Possibly ripped off and freaking out :(

[Rockdiamond]

Lindsey- I don;t exactly know why, but your happiness about this diamond became very important to me.
I am so happy to read your latest posts!

DD- that is a GREAT idea!

the term leakage sounds really bad- so showing what a badly cut stone that has a "leakage problem" is going to be extremely helpful.

I''ve marked a GIA report so you can see where the measurements are located, and finally end the debate between Stone and me

 

[onedrop]

Date: 4/7/2010 5:10:19 PM
Author: dreamer_d
I have added the link to jgny''s leakage pictures in the Helful Threads Archive. We can reference that in future if consumers are wondering what leakage looks like.

DD: thanks for adding jgny''s link to the helpful threads archive, that is a great illustration of leakage that I had never seen before.

JGNY: you relaying your experience really helped in this situation. Thanks for posting your links and experiences!

 

[cara]

RD, Stone said nothing about the absolute value of the measurements so the cert numbers will not help you 'win' some argument. He said, "If the stone was cut without leakage, it will go under 2c, and a much larger drop in $/carat, or another way of saying it is a better cut stone of 2.02c will have a larger diameter than this."

Its a hypothetical statement. He asserts that if this particular stone were cut better, it would have gone under the 2.0 ct mark (by reducing the depth, incidentally, not reducing the spread). And a better cut version of this stone that ended up with the same weight (2.02 ct) would have a larger diameter. The actual measurements of this particular stone, whatever they are, will prove nothing.

JustEngaged, glad to hear you are happy with the stone now that you have had some feedback and a chance to digest things. Especially glad that you selected this stone from among other contenders, and knew that you were prioritizing somethings (color) a little bit over other factors and still were happy with this one. Enjoy!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Stone- I do thank you for the effort it took to provide that technical explanation
Cara- from what I read, Stone states unequivocally that a better cut stone will have a larger spread than the stone in question.
If Linsdey''s stone spreads 8mm or larger it will hopefully put her mind at ease on that issue- as the photos depicting leakage helped.

Peace!

 

[cara]

You are harping on the second half of a hypothetical and that starts off talking about a particular stone. His later comments make clear that he thinks a shallower pavilion angle on this stone would have made it better cut, but it was kept deeper to retain weight. And the main point people were concerned with was cut quality, not diameter or weight, but weight and diameter were discussed in the context of *why* the stone was cut the way it was. It doesn't seem like you are reading him straight but rather looking for trouble and an argument? That is my main objection to you quoting other people and demanding they prove stuff on consumer threads. Its not conductive to a friendly environment. Stone even replied with a long geometry lesson and still you are demanding the numbers from the cert rather than looking at the content of what he said or even trying to understand his reasoning.

You also might look at the John Pollard article that Lorelei posted to the helpful threads thread, which shows some more moderate examples of leakage in GIA Ex stones. These are a little less horrifying than jgny's example, and also might be harder to easily spot at first or in some lighting conditions.

JustEngaged, again, sorry to take over your thread with petty arguments. I hope you post some pictures of your sparkly on SMTB!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Cara- assuming that there are "bad reasons" the stone was cut to 2.02cts is another assumption based on inaccurate info- and propagated by repeating it often enough.
Sometimes a stone just comes out to 2.02cts with the cutter making the best use of the rough- not trying to "rob" anything.

You might not like the fact that I had to insist to get a photo that would help clarify the negative statements made about leakage, but it clearly helped the OP.
I just took a quick read of John''s article. It''s well written.
I did not see the word "leakage" in it.
How would that have assisted Lindsey from getting convinced her stone has a "leakage problem"?

 

[cara]

RD, what are you talking about with me assuming any "bad reasons" about anything? If its that sometimes cutting choices are made to retain weight and stay above magic values like 2.0 ct, well, that not a novel idea or even bad, unless you as the consumer would have preferred the ideal cut 1.9 ct stone to the very good cut 2.0 ct stone. This consumer seems to like her 2.0 ct with a GIA VG rating and I'm sure her vendor prefers to receive the 2.0 ct price, so they seem happy with this arrangement. People that want their ideal cut stones or like the lower price per carat below magic weight numbers might have different preferences.

