Online video reliability -- side-by-side comparison

[drk14]

In my search for a marquise diamond, I just came across a stone that had online videos at two different vendors (JA and Ritani, both PS sponsors). Interestingly, the diamond appears significantly more 'sparkly' in one of the two videos.

JA 360 view:
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.08-carat-g-color-vs1-clarity-sku-305399

Ritani video:
http://p0.a-ritani.com/uploads/production/video/encodes/32383/advanced.mp4

I don't (yet) know all the terminology to describe light-return (e.g., "fire", "scintillation", etc.), but the Ritani video definitely seems to have more of it!

So my question is (knowing that it's the same diamond in both videos), do you think that the JA videos tend to give a less vibrant/more "clinical" appearance than what the diamond would look like in person, or conversely, that the Ritani video used special lighting to enhance the sparklyness of this stone compared to the "real" appearance of the diamond?

If the latter is a more likely explanation, it doesn't appear that Ritani uses such lighting techniques in all of their videos (which is why the above stone caught my eye on the Ritani site -- it was much more sparkly than any of their other marquise videos). For comparison, here is a Ritani video of a similarly proportioned stone:
http://p0.a-ritani.com/uploads/production/video/encodes/41500/advanced.mp4

Since I have not yet had an ooprtunity to view any marquise diamonds in person, I would greatly appreciate any opinions on how online videos (such as the ones linked above) compare to reality. Thanks!

 

[Niel]

It probably is just different lighting. I would buy it from JA just because they would offer ASETs to show if it really was as nice as it looks in the ritani video.


also, sense this right around the same budget as the JA one, i wanted to pass this along. I really think its the loveliest MQ james allen has to offer right now

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.05-carat-e-color-si1-clarity-sku-222673

 

[luvdajules]

Hi OP, I also think it's lighting and a new marketing technique Ritani is trying out to see if people buy more diamonds with the glamour lighting or something they are moving entirely to as they acquire new stones. It seems like a fair idea to me because I felt like the crisp faceting is more obvious to a newbie...but I have seen so many JA diamonds now that I've gotten used to seeing them and can tell the better cuts now (using their set up). I do like JA policies better for buying, so if the price is about the same, I'd go JA. The marquise you picked out is super nice, I like the proportions of it very much (but I'm not a marquise expert).

 

[drk14]

Niel,
Thanks for the response. Your pick does look really nice, but to be honest, I'm not sure what exactly to look for when judging cut (beyond avoiding prominent bowties and obvious asymmetries). Can you give me any pointers on what makes your JA pick particularly "lovely"? BTW, I do remember seeing this stone in my searches, but I had ruled it out based on the dark crystal inclusion.

If you find any other well-cut marquises, feel free to post them here, or better yet, in my "Marquise Quest" thread.

In the spirit of the current thread, however, here is another confusing video.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.00-carat-d-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-117905

This is another marquise that I was drawn to, but the weird part about this video is that it totally does not match the linked GIA report (with regards to dimensions and inclusions).

But disregarding that minor issue, any opinions on this one? Beyond the differences in aspect ratio compared to the one you had linked, one thing I notice is that in your pick, when face-up, one can clearly see through the table a six-pointed star formed (I think) by the pavillion facets. Conversely, in the JA #117905 (my link above), I see facet edges that appear to chop the "arms" of the 6-pointed star in half. Is this good (larger number of reflective surfaces) or bad (less symmetry)??

Still have a lot to learn about the marquise cut, any insights appreciated!

 

[drk14]

...but I have seen so many JA diamonds now that I've gotten used to seeing them and can tell the better cuts now (using their set up).

So in your opinion, do you think that the JA video set-up results in a more subdued appearance than these diamonds would have in real life (under "typical" lighting conditions)? I've never seen any "diamondy" flashes of light in JA videos ("fire"?). For kicks, I just went to look at some of the high-end "True Hearts" diamonds on JA, and there doesn't seem to be much flashing going on in those videos either. This suggests to me that the JA video set-up loses some of the diamond sparkle compared to real life appearance (because surely, a $20k 1.13 Carat D-VVS1 True Hearts Ideal Diamond should be eye-blinding... ).

