the IS... though the effect (1.5-3deg of crown painting, by my semi-educated eyes) seems fairly minimal.

Looks like it would likely be called ''Small'' on a helium report? I''ve seen this quite a few times with other diamonds that have been recommended highly and haven''t paid it much attention... I can appreciate the purist approach to rejecting such stones and would be very hesitant myself if this was a 1.01ct diamond (that would presumably benefit more from painting to hit the magic 1ct mark?) but would painting a ~1.22ct stone provide this degree of benefit, or is it more likely to help the diamond ''acquire desirable visual properties'' as Brian puts it?

Thanks

You are now armed too have an informed conversation with him about it and make a decision.
Both from a value for the money perspective and a ultimate cut quality perspective(what are you losing by not going ACA) and see if it is the stone for you.
Brian is a good guy.
Good luck and best wishes!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/22/2008 3:22:43 PM
Author: Lorelei

Storm, I have great respect for you, but I still believe and will continue to recommend that posters take the advice of an expert who can actually see the diamond, and has the real life expertise and experience to give consumers an accurate opinion of a particular stone. As we are consumers who don't have access to that many diamonds, and certainly not in a professional capacity, or the level of knowledge and experience to do give really meaningful advice, I feel personally this is the right thing to do for the sake of those who come here seeking opinions. You said it yourself a while back, we need to use our positions here responsibly, and accept that we do have limitations as consumers.

The vendors opinion of the diamond and Brian's in particular opinion(when buying from WF) on a diamond is an important part of the buying decision, teaching consumers which questions and when too ask them is our job.
See one post up.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 4/22/2008 3:09:54 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 2:11:23 PM
Author: Allison D.

Anyone who knows our company understands Brian is absolutely committed to cutting for visual balance.

In the ACA line maybe but in ES cut quality is not the criteria.
I can point too several examples of that and even you saying so.
Even in the ACA line this level of painting has disapeared.

Storm, nice try.........but we aren''t talking about the whole of Expert Selection inventory here, and you know it.

We are talking about ONE stone.......and that stone has been visually inspected by Brian and given a thumbs up.

As for painting disappearing or not......does it ever occur to you demand for such stones might be down due to the same type of fear-mongering going on in this thread?

Let''s get back to the facts of this stone.

1. Brian has visually inspected the stone, and he''s said it''s a great stone in his learned, experienced, expert opinion.

2. No one else participating in this thread has laid his/her own eyes on this stone, so any other input (however
helpful) is purely speculative.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/22/2008 3:27:29 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/22/2008 3:22:43 PM
Author: Lorelei

Storm, I have great respect for you, but I still believe and will continue to recommend that posters take the advice of an expert who can actually see the diamond, and has the real life expertise and experience to give consumers an accurate opinion of a particular stone. As we are consumers who don't have access to that many diamonds, and certainly not in a professional capacity, or the level of knowledge and experience to do give really meaningful advice, I feel personally this is the right thing to do for the sake of those who come here seeking opinions. You said it yourself a while back, we need to use our positions here responsibly, and accept that we do have limitations as consumers.

The vendors opinion of the diamond and Brian's in particular opinion(when buying from WF) on a diamond is an important part of the buying decision, teaching consumers which questions and when too ask them is our job.

I agree. But also we need to be careful about not potentially overcomplicating things, and causing fear, uncertainty and doubt with matters such as possible painting in a diamond, where we cannot see the stone, or have the experience to say with any certainty that it is adversely affecting the diamond in a negative way. That is not possible for us as consumers without the expertise or the diamond in hand. The consumer has asked the question whether any brillianteering has adversely affected the stone. Brian said no, it is a great stone and he is qualified and able to hold that opinion. That should be what matters. Anything else is pure speculation by non experts.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 4/22/2008 3:27:29 PM
Author: strmrdr
The vendors opinion of the diamond and Brian''s in particular opinion(when buying from WF) on a diamond is an important part of the buying decision, teaching consumers which questions and when too ask them is our job.
See one post up.

I agree with this premise, but what you did earlier in this thread didn''t constitute either.

Stating unequivocally that the diamond is painted (definitely, I believe you said) AND stating that the diamond is deficient in scintillation is NEITHER ''teaching someone to ask a question'' or ''teaching him when to ask''.

To help you learn, Storm, here is an example of how that could have been accomplished.

"The IS/ASET/whatever image raises the possibility the diamond might be brillianteered. You should ask about that and any possible effects it might have on scintillation when you talk to the vendor about the diamond."