I was actually posting the link for you, as you have taken over several consumers threads asking for pictures of this so-called leakage phenomena and demanding proof of its existence and I was hoping this could be the last one. Did you see the *pictures* in the article? JP did not provide any comparative discussion of the stones but there is some leakage there, for those willing to see.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 4/7/2010 4:49:21 PM
Author: cara
RD, how about thanking StoneCold for taking the time to type up all the formulas and explain the volume estimation technique? I though you were HONESTLY interested in knowing how it could be done, not just, you know, rhetorically asking questions for badgering effect.


If you read his detailed reply to your prior request, you will see that he says you can use the formulas as a rough guide but they are not perfectly precise - a diamond is not made of cones. But you can however get useful information out as cones are a pretty good approximation and same principles apply. Its geometry, not voodoo or even something subjective like judging beauty. This stone magically landed at 2.02 carats. Coincidence? No, the cutter knew that there would be a steep price drop for going below 2.0 carats. Stone thinks the stone could have been better cut, but for economic reasons the weight was retained. Paul Antwerp implies the same thing on the first page as well. Is that *so* farfetched? It is true on a large number of stones, even cutting of superideals is subject to economic considerations.


Anyway maybe JustEngaged will come back one day and tell us whether or not she cares. Or maybe she has been scared off by all the arguing, demands for leakage pictures and volume calculations and whatnot.

Cara, I continue to answer your posts,not to argue, rather to educate.


How much less ( in price) is a 1.90 EX cut grade compared to a 2.02 VG cut grade?
What if it would have had to go to 1.75 to get "EX"?
What if the stone is gorgeous as is, and the cutter really cared about how the stone looks?

All these what if''s add up to speculation- which might be fun if the "what if" did not place a doubt in Lindsey''s mind based on nothing but incorrect assumptions. Stone has no idea why this diamond was cut to 2.02cts- none whatsoever. Neither do you or I- or anyone who is basing assumptions on the info provided by the OP.

When looking through large parcels of 2ct diamonds it''s clear which ones were cut to save weight.
In fact, there are a lot of stones that just end up at 2cts with no compromise whatsoever.
This could very easily be one of them.


John''s article was , again, well written, and contained valuable info.
I looked at the photos and don''t see what could be terms "leakage problems" in any of them. I did not see skin through the stone when photographed on a finger.

 

[cara]

Date: 4/7/2010 7:21:58 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 4/7/2010 4:49:21 PM
John's article was , again, well written, and contained valuable info.

I looked at the photos and don't see what could be terms 'leakage problems' in any of them. I did not see skin through the stone when photographed on a finger.

There were some 56 different images of 9 different diamonds and only two of them were taken against skin. You might have to be a little more flexible in your thinking. If the photo is taken on a (blank) background, maybe the leakage will look like _____?

On the rest, well, your tone often does not come off as educational. It comes off as adversarial and argumentative. There is no need to demand proofs and calculations of people, you can state your opinion, even sometimes question theirs respectfully, and leave it at that. You can also try to understand their arguments and why they are making them to come up with the underlying issues that you disagree with, rather than seizing on superficial points and beating them into the ground. You can start secondary threads on the utility of the HCA or 'show me the leakage' if that is really your interest. To hijack all these consumer threads into your own personal arguments with other psers is really a downer, and makes the overall tone more argumentative and less friendly. Its not fun, and I'm not sure that it is good for ps. Variety of viewpoints is mostly good, but attacking people when they offer opinions that differ from yours does not produce an environment particularly conducive for friendly exchanges between respectful people with sometimes differing opinions.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I'm absolutely sure my wife would agree with that statement Cara

( about being more flexible)
I looked at all the photos.
They are only relevant here as the OP has indicated a concern based on warnings of leakage.

My interpretation was that they clearly demonstrated visual differences between the different proportions and other cutting aspects.
But I did not see any aspect, in any of the photos, that I would term "a leakage problem".

I mentioned the finger photo as it seems to me that would be the most indicative. It should be easy to see skin through it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/7/2010 2:53:22 PM
Author: dreamer_d

Date: 4/7/2010 1:51:10 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/7/2010 1:31:15 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Stone Cold- could you please use your ''volume from simple geometry calculation to tell us the measurements of this diamond. I am honestly VERY curious!