This leaves the question as to whether the first Ritani video above is more representative of reality, or whether it is more like "enhanced reality".

 

[diamondseeker2006]

James Allen is not showing their stones in spot lighting. When Good Old Gold does diamond comparision videos, they shoot the stones in various lighting to show light performance in different conditions. But James Allen is trying to show you the stone in lighting that allows you to see the facet pattern and inclusions well. If you want video with mutiple lighting and light performance images, then I'd recommend you ask Good Old Gold to call the stones in that you are interested in and you can see them all in one video.

 

[Niel]

I believe ritani uses jewelry store lighting. Like ds said. Fun and makes the stone very sparkly but not the type of lighting you see every day. Besides maybe your elevator

As for why I like that James Allen E, this post may be short so I apologize. The color is high which honestly is way more important to marquise than rounds. The bowtie is minimal if at all. The table is small so that will lhelp with fire. The facets seem to be bright all over vs say just the middle, which can often happen in marquise. It has a bit of a crown soits not flat. Also helping with fire. If you look at it, it seems to be uniform throughout the stone. Not better in the middle than the ends. Yours looks promising too cbut that g will look a liiitle bit tinted as that's what happens in cuts like marquise and pears. I'd reserve both and get asets. The gemologist can confirm or deny what I'm seeing. I just think that one has a whole lot of promise.

 

[Niel]

Here's a little pic I made note how the top one, the e, the facets look crisp north and south of the center. Where that d you posted gets just a little mushy?

I do like the shape of that d though.

 

[Gypsy]

I agree with Neil. That E has exceptional promise. I'd put that one on hold It's the crisp contrast zones on the rest of the faceting (where most Marquise have mushy facets) that more the promise for me. I like that stone.

PERFECT ILLUSTRATION NEIL!

That said, the E may not be eyeclean.

 

[Niel]

I agree with Neil. That E has exceptional promise. I'd put that one on hold It's the crisp contrast zones on the rest of the faceting (where most Marquise have mushy facets) that more the promise for me. I like that stone.

PERFECT ILLUSTRATION NEIL!

That said, the E may not be eyeclean.

The incision would be my oooonly concern. But if it was going to have that type of inclusion on want it at the tip. Easier to hide or go unnoticed.

As to how noticeable it is, ask the gemologist.

 

[drk14]

Niel,
Thank you for the explanation and the pictures. I, too, am concerned about the inclusion in the JA marquise that you posted, which is my main hesitation. I also have the impression (based on very limited data, so I could be compeletly off base) this diamond is priced low for this weight/color. Perhaps this is only due to the inclusion, but it makes me worried there may be some other issue with the stone.

Anyway, based on recommendations from PSers, I had planned to have GOG look for marquise center stones for me, and I understand that they are on vacation until next week (hence my diamond search is in limbo until then). Do you know if GOG would be able to call in this JA diamond to evaluate along with those they call in from their own sources? If that's possible to do, I will ask them to do that.

Finally, I have a question about the mushy vs. crisp facets, to make sure I'm looking at the right thing in the pictures. Are you talking about the facets on the crown, or the virtual facets seen through the table (and/or through the crown). Also, when describing the facets as "mushy" or "crisp", am I supposed to look at the ability to discern the facet edges and vertices (e.g., where the table meets the crown), or is this terminology in reference to contrast between virtual facets (i.e., a juxtaposition of alternating light and dark virtual facets)?

 

[Niel]

James Allen can review that stone as well as tell you of if its eye clean.

I would not be concerned about the price. There's not going to be something "tricking you" about the quality.

I say this only because I do not think there are many stones out there like this and I'd hate for it to be gone because you'd rather have good old gold see if its eye clean over James Allen. Plus its free for James Allen to reserve it, get an aset, and review it for you. Good old gold will charge you.

And the mushyness is in regards to what you see through the table not in the crown itself. Its not in regards to contact but the ability to decern individual facets

 

[Niel]

as I know your budget, if you would be willing to set this in a solitaire (with pink gold accents of course)

This would be in budget. And quite lovely too!

