Is this a fisheye?

[pyramid]

First of all don''t worry I am not going to buy, I would not buy a diamond ring from ebay.

What I was wondering is that circles just inside the table we see in the face on photo fisheyes, they are not white but is that what we are seeing, or is it just the girdle which would not show up in the normal face up position?

 

[pyramid]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CERT-2-20CT-ROUND-DIAMOND-TRILOGY-RING-18K-YELLOW-GOLD_W0QQitemZ270120703842QQihZ017QQcategoryZ67726QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[yellowsparkles]

I can''t answer the fisheye question, but I do like their description of clarity : I1 (very sparkley).

 

[Love in Bloom]

I am definitely no expert, but it does looks like it could be the fisheye effect from what I have read here. Interesting observation! Can't wait to hear what the pros have to say...

P.S.
Does the pic on ebay look photoedited to you? All three diamonds seem to have the same effect and reflections/facet arrangements.

 

[MWG]

I do not know either....but I can say.....I dont like the way it looks.

MWG

 

[pricescope]

Really bad fisheye is when reflection of the girdle is visible when looking straight down the table (see examples at e.g. http://www.gia.edu/research/1383/2313/article_detail.cfm, http://diamonds.pricescope.com/fisheye.asp)

Garry suggests that if >5 degree tilt is required to see fish-eye, it is acceptable. Pictures on that eBay ring were taken under the tilt so in table-up position fisheye might not show up.

Garry thinks

 

[BigDiamonds]

Date: 5/22/2007 8:21:32 AM
Author: Love in Bloom
P.S.
Does the pic on ebay look photoedited to you? All three diamonds seem to have the same effect and reflections/facet arrangements.

That''s funny- that''s the first thing I noticed about it too. So shady.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 5/22/2007 9:31:38 AM
Author: BigDiamonds

Date: 5/22/2007 8:21:32 AM
Author: Love in Bloom
P.S.
Does the pic on ebay look photoedited to you? All three diamonds seem to have the same effect and reflections/facet arrangements.

That's funny- that's the first thing I noticed about it too. So shady.

Not only those 3 but the solitaire too.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/22/2007 9:53:52 AM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 5/22/2007 9:31:38 AM

Author: BigDiamonds

Date: 5/22/2007 8:21:32 AM

Author: Love in Bloom

P.S.

Does the pic on ebay look photoedited to you? All three diamonds seem to have the same effect and reflections/facet arrangements.

That''s funny- that''s the first thing I noticed about it too. So shady.

Not only those 3 but a solitaire too.

Oh my goodness that''s classic. Can we post that under the heading "Why not to buy diamonds from ebay???"

That is too amusing...

 

[pyramid]

Oh so that is the tilt thing I was wondering about that.

Good work seeing that the pictures are all the same, I never noticed that, had it so much in my head about fisheyes.

 

[Love in Bloom]

Date: 5/22/2007 9:53:52 AM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 5/22/2007 9:31:38 AM
Author: BigDiamonds

Date: 5/22/2007 8:21:32 AM
Author: Love in Bloom
P.S.
Does the pic on ebay look photoedited to you? All three diamonds seem to have the same effect and reflections/facet arrangements.

That's funny- that's the first thing I noticed about it too. So shady.

Not only those 3 but the solitaire too.

If only people on ebay would use their photoediting abilities for good and not

e-v-i-l ...
'good' meaning helping pricescope peeps imagine new setting possibilities (very sweet of you BTW, Irina is it?

)

 

[pricescope]

 

[surfgirl]

They look more like CZs, dont they?

 

[pricescope]

Date: 5/22/2007 12:00:05 PM
Author: surfgirl
They look more like CZs, dont they?

THEY?

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 5/22/2007 1:12:06 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 5/22/2007 12:00:05 PM

Author: surfgirl

They look more like CZs, dont they?

THEY?

I meant the "diamonds" *clears throat*, not the fish eye!

 

[Love in Bloom]

Date: 5/22/2007 11:55:02 AM
Author: Pricescope

EEEEP

!