Seems like you do not even have the required math skills to figure that our yourself.

Simple, high school geometry. Go back to high school and study geometry again.

Stone, this is a little harsh

I also do not know the equations and I am a PhD

then how did you get a PhD?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/7/2010 5:34:25 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

I''ve marked a GIA report so you can see where the measurements are located, and finally end the debate between Stone and me

ha,ha...you posted a steep/deep cut stone.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I don''t usually participate in these debates but seriously I can''t take it anymore! I can understand that beautiy is in the eye of the beholder. It is entirely possible that someone loves and finds beauty in a poorly cut diamond. However, it makes no sense to say that a poorly diamond is cut for light performance just because someone finds it beautiful. To blantantly deny that leakage exist when the facts are there baffles me. One''s preference does not equal fact.

 

[marym]

I am growing so tired of certain people on this forum ganging up on Rockdiamond. I would just like to say that I enjoy reading his posts, and I think he makes a lot of good points. He also handles himself with a lot more class than some posters on here, who seem to want to turn calm discussions into snark-fests. I definitely think there is a tendency on this forum to flame people who dare to question the HCA. I think it can be relevant as a rejection tool, but for people like the OP, and myself who stumbled apon it AFTER we made a non-returnable purchase, it can be unnecessarily upsetting. I absolutely loved my diamond UNTIL I plugged the numbers into the HCA and found out it was borderline steep deep. It really did a number on me psychologically for a while, so I know what she is going through. It took me some time to realize that I have a BEAUTIFUL diamond, and that we got a great deal for what we paid. For a while I even wished I could trade in my diamond, which is really too bad. I had absolutely no issues with it until I found the HCA! It definitely made me feel as if I had an inferior diamond, which is just not the case. I realize that now, but it took a lot of time spent researching on PS before I was able to get to that point. And all that time I could have just been enjoying my beautiful diamond! The HCA is portrayed as the end-all, be-all for judging diamonds by certain posters on this forum, and I don''t think they realize the damage that it can do to someone''s psyche, when in fact a lot of these so-called "reject" diamonds on HCA are in fact perfectly beautiful diamonds. They just may not be the absolute MOST perfect, but is that a standard that everyone really needs to hold their diamonds to? In JGNY''s case, hers was a definite situation of the HCA telling the truth, but I feel it can also be a bit too harsh on certain diamonds as well.
I respect Garry''s knowledge, and I think it is good to have an online tool to help consumers, but I also think the HCA needs to be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak. I hope the OP is not made to feel that she should trade in or return a diamond that she was happy with before she found the HCA unless she feels that there is a serious issue, which it sounds like there isn''t.

Rockdiamond- please don''t let some of these snarky posters deter you from asking questions and sharing your opinion, That is what this forum is for, after all, and I appreciate hearing from people with different viewpoints, rather than a select few ganging up on others who don''t share the same viewpoint as they do. It is a subtle form of bullying, and it really turns me off.

Mary

 

[Rockdiamond]

Charmy- who loves poorly cut diamonds?
Is an old minor poorly cut?
Are any of the stones in the page Cara linked to- the one by John Pollard- are any of them poorly cut?
It's not a question of whether such a phenomenon called "leakage" exists.
The debate , from my side, is when someone takes opinions about leakage, and turns it into a fact. One's preference does not equal a fact.

We've already established that Lindsey's diamond does not possess any negative leakage effects.
This is really not a debate.
Someone spent $17,000, and if I was not persistent, she'd be loosing sleep over leakage.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Mary!
Please call me David.
Thank you very much.
I enjoy a polite discussion- and differences of opinion are the spice of life.
Steep deep is another term used to "demote" some really well cut diamonds.


DF- I picked the first GIA image that popped up to show Lindsey where to find her measurements.
If you wanted to start a thread about that stone and how it''s "steep deep "aspect means it''s poorly cut, I''m on it like white on rice.

 

[Ella]

Once again, this thread is not about debating. It is about helping the OP. Please leave personal discussions off of the thread.

 

[Farleysmom]

Hi All

This is my very first post but I have been lurking and learning on pricescope for some time now.

