Opinions on this radiant (pic included)

[berin]

what do you guys think of this diamond?

 

[berin]

here''s a better pic

 

[Shay37]

It looks like it has a nice pattern and really pretty in person. It''s hard to tell without a little sparkle from the pic. I think it looks nice, but what do I know. I''m a RB girl myself.

shay

 

[berin]

and here is a pic I was sent of it in a temp mounting, is it just the way the pics were shot or does it look lifeless? The faceting pattern looks great but it seems cloudy, do you think it might just be the camera focus?

 

[berin]

So I am debating if I want to purchase this diamond, thoughts?

 

[Shay37]

There is absolutely no sparkle to that diamond. Oh, boy, I would ask to see if they could take a pic of it just laying around on a table to see if it does better there. not loving that last pic.

shay

 

[AmberWaves]

That''s the tough thing about buying radiants online, the pattern (or really it''s a lack of pattern) of the shattered glass is really best seen in person. A lot can''t be told from a flat picture. I''ve got to say, I like the shattered glass look this one has. Great shape. May I ask the specs?

 

[berin]

specs are:

RA, 3.16 carat, GIA cert, D color, SI1 clarity, depth 65.4 %,
table 67 %, measurements 9.50 x 7.83 x 5.12 mm, ratio 1.21, EX VG
no fluor

 

[Lorelei]

Tough call. The diamond might be lovely in person, but the pics don''t look promising....is there any way you can actually see it? Radiants are about the trickiest diamonds to assess.

 

[valeria101]

I am 300% convinced that the strange pics have little to do with the diamond.


I like to think I am fairly aware of just how much protographic conditions and... Photoshopping can change the looks of things. These pictures here are simply... unusual. I wonder what were they trying to do?

No diamond looks like that - white & opaque in person. (forget 'fancy white' freaks).

What barely shows through the rough image handling is the shape, and even that...


IMO, oddities such as this do nothing but thicken the body of evidence in favor of standard light settings - at least for describing diamonds online. No one around this forum uses a setup close to what these guys do, hence.. confusion.

If they volunteered a standard photo (IdealScope or ASET come to mind), the presentation would have been allot fairer for the stone, and whoever wants to get an idea what the stone looks like from pictures

My 2c

 

[Lorelei]

As Ana said regarding the pics, it could be a stunner in person. Just no way to tell unless you can get some other pics taken or see it in person. The picture I was sent of my diamond looked ok, but in person.....

As this one is a GIA certed D SI1 maybe it might be worth taking a closer look, especially as I mentioned before that they are a hard diamond to determine, plus good Radiants at that size won't be a dime a dozen I should imagine.

 

[berin]

I am debating myself because I would have to purchase the diamond and have it shipped to me and then I would only have a 2 day inspection period to review it, also the diamond isn''t bonded and I have been looking into working with another company that offers bonded diamonds. Is getting a bonded diamond that important? And isn''t a 2 day inspection period seem a little short/sketchy?

 

[coda72]

A two day inspection period seems unreasonable. Most vendors on here have at least a 10 day inspection period, and some have a 30 day one. Two days isn''t really enough time to take it to an appraiser or anything. I would definitely buy a stone from a vendor that has a longer inspection period.

As far as bonded diamonds go, I don''t know much about them. It doesn''t seem like it''s any different than buying from a vendor with a good upgrade policy. But if you''re talking about Fred Cuellar, you will get some mixed answers, mostly bad. I doubt it if I would buy a diamond from him or one of his vendors.

 

[Lorelei]

I agree with Coda, 2 days isn''t much, personally I would want longer and would expect at least a 10 to 15 day return policy. Regarding the bonded diamonds, check the thread in the other post then you can decide what is best for you.

 

[kenny]

I''d guess it was phographed using a very large white light source.

This results in no sparkle, fire or specular highlights.

I have no idea how good the cut is, but I agree that unless photographic process are standardized (that''ll never happen) photos are of limited value.