 

[pricescope]

Date: 5/22/2007 1:26:02 PM
Author: surfgirl

Date: 5/22/2007 1:12:06 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 5/22/2007 12:00:05 PM

Author: surfgirl

They look more like CZs, dont they?

THEY?

I meant the ''diamonds'' *clears throat*, not the fish eye!

Still plural is not justified...THEY?

 

[Love in Bloom]

Date: 5/22/2007 1:29:58 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 5/22/2007 1:26:02 PM
Author: surfgirl

Date: 5/22/2007 1:12:06 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 5/22/2007 12:00:05 PM

Author: surfgirl

They look more like CZs, dont they?

THEY?

I meant the ''diamonds'' *clears throat*, not the fish eye!

Still plural is not justified...THEY?

*gets out a magnifying glass*...Let''s have a look see

 

[surfgirl]

I meant "THEY" as the diamonds (plural) in those two photos of the aforementioned ebay rings for sale...As more than one diamond, the correct reference term would be "they", yes?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/22/2007 3:50:13 PM
Author: surfgirl
I meant ''THEY'' as the diamonds (plural) in those two photos of the aforementioned ebay rings for sale...As more than one diamond, the correct reference term would be ''they'', yes?

I think the "they" comment was made in reference to the fact that it was ONE diamond photographed and merged into the setting over and over. So thus ONE diamond.

 

[Iceman]

I would guess they are CZ with a little photo shop lens flar rendering added. Yep. CZ''s

Way to go surfgirl , you have a good eye for a diamond

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 5/22/2007 4:53:36 PM
Author: Iceman
I would guess they are CZ with a little photo shop lens flar rendering added. Yep. CZ's


Way to go surfgirl , you have a good eye for a diamond

Phew! So Ice Man,my obsession isn't for naught after all? Thanks god!

I didn't realize people thought it was the same stone photoshopped several times...I didn't even think of that, but now that I look at "them" again, yeah, it looks like the same "stone".

 

[pyramid]

Yes Surfgirl as someone else posted if you look at the virtual facets, white bits against dark grey bits, you can see it is exactly the same.

 

[Love in Bloom]

Could this be a fisheye? This is a square radiant that I always though looked ''funny''.

 

[WinkHPD]

LOL, my first thought when I saw those pictures is that the stones are not diamond. Glad to see that I am not alone in my thoughts.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

What a hoot!

Good pick you''all

It is very common to see entire catalogues of cheap jewellery with only one photoshopped diamond used in every diamond.

BTW radiants - especially well cut for brilliance style stones - often show fisheye''s

 

[Love in Bloom]

Date: 5/23/2007 9:15:24 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
What a hoot!


Good pick you'all


It is very common to see entire catalogues of cheap jewellery with only one photoshopped diamond used in every diamond.


BTW radiants - especially well cut for brilliance style stones - often show fisheye's

So this radiant is showing a fisheye? Don't worry I won't be offended; I can handle the truth

. The ring belongs to a 'friend' of mine whose fi brags about how top notch this diamond is and all that stuff. It did always look a little off to me in person, but it is sparkly in places

.

 

[yellowsparkles]

Date: 5/23/2007 9:15:24 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
What a hoot!

Good pick you''all

It is very common to see entire catalogues of cheap jewellery with only one photoshopped diamond used in every diamond.

BTW radiants - especially well cut for brilliance style stones - often show fisheye''s

What a great site. I am learning more and more - wish I found this site before I purchased my stone...(I am sure this sentiment is echoed many times here).

I am having a love/ hate relationship with my ring....

My cushion which is cut like a "radiant" I think has a fish eye.

I never noticed this at the beginning and the appraiser never mentioned it - but I sometimes see this "circle" thingy in the center of the stone. When the ring is just cleaned - I can''t see it. In bright sunlight - I can''t see it.
I had wondered if I was seeing thru the stone, or if it was a cloud = but now I am guessing it is a fish eye.

I can''t capture it with my camera - but I am just wondering why the Master Gemoligist never noticed?