First, let me say how much I enjoy and appreciate all the experience that is offered here on the site. I have learned a great deal about diamonds (as a rookie) and have even purchased an idealscope to practice with.

As a rookie and following this post, I have to say "WOW". I feel for the original poster of this question. All the tools initially left me questioning my diamond purchase too. Sometimes limited information is dangerous (to the heart and soul) and sometimes ignorance really is bliss. I remember when I was young, my mother was diagnosed with cancer. When she was given the news, her response was, "Well, I felt great before I found out I had Cancer so why should knowing now make any difference to how I feel." This is great advice to the poster. If you loved your diamond when you purchased it, find it sparkley and selected it because you loved it, why should finding out it rated FAIR, change the way you feel.

Enjoy your diamond, proudly wear it and remember that most people who see it probably don''t even know about the HCA or about the 4 Cs anyway.

 

[JustEngaged1983]

So apparently my measurements are 8.12-8.15x3.05mm

Lay it on me professionals, are those bad numbers or good numbers ?

 

[brellymom]

Date: 4/7/2010 8:57:12 PM
Author: marym

I am growing so tired of certain people on this forum ganging up on Rockdiamond. I would just like to say that I enjoy reading his posts, and I think he makes a lot of good points. He also handles himself with a lot more class than some posters on here, who seem to want to turn calm discussions into snark-fests. I definitely think there is a tendency on this forum to flame people who dare to question the HCA. I think it can be relevant as a rejection tool, but for people like the OP, and myself who stumbled apon it AFTER we made a non-returnable purchase, it can be unnecessarily upsetting. I absolutely loved my diamond UNTIL I plugged the numbers into the HCA and found out it was borderline steep deep. It really did a number on me psychologically for a while, so I know what she is going through. It took me some time to realize that I have a BEAUTIFUL diamond, and that we got a great deal for what we paid. For a while I even wished I could trade in my diamond, which is really too bad. I had absolutely no issues with it until I found the HCA! It definitely made me feel as if I had an inferior diamond, which is just not the case. I realize that now, but it took a lot of time spent researching on PS before I was able to get to that point. And all that time I could have just been enjoying my beautiful diamond! The HCA is portrayed as the end-all, be-all for judging diamonds by certain posters on this forum, and I don''t think they realize the damage that it can do to someone''s psyche, when in fact a lot of these so-called ''reject'' diamonds on HCA are in fact perfectly beautiful diamonds. They just may not be the absolute MOST perfect, but is that a standard that everyone really needs to hold their diamonds to? In JGNY''s case, hers was a definite situation of the HCA telling the truth, but I feel it can also be a bit too harsh on certain diamonds as well.
I respect Garry''s knowledge, and I think it is good to have an online tool to help consumers, but I also think the HCA needs to be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak. I hope the OP is not made to feel that she should trade in or return a diamond that she was happy with before she found the HCA unless she feels that there is a serious issue, which it sounds like there isn''t.

Rockdiamond- please don''t let some of these snarky posters deter you from asking questions and sharing your opinion, That is what this forum is for, after all, and I appreciate hearing from people with different viewpoints, rather than a select few ganging up on others who don''t share the same viewpoint as they do. It is a subtle form of bullying, and it really turns me off.

Mary

+1

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 4/7/2010 9:15:51 PM
Author: JustEngaged1983
So apparently my measurements are 8.12-8.15x3.05mm

Lay it on me professionals, are those bad numbers or good numbers ?

3.05mm? Did you mean 5.03mm? The diameter (8.12-8.15 mm) seems to measure up to other diamonds with better scores and similar weight.

 

[Dancing Fire]

marym...

i don't recall a single poster stated she over paid for this stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bingo!
Your gorgeous stone, Lindsey, spreads virtually the same as an AGS 0 stone graded EX by the HCA.

