John,
I apologize for any offense - I did not intend my tone to be accusatory. I certainly did not intend to imply that you misrepresented the diamond in any way. In fact, I had no idea who the diamond belonged to and, frankly, didn''t care. My point was that once consumers have been conditioned to look for certain depths and tables, cutters often find ways to "swindle" the diamond by achieving the "correct #''s in an incorrect way. Based on the Sarin measurements, it is clear that the 65/65 measurements on this particular diamond were not achieved in the most optimal way.
Based on this information, I pointed out what I considered to be a risk (not a fact), and advised that the diamond be examined to determine whether it is actually a problem. I''m confident that when asked by your customers about particular characteristics of a diamond, you provide your honest opinion.
Whenever I have posted here, I have consistently stressed that radiant cuts cannot be judged by the #''s alone - they need to be seen. Nevertheless, the #''s can present red flags requiring further examination. In expressing an opinion with regard to those red flags, I was simply providing the same service that the regular pricescope "experts" regularly provide. I hope that this input will be considered welcome, no matter who happens to be the vendor of the particular item.