Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Return?

[marcy]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

OMG! YES! Winner WINNER DIAMOND DINNER!!!

Awesome.

 

[marcy]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

I would return the ring and find a beautiful eye clean diamond.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Significant painting - would be noticeable IRL in comparison to a stone with classic girdle and similar proportions. I would be completely shocked if this is a WF branded stone of any sort. It's certainly not a WF ACA - optical symmetry is imperfect, it'd have a report from AGSL with note of a girdle inscription, and although once upon a time WF did venture into crown-only painting those "New Line" ACAs haven't been around in probably a decade now.
Are you sure he didn't just mean "a cut above the rest" - as in, a beautiful stone?

^^^ This ^^^ Definite heavy painting going on there, which you can read about here on PS. It'll be a real bright stone that I think you'll like! I also don't think he was referring to Whiteflash when he said it was a cut above, but that doesn't at all mean it isn't a beauty. Certainly a strong performer looking at the images!

 

[BrittyRo]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Significant painting - would be noticeable IRL in comparison to a stone with classic girdle and similar proportions. I would be completely shocked if this is a WF branded stone of any sort. It's certainly not a WF ACA - optical symmetry is imperfect, it'd have a report from AGSL with note of a girdle inscription, and although once upon a time WF did venture into crown-only painting those "New Line" ACAs haven't been around in probably a decade now.
Are you sure he didn't just mean "a cut above the rest" - as in, a beautiful stone?

He could have just meant a cut above the rest. What does "significant painting" mean is and what about the optical symmetry isn't good?

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Significant painting - would be noticeable IRL in comparison to a stone with classic girdle and similar proportions. I would be completely shocked if this is a WF branded stone of any sort. It's certainly not a WF ACA - optical symmetry is imperfect, it'd have a report from AGSL with note of a girdle inscription, and although once upon a time WF did venture into crown-only painting those "New Line" ACAs haven't been around in probably a decade now.
Are you sure he didn't just mean "a cut above the rest" - as in, a beautiful stone?

That's why I think it's an ES stone. Lately (last couple years) the standards of those have been 'uneven' to say the least. I've seen some actual dogs. This is certainly not that. I think that it's a great stone for the price and for this poster, considering what she wants and her budget. It's definitely in going to be bright and beautiful and knock her socks off.

Is it perfectly technically? No. But neither was the last stone. And it's not what she needs. What she needs is an excellent performing stone, in her budget, that is completely eyeclean, is from a reputable vendor, and is H or better in color and is 80 points minimum.

Ticks all the boxes.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Significant painting - would be noticeable IRL in comparison to a stone with classic girdle and similar proportions. I would be completely shocked if this is a WF branded stone of any sort. It's certainly not a WF ACA - optical symmetry is imperfect, it'd have a report from AGSL with note of a girdle inscription, and although once upon a time WF did venture into crown-only painting those "New Line" ACAs haven't been around in probably a decade now.
Are you sure he didn't just mean "a cut above the rest" - as in, a beautiful stone?

That's why I think it's an ES stone. Lately (last couple years) the standards of those have been 'uneven' to say the least. I've seen some actual dogs. This is certainly not that. I think that it's a great stone for the price and for this poster, considering what she wants and her budget. It's definitely in going to be bright and beautiful and knock her socks off.

Is it perfectly technically? No. But neither was the last stone. And it's not what she needs. What she needs is an excellent performing stone, in her budget, that is completely eyeclean, is from a reputable vendor, and is H or better in color and is 80 points minimum.

Ticks all the boxes.

I agree about this stone being a great option for the OP. Definitely have him bring it in to hold for you if he hasn't already!

Not sure about it being ES. It should have an AGS # girdle inscription if this is the case.

OP, there should be a great article written by John Pollard about painting/digging somewhere on PS. I'll try to dig it up later if I can find it.

 

[BrittyRo]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

I'm getting a little confused if this is a good diamond or not? I saw everyone's enthusiasm at first but now there's a lot of talk that I'm finding hard to decipher :/ diamond newbie over here This "painting" does it make it look less sparkly? I feel like some are saying it's good and some are saying it's not so good

I just want a very sparkly white looking diamond.