By all means, the advice given all those pages ago by HVVs- go see some stones with higher cut grades- is still great advice.
I would only ask you to put out of your mind all these technical details. Look at the stones geraded EX or 0 by AGS with an open mind in comparison to your stone. Not every person who loves great cut will select the stone that is "technically" the best.
For some people, the details of cut are essential- and those people are not wrong in any way.
On the other hand, these details need not bother you , if you don't let them.
I'm sure that just about every person who posted here on tis thread- no matter which side they were on ( if there's got to be "sides") would admire the way your diamond looks, if they had the opportunity to see it in person.
A 2carat rock ( over 8mm thank you very much) is a pretty dramatic thing.

eta: wmw- you are correct- Lindsey pranstrosed the number
5.03, not 3.05

 

[kenny]

Date: 4/7/2010 9:15:51 PM
Author: JustEngaged1983
So apparently my measurements are 8.12-8.15x3.05mm
Lay it on me professionals, are those bad numbers or good numbers ?

The concern does not lie with those numbers.

It is where they located the girdle.
It's too high.
(They may have done this to polish away an inclusion, or squeeze out two of the heaviest stones possible from the rough.)
Even if the depth was kept the same it would be better if the girdle was located further from the table.
In your first post your stated:

Table: 60%
Depth: 61.5%
Crown Angle: 34 degrees
Pavillion Angle: 41.8 degrees

A depth of 6.15% can be fine.
If the depth was kept the same but they cut it so the girdle was positioned a little closer to the culet the crown angle would go up and the pavilion angle would go down.
A crown angle near 34.7 and a pavilion angle near 40.8 are closer to the center of the good-cut bulls eye.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/7/2010 9:15:51 PM
Author: JustEngaged1983
So apparently my measurements are 8.12-8.15x3.05mm

Lay it on me professionals, are those bad numbers or good numbers ?

the diameter looks fine for its weight,but the bottom half at 44.5% is a little over weighted.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Your point Kenny?

Lindsey- btw- there's a strange optical illusion I have noticed- and have had confirmed many times:
Take an Ideal Cut stone- which traditionally, is what Kenny is likely suggesting you do with your amazing rock, if it was silly putty.
Smaller table higher crown.
Compare that to a stone with the same mm spread to an (also in the meat of the best cut diamonds) 60% table- and the larger table stone actually looks larger.

So when you do compare to the ideal cuts, you may notice the phenomenon. Your stone may look a teenie bit larger than an Ideal cut 8.15mm stone.

 

[stone-cold11]

Good diameter for a 2.02c.

RD, if you look closely at my calculation again, you will notice that a stone with a 41 PA will give you a stone that you always like, a 60/60 stone.

 

[marym]

Date: 4/7/2010 9:24:46 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
marym...

i don''t recall a single poster stated she over paid for this stone.

Actually DF, Karl stated that she kinda got a bad deal. A lot of the other posters were basically saying she should return or trade in her diamond simply on the basis that it did not get a great score on the HCA. I feel that you totally missed the point of my post.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 4/6/2010 4:07:17 PM
Author: Karl_K
I am going to break ranks with the rest of the trade and say that yea it wasn't that great a deal.

Total ripoff not really.

Somewhat yea

Stone, I will be thrilled ( I really meant it- Peace man) as long as we can agree that there is nothing in the numbers we have to suggest anything other than a really nice looking diamond- especially if there's someone looking at it telling us it looks good in the setting - especially after living with it for a few days.

Furthermore, as marym reminded us, Karl was the one professional who cast doubt on the price.
My experience is that based on the circumstances under which this diamond was purchased, the price is fair. And by "fair", I mean they wanted your business, and priced it below traditional retail jewelry margins.
It's not quite as low as an aggressive internet seller- but still a good deal for store.
I totally respect Karl's design ability- but I deal in the buying and selling every day.
I'm familiar with prices, and have no reason whatsoever to say it was a fair deal unless I really believed it was.
It would be easy to make the case I'd be better off not saying anything.

 

[elle_chris]

You know, prior to getting my e-ring stone, I purchased ideal cuts for my pendant and my 5 stone ring. when the time came to get my new my e-ring stone, I didn''t. The stone is a GIA, does not have a perfect idealscope, and has a 34crown, 41 pavilion. I''ve read here that my pavilion angle causes color entrapment. my crown is low for an ideal cut, but you know what, it performs just as well as my perfect ideal h&a''s. the stone is beautiful and no less sparkly because it''s not perfect.

Like Farleysmom said (welcome to pricescope by the way), if you loved the diamond before plugging the numbers into the hca, there''s no reason you shouldn''t love it now. grats on your ring, relax and enjoy your new sparkly