Snarleyow
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 25
Yesterday I received this diamond from WF: http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/Diamond_Details.aspx?idno=1466977
On Friday I will be comparing it, using Idealscope, loupe, etc. to stones at the B&M where I''m getting the setting. The B&M is bringing in stones based on the numbers WF requires for stones to meet their ACA rating. I had looked at what they had in-store before and was not impressed, so I showed them the ACA specs so they could source some stones they think are comparable.
I''ve been examining the stone from WF for the past day. It is very nice, but I must admit that the Idealscope image on their site looks much better than when I view it using my Idealscope. There seems to be quite a bit of pink vs. the red in the on-line image. A bigger concern is that the table seems to indicate a deeper stone, or substantial leakage, rather than the dark red(maybe reddish gray) of the on-line image. I was just surprised at how light the table color looks. Do the numbers indicate a deeper stone than I thought? The HCA numbers look great to me. Am I just being a dope? I hope so.
Also, the H&A seem to show up much darker and crisper on their web site photo than they do when I view the stone first-hand. Perhaps the camera intensifies that pattern.
Don''t get me wrong, it''s a very pretty stone. I just wasn''t as blown away as I thought I''d be.
I guess either my expectations were unrealistically high or I''m using the Idealscope wrong or I am not accounting for WF using the best possible images they can on the site.
When I compare it to the other stones Friday I will know definitively whether I''ll stay with the WF stone or not. Perhaps when I see them side by side the WF ACA advantage will be obvious and I''ll have to come back and sheepishly post about what a Nervous Nellie I am!
Another thing: There were no instructions with the WF viewer and tweezers. The tweezers were easy enough to figure out, but I am curious about the viewer. Looking through it one way is like using a loupe, just magnifying the image. Looking through the other end it''s sort of like an Idealscope, but the colors are quite different. Also, with an Idealscope you either put it on the viewing plate(with the indentations to hold the diamond) on the Idealscope Light or hold it up to diffused light using tweezers. With the WF viewer there is included a black disc with an indentation that the diamond fits into. Seems odd to me to view it using a black background. A little "Diamond Vioewing for Dummies" sheet would have been great. I guess I figured it out ok, but I''ve never bought a dimaond before in my life, so I''m a bit lost!
Ok guys, sock it to me!
Snarleyow
On Friday I will be comparing it, using Idealscope, loupe, etc. to stones at the B&M where I''m getting the setting. The B&M is bringing in stones based on the numbers WF requires for stones to meet their ACA rating. I had looked at what they had in-store before and was not impressed, so I showed them the ACA specs so they could source some stones they think are comparable.
I''ve been examining the stone from WF for the past day. It is very nice, but I must admit that the Idealscope image on their site looks much better than when I view it using my Idealscope. There seems to be quite a bit of pink vs. the red in the on-line image. A bigger concern is that the table seems to indicate a deeper stone, or substantial leakage, rather than the dark red(maybe reddish gray) of the on-line image. I was just surprised at how light the table color looks. Do the numbers indicate a deeper stone than I thought? The HCA numbers look great to me. Am I just being a dope? I hope so.
Also, the H&A seem to show up much darker and crisper on their web site photo than they do when I view the stone first-hand. Perhaps the camera intensifies that pattern.
Don''t get me wrong, it''s a very pretty stone. I just wasn''t as blown away as I thought I''d be.
I guess either my expectations were unrealistically high or I''m using the Idealscope wrong or I am not accounting for WF using the best possible images they can on the site.
When I compare it to the other stones Friday I will know definitively whether I''ll stay with the WF stone or not. Perhaps when I see them side by side the WF ACA advantage will be obvious and I''ll have to come back and sheepishly post about what a Nervous Nellie I am!
Another thing: There were no instructions with the WF viewer and tweezers. The tweezers were easy enough to figure out, but I am curious about the viewer. Looking through it one way is like using a loupe, just magnifying the image. Looking through the other end it''s sort of like an Idealscope, but the colors are quite different. Also, with an Idealscope you either put it on the viewing plate(with the indentations to hold the diamond) on the Idealscope Light or hold it up to diffused light using tweezers. With the WF viewer there is included a black disc with an indentation that the diamond fits into. Seems odd to me to view it using a black background. A little "Diamond Vioewing for Dummies" sheet would have been great. I guess I figured it out ok, but I''ve never bought a dimaond before in my life, so I''m a bit lost!
Ok guys, sock it to me!
Snarleyow
300x240.png)