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.11-carat-d-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-53923

 

[drk14]

Just to check if I'm understanding about mushy vs. crisp facets: Do the two diamonds below also have crisp faceting? (I don't necessarily like these cuts, one seems to have a wonky girdle, and the other is a tad skinny, but I thought they looked non-mushy, assuming I'm getting the concept):

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.00-carat-d-color-vs1-clarity-sku-209413
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.11-carat-d-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-53923

Edit: Looks like we both posted that second stone simultaneously, so I guess I was right about that one, at least. However, as I mentioned, it's a bit skinny IMO.

 

[Niel]

Just to check if I'm understanding about mushy vs. crisp facets: Do the two diamonds below also have crisp faceting? (I don't necessarily like these cuts, one seems to have a wonky girdle, and the other is a tad skinny, but I thought they looked non-mushy, assuming I'm getting the concept):

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.00-carat-d-color-vs1-clarity-sku-209413
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.11-carat-d-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-53923

Edit: Looks like we both posted that second stone simultaneously, so I guess I was right about that one, at least. However, as I mentioned, it's a bit skinny IMO.

haha well thats ok. Yes i think they both have nice faceting. I think the latter is a tad crisper to my eye but they both seem nice. take a look at these. I like the first best but both seem nice too

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.12-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-sku-171962

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.02-carat-f-color-si1-clarity-sku-326567

 

[drk14]

ooh, I do like that 1.12-ct in the face-up view! From the side, the crown seems asymmetric, though -- I'll have to decide how much that bothers me. Any insight as to whether something like that would be a noticable feature/flaw when the stone is set?

The 1.02-ct stone has some qualities that appeal to me as well. Would you call that a "crushed ice" look? (of the good variety -- understand that term sometimes has bad connotations, but according to this GOG video, there is both "good" and "bad" crushed ice...)

 

[Niel]

ooh, I do like that 1.12-ct in the face-up view! From the side, the crown seems asymmetric, though -- I'll have to decide how much that bothers me. Any insight as to whether something like that would be a noticable feature/flaw when the stone is set?

The 1.02-ct stone has some qualities that appeal to me as well. Would you call that a "crushed ice" look? (of the good variety -- understand that term sometimes has bad connotations, but according to this GOG video, there is both "good" and "bad" crushed ice...)

Keep in mind the view of these stones are at 40x magnification. What seems like obvious inclusions or differences in crow facetting might be hardly noticeable in real life.

I think it would be wise to see any atone that you're genuinely interested in, in person to make your final decision. Get asets, have the gemologist review them and ask pointed questions about any thing you have reservations about, but if everything looks good from there I'd still get it loose, have it sent to you, and really look at it objectively to make sure it fits your criteria.

Like I said asets and reviews from JA are free, so if you fond anything on there that strikes your fancy, I'd at least give it a shot. Worse case they do think it looks wonky and you move on.

 

[drk14]

Niel,
OK, I'll look into getting ASETs and gemological evaluation from JA. I think they allow three stones to be compared. What do you think of this one (the video seems to be out of focus, so it's a bit difficult to tell, but I liked something about this stone):

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.28-carat-d-color-vs2-clarity-sku-348340

Also, now that we've looked at a few other options , do you still favor that E-SI1 with the crystal inclusion?

 

[Niel]

Niel,
OK, I'll look into getting ASETs and gemological evaluation from JA. I think they allow three stones to be compared. What do you think of this one (the video seems to be out of focus, so it's a bit difficult to tell, but I liked something about this stone):

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/1.28-carat-d-color-vs2-clarity-sku-348340

Also, now that we've looked at a few other options , do you still favor that E-SI1 with the crystal inclusion?

I do prefer that one. I like both the Fs posted, though the larger one I like better if picking between the two. I also like that D but you think it's too skinny so we will rule that out. If something grabs you about that D throw it in your request my concern with that bowtie bit it's minimal. If it calls to you let's put that on he list!