I'd ther something specific I should ask when I go to see the stone?

 

[pfunk]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Here is the article I was talking about that goes over painting and digging. It will give you a lot of info about the visual effects. When you view the diamond compare it to another well cut stone that doesnt have painting or digging.

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds

 

[yssie]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Gypsy I don't think it's a WF stone at all - ACA, ES, or PS. ESs aren't inscribed by WF, I don't believe, but the vast majority are sent to AGS and a newer GIA would note an existing AGSL inscription.

I also don't think it matters - the stone is a pretty one!! But I made a point to bring it up because I don't think it's fair to judge WF's brands by it if there's no connection.

B - painting is a form of girdle treatment - GOG had an excellent intro in addition to pfunk's link above:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/painting_digging_intro.html

As for whether it's the right stone for you - we're now in the realm of minutiae. Will the effects be visible IRL? Yes. Does that make it an unattractive stone? No - and in fact some explicitly seek painted stones. Here I very much agree with Gypsy - you are not looking for perfection and don't have an opinion on brillianteering so this stone could be a great fit! It can be hard to find stones that tick all the boxes - goodness knows I'm going through the same thing right now... Unless you're now attached to the idea of owning a WF stone for some odd reason!

 

[yssie]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

[quote="pfunk|1457702494|4003348]the old ACA's from Whiteflash.
[/quote]

Yup, both Eightstar and these defunct ACAs feature crown painting! To clarify my earlier post - WF still had the classic ACAs at the time, they tried introducing a second branch alongside

 

[Sagefemme]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Take the BN ring with you and ask Y to quote you a price to duplicate it. Or can you keep the setting from BN??

 

[mcosme]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Which one is the painted one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnGcuzEzO4

 

[E B]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Did you get to see it today? Excited to hear what you think of it.

 

[yssie]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Which one is the painted one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnGcuzEzO4

Great video from GOG!
Left is painted - clear in the first type of lighting featured.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Gypsy I don't think it's a WF stone at all - ACA, ES, or PS. ESs aren't inscribed by WF, I don't believe, but the vast majority are sent to AGS and a newer GIA would note an existing AGSL inscription.

No Yssie, I've seen quite a few WF ES stones that are GIA in the last 24 months. Seriously. I believe that it is a WF stone. And while I do not believe it is a Cut Above. I totally believe it is an ES stone. Some of them of (by our standards) over deep, have shallower crowns, etc.

Ample evidence below.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3625406.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3571563.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3625404.htm

 

[BrittyRo]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Did you get to see it today? Excited to hear what you think of it.

I didn't I work 13 hour shifts Thursday and Friday. They are closed today and tomorrow so we are going Monday to see it! Even though I'm not really sure what I am looking for besides looking for inclusions and seeing if it's sparkly I'm like 99% sure I'll probably be buying it based on according to all the images (ASET/Idealscope/image/HCA score) it seems it'll be really sparkly! I think my search is over knock on wood. I'll keep y'all updated!! Now I just need to buy the setting from BN who I will never do business with after this.

 

[BrittyRo]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Sorry for the double post. I just showed this diamond to my mothers friend who is a gemologist and she said that due to the strong blue florescence this diamond isn't good. When I asked why she said it would appear oily and look bad in nightligh. Now I asked Yekutiel whether the florescence would have a negative impact and all he said was "it has my seal of approval" when I told her that she said "of course he wants to make the sale" So I'm not sure what to make out what Yekutiel means? For those PS that have dealt with him is Input please? I know he has a good reputation on here

 

[E B]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Sorry for the double post. I just showed this diamond to my mothers friend who is a gemologist and she said that due to the strong blue florescence this diamond isn't good. When I asked why she said it would appear oily and look bad in nightligh. Now I asked Yekutiel whether the florescence would have a negative impact and all he said was "it has my seal of approval" when I told her that she said "of course he wants to make the sale" So I'm not sure what to make out what Yekutiel means? For those PS that have dealt with him is Input please? I know he has a good reputation on here

I believe the oily/milkiness only happens in a small number of diamonds, and I highly doubt Yekutiel would hide this (being if the diamond was oily looking) from you. In fact, fluorescence is valued around here. Brian Gavin Diamonds even has a "Blue" line that is very popular. It will turn blue under a blacklight.

Here's some more info: http://4csblog.gia.edu/2012/understanding-diamond-fluorescence

From that link:

GIA studies show that for the overwhelming majority of diamonds, the strength of fluorescence has no widely noticeable effect on appearance. In the GIA Fluorescence Study, it was found that the average person could not make a distinction between a diamond with fluorescence and a diamond without. In many instances, observers prefer the appearance of diamonds that have medium to strong fluorescence. In rare cases, some diamonds with extremely strong fluorescence may appear hazy or oily; fewer than 0.2% of the fluorescent diamonds submitted to GIA exhibit this effect.

A couple of fun threads:

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ng-fluorescence-because-its-beautiful.141942/

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-your-strong-blue-fluorescence-diamonds.42423/

 

[yssie]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Gypsy I don't think it's a WF stone at all - ACA, ES, or PS. ESs aren't inscribed by WF, I don't believe, but the vast majority are sent to AGS and a newer GIA would note an existing AGSL inscription.

No Yssie, I've seen quite a few WF ES stones that are GIA in the last 24 months. Seriously. I believe that it is a WF stone. And while I do not believe it is a Cut Above. I totally believe it is an ES stone. Some of them of (by our standards) over deep, have shallower crowns, etc.

Ample evidence below.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3625406.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3571563.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3625404.htm

Interesting - I don't believe this was always the case, I wonder when WF started sending ESs to GIA, and why? Maybe Bryan will see this thread and comment?

 

[BrittyRo]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Sorry for the double post. I just showed this diamond to my mothers friend who is a gemologist and she said that due to the strong blue florescence this diamond isn't good. When I asked why she said it would appear oily and look bad in nightligh. Now I asked Yekutiel whether the florescence would have a negative impact and all he said was "it has my seal of approval" when I told her that she said "of course he wants to make the sale" So I'm not sure what to make out what Yekutiel means? For those PS that have dealt with him is Input please? I know he has a good reputation on here

I believe the oily/milkiness only happens in a small number of diamonds, and I highly doubt Yekutiel would hide this (being if the diamond was oily looking) from you. In fact, fluorescence is valued around here. Brian Gavin Diamonds even has a "Blue" line that is very popular. It will turn blue under a blacklight.

Here's some more info: http://4csblog.gia.edu/2012/understanding-diamond-fluorescence

Will it make the diamond look blue under normal lighting conditions I don't know if I'd want a diamond that looks blue in the direct sunlight

 

[E B]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Will it make the diamond look blue under normal lighting conditions I don't know if I'd want a diamond that looks blue in the direct sunlight

I got to play with a diamond that had VERY strong blue fluor, and it only looked blue in direct sunlight, but so does my H with no fluor when it's reflecting a cloudless sky. Ask Yekutiel to let you see it outside, and to compare it to one without to see how you like it. I love when my diamonds reflect the sky (but blue is my favorite color ).

 

[BrittyRo]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Will it make the diamond look blue under normal lighting conditions I don't know if I'd want a diamond that looks blue in the direct sunlight

I got to play with a diamond that had VERY strong blue fluor, and it only looked blue in direct sunlight, but so does my H with no fluor when it's reflecting a cloudless sky. Ask Yekutiel to let you see it outside, and to compare it to one without to see how you like it. I love when my diamonds reflect the sky (but blue is my favorite color ).

Yeah I know it's all speculation until I see it in person!! I assumed I wouldn't be able to take the diamond outside to see it in daylight... I am so anxious and excited to see this diamond!!!!

A quick side note. The BN diamond looked like this in Buffalo Wild Wings (no idea what kind of lighting this is). (It had medium blue florescence) is that what is going on with the diamond in this photo? Why does it look so dark?

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Diamonds Reflect. Last time I was in a Buffalo Wild Wings they had the walls and ceiling were very dark. That and the lighting were probably the issues.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Received Engagement Ring. Visible Black Inclusions. Retu

Interesting... Buffalo Wild Wings happens to be one place where my wife's ring was really popping. Could have been a different lighting but hers looked like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k4SjE-kn4x8 I don't think the fluoro has anything to do with the appearance in that photo.