Unscrupulous?! Scandalous?! Status Quo?!

[Michael_E]

Date: 3/5/2010 1:37:27 PM
Author: vinkalmann
Is this really the case, or do many vendors have bad cuts but they just aren''t providing the graphics for their potential customers to see the issues. I''m not including precision cutters in this statement as I consider their stones to be a different level than the average person is going to be purchasing.

If the definition of "bad cut" means that the stone was cut on equipment that was not capable of producing repeatable angles and radial indexing then yes, most of the stones cut in the world are "bad cuts". You can''t tell without a great deal of experience as a cutter what a stone will actually look like from a diagram. Even with a lot of experience you can be surprised, so looking at 3D wireframes or cutting diagrams is always going to be a bit of a guess. This conversation has taken many different forms and can be found on this forum with "native cut" somewhere in the title. Giving too much information is a problem because it may imply something that isn''t true. This takes often takes the form of someone presuming that because a "native cut" stone is not precision cut, that it''s inferior. Sometimes this is true and sometimes not.

clear from what the owner said that they are providing a lot of services to their clients that are labor/time intensive and I believe this. It''s clear that they made a cost cutting measure when it came to photographing duplicate stones. Was this the best choice?

HA! It appears that this was NOT the best choice. I understand why it may have been done, but it obviously doesn''t sit well with a number of people.

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 3/5/2010 1:50:32 PM
Author: IndyLady

I find this whole deal pretty humorous

Perhaps its funny if you''re the vendor. Its not so funny when you''re the customer spending thousands of dollars for a gem which you''ve chosen based on a sliced and diced photograph.

I am not trying to justify a faked picture, just presenting a possibility as to why it happened. If you''re deciