Rate This Rock

[Papermaker]

Here''s one I''m looking at right now.

Size: 1.026 C
Colour: E
Clarity: SI2
Table: 56%
Total Depth: 60.4%
Crown Angle: 34.2%
Pavillion Angle: 40.7%
Girdle: 0.8-0.9%
Dimensions: 6.54 X 6.59 X 3.97

The "SI2''edness" of the stone does not appear to be too serious according to the cert. Comments?

 

[Rhino]

The numbers look seriously sweet. With a diamond like this you'll have a stone that in direct light will be hella fiery. How beautiful it looks in diffuse/ambient light will be determined moreso by the diamonds optical symmetry which is impossible to assess online without photographic evidence and/or measurements on all the facets and their variances.

Of course the SI2 raises a red flag and you can't rely on a cert to give you a good idea of how it will appear visually. Get it appraised and insist on a full cash refund should you not be happy.

Regards,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Here's a potential Gem Reader file on this stone PaperMaker. The stone COULD possibly look like this if it has 53% stars and 79% lower girdle height. The variances of both the major and minor facets can change the appearance and optics of the stone represented in this file.

Hope that helps,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

btw, you can get the free Gem Reader program at this link here. Once you download and install it you can open the attached file above.

Regards,
Rhino

 

[smaggard]

I've tried downloading GemDavisor several times and when the setup starts, it asks for Disk 1...the I point it to a temp directory where there is a subdirectory "Dsik 1" and it still doesn't work...weird.

 

[DBOF]

Jonathan I see your playing with your crystal balls again

Nobody can really tell you how it *looks* without a visual examination, lots of quesses though.

Appraisers don`t grade or evaluate a stone without seeing it either, could you imagine that.

so how can anyone on here predict ? I don`t think many dealers buy their diamonds sight unseen based on numbers only, so why should consumers ?

Anyhow from the numerical data provided it does seem to fall into the range that a.g.s. has given for 0 cut. That is a start, but not the whole picture.
On the clarity plot diagram it is hard to say, because that is more like a 1 dimensional road map to location,type and position of inclusions. The 3D visual is the the real thing and may appear to the eye different than on paper. Doesn`t hurt to look at the diamond

Brad

 

[Rhino]

Couldn't agree with you more Brad. I have to say though ... that with 34.2 crown angles, 40.7 pavilion angles and a 56 table that this dude is off to a good start. That's why I add or say what I write in a certain manner ... ie. here is a possibility, variances can change the appearance, etc. I have examples of diamonds on our website that have IDENTICAL crown/pavilion/table data with different optical results that some would consider notable with the same criteria as our friend here.

Paper, I would of course recommend a thorough appraisal by one of the experts on here such as Rich Sherwood, Dave Atlas or Rockdoc. Just for the peace of mind.

Regards,
RHino

 

[Rhino]

Smaggard,

I've have that same problem on another computer of mine. Perhaps Leonid can help us out or one of our comrades from the USSR.

Rhino

 

[Papermaker]

Rhino - thanks for the gemscope stuff - cool, and helpful!!
I have also seen some of Mr. Sherwood's work in this forum and I am hoping he can be attracted to looking at this one as well!!!

So if yer out there.....

Turns out the only way I can get some pictures, etc, ala GoodOldGold, is to have the stone sent to me and use the money back guarantee if I don't like it.
Is that a reasonable move??

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Looks like you've gotten some good advice here, Papermaker. This stone in all likelihood is a screamer. A house burner. A traffic stopper. The kind of stone that gets a woman to say "Yes!", several times.

I'll post a POSSIBLE IdealScope simulated image just because I know it drives Rhino and Brad crazy. I don't have Light Return Analysis figures for you because my home computer's running slow right now, but I can assure you with an image like that the numbers would probably all be top-of-the-line.

As Rhino mentioned, it's the crown/pavilion angle relationship which gives this stone it's solid base.

And as Rhino and Brad both mentioned, the proof of the pudding is the visual examination. This stone is definitely worth getting in and giving it a thorough visual examination under all lighting conditions. If you like it, have an appraiser give you his second opinion, and you can't go wrong.

-----------
IdealScope- In general, the darker pink areas indicate areas of greater light return, with the lighter pink areas indicating areas of lesser light return. The black areas indicate areas of greater contrast, with the gray areas indicating areas of lesser contrast. The white areas indicate areas of light leakage. A good explanation of the IdealScope image along with examples can be found at https://www.pricescope.com/idealscope_indx.asp

Disclaimer- The facet arrangement and symmetry of the image will probably vary from your actual diamond, which may affect the light performance indicated, sometimes dramatically. The computer generates an image with “perfect” symmetry, which is rare. Also, the star/lower girdle facet lengths will probably be different from your diamond. The computer simulation is reproduced best when the actual diamond is being viewed and the image "tweaked" to the appearance of the diamond, or Sarin info is downloaded directly into the program. However, this "blind" reproduction should be helpful in considering the major light performance aspects.
-----------

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Who certed the stone, by the way? If it's an AGS SI-2, chances are it's a pretty nice SI2. They're pretty conservative graders.

 

[smaggard]

----------------
On 9/3/2003 6:23:27 PM Rhino wrote:

Smaggard,

I've have that same problem on another computer of mine. Perhaps Leonid can help us out or one of our comrades from the USSR.

Rhino
----------------

Thanks Rhino. I sent an email to them, being it's a beta and all

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hey Paper, I've got those numbers for you.

A POSSIBLE image is recreated with the DiamCalc software showing the following light return analysis:

Light Return (mono)…...: 1.00 Very Good
Light Return (stereo)…..: 0.97 Very Good
(Non) Leakage (mono)..: 1.02 Very Good
(Non) Leakage (stereo).: 1.01 Very Good
Contrast............................: 0.99 Very Good
(Non) FishEye Effect…...: 1.00 Very Good

Those are top numbers. Unless the minor facets fall way outside the range I used, your stone will probably be a screamer.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Brad the chances of the cut of this stone being bad are very very slight (VVS

) - assuming it is an AGS (ct wt to 3rd decimal).

What you are continually saying to consumers is do not buy over the internet?
But if they must, then they can trust you?
Because you are the only person that never helps consumers?

I might be missing something.

 

[DBOF]

Looks like you've gotten some good advice here, Papermaker. This stone in all likelihood is a screamer. A house burner. A traffic stopper. The kind of stone that gets a woman to say "Yes!", several times.
----------------------------------------------------------
Very exciting description there Richard

 

[Rhino]

Paper... if you want to have a little fun you can open 2 of the .gem files side by side. In our tutorial on cut we have a "virtual gallery" in which you can do online virtual comparisons side by side against diamond models based on actual scans of stones we personally scanned in. It's a really neat comparison to make via cyberspace.

rhino

 

[Rhino]

Something else smells a little fishy too.

I though only I had all the diamonds with 34.2 degree crown angles with 40.7 pavilion angles!

hehe

 

[DBOF]

Here are some examples of some SI2`s. Lets also remember there are 4 c`s and clarity is one .

Diamonds are unique and can have different *looks* even in the same grades and cut. It is a visual product afterall, who would have thought

On the SI2 clarity grades there can be many possibilities. Varied types and locations of clarity characteristics.
This one has similar proportions to the one listed, but personally I might *look* and consider others to have a selection.

Brad

 

[DBOF]

Here is another SI2 graded by a.g.s.

 

[DBOF]

Now here is a cherry to be picked in this grade

 

[DBOF]

I could go on and on with examples, but this is why I was suggesting to *look* at diamonds. It takes the quess work out.

Brad

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thankyou Brad

for a positive contribution.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 9/3/2003 5:12:28 PM DBOF wrote:

Jonathan I see your playing with your crystal balls again

Nobody can really tell you how it *looks* without a visual examination, lots of quesses though

Brad
----------------

You keep saying this over & over again. Exactly what is your point? Do you think at the end of the day one won't use their eye to decide? We, the consumer, are not stupid.

Are you saying that the numbers mean nothing? Would you ask a diamond supplier to send you anything to look at? Would you say - yeah send me that 59% table & 68% depth?

If you are saying at the end game to trust one's eye, then I agree. If you are saying that one can not weed out dogs by the numbers, I don't believe it. If you are saying *only* trust the eyes of a professional - yeah right - no biased there.

 

[Vladimir]

Dear Smaggard and Rhino,

I've just check the GemAdvisor installation on my computer and had no problems, so I need an information from you to reproduce the problem here.
Can you please inform me what OS do you use?

Vladimir.

 

[Papermaker]

Holy feedback Batman!!!!
This is fantastic!
How do you guys do it, don't you have day jobs???? Wait, these are your day jobs. I can't tell you how much this is helping my education.

The numbers do look good don't they..... However, one of the great things I am finding about this site is the balance in opinion - that's fantastic! The photos of some of the "bad" SI-2's are chilling! I really do see the point in that the SI-2 could be good, or not so good.

Nevertheless, I am leaning toward good with this stone(I think one of you said AGS tends to grade a little more strictly, and this is an AGS certification). I have also been told that it is the "cleaner" of two stones that I asked for info on, and I was able to compare the certs. The one that was less clean showed some markings on the inclusion map, and the one I am looking at showed very little, so I am thinking it may be OK???

One problem though, the certs I saw over the web were a little grainy - the outline of the diamond came out fine in both certs, but on the one I am looking at, there was barely anything else! The one I was comparing too, I could clearly see "information" within the inclusion map.

What do people think - is it reasonable from these two grainy maps to say that one is better than the other in terms of the types of inclusions for an SI-2? They are both AGS.

Still, I would like a photo or two before buying... to feel more comfortable. Should I send the stone direct to someone in the US who can look at it before, do a technical appraisal, before having it sent up to Canada????

Thanks a million to all - it is so very helpful. Rhino - the type of stuff you provide on your site is exactly the stuff!! Sorry I didn't find this stone there though - yet!!!

 

[DBOF]

Hey paperman

The stone you are considering is from the same supplier of an interesting topic a while back

http://www.diamondtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30627&highlight=yesterdays+horoscope

I have had two out of three like this from the same source.

Brad

 

[AGBF]

"Perhaps Leonid can help us out or one of our comrades from the USSR"

Poor Jonathan! You are dating yourself most dreadfully! Youngsters haven't heard of the USSR unless they have taken advanced history classes .

Deb

 

[Rhino]

DOH! Ok... easy now AGBF.

Vladimir... I'm using Windows XP operating system but on all my other systems I do not have this problem.

Papermaker... DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT purchase an SI2 stone based on a grainy fuzzy copy of an AGS report. The points Brad made should be taken, noted and acted upon. When it comes to SI clarity diamonds over the net you should insist on photographic evidence regarding the clarity of the diamond and what makes it the clarity grade.

Two cases we recently ran into.

a. We called in a stone that looked both incredible on the plot (an actual scan of the original report) and had numbers as sweet as the stone you're looking at.

When it came to the store this SI1 had such a large cloud in it that it affected the transparency of the diamond kinda like very strong fluorescence does except this was not due to fluorescence. This cloud was not plotted on the report (although it was noted). Generally clouds do not affect the diamond like this but it had.

b. We recently called in an E VS1 1.9xct diamond. My mouth was watering as we were waiting for it. Graining within the stone made it hazy.

Reject.

I can not emphasize strong enough the value of having a professional *see* (and if possible, photograph) the diamond you are about to drop your hard earned bucks on. In the end you can end up spending MORE money having diamonds shipped around and appraisals than it's worth.

My .02c

Rhino

 

[Papermaker]

Sorry - little slow on the trigger - travelling this week.

Well, I've taken plunge #1 based on everyone's advice. I now have the stone "protected" from others and it is on it's way for independent appraisal in the US so I can get a hold of some photos and all that great technical work on the actual stone. So far the experience has been fine. The on line company I am dealing with has agreed to allow me to make the decision based on what I get from the independent appraisal. This way, I am only liable for shipping costs and the appraisal if I don't like what I see. The appraiser will even stop the process if he opens the box and finds a big black mark in the middle (but I don't think it's that bad based on teh cert). I think that's a good move based on what everyone has said. Agree?

Rhino - will have your comments in mind when going through this process. I am sure there can some other fishy things going on as well!

Brad - I would like to understand more about what so far I understand as "girdle cheating" (my words), and no I'm not looking up anyone's skirt, but that's the best I can do to describe it. Even if this is the case, would it seriously hurt the "performance" of the stone in terms of brilliance, etc? Or is it just that the cutter has broken a "purity" rule in the trade, ie not playing fair. Would appreciate a little more on that....

The photos of the bad SI-2's are great, thanks.

BTW, I had no trouble downloading and playing with the Gemscope software, but can't help anyone out unfortunately!! I downloaded it on a machine running windows 2000.

When I get some info from the appraisal, I'll try to figure out how to get it on here so I can get some of your comments (if yer willing!!) to help me make a final decision. Argh - this is nerve shaking - glad you guys are helping out so much!

Papermaker

 

[Rhino]

Good move Paper by having it sent to an appraiser and the purchase conditional upon examination. Keep us posted how it all turns out.

All the best,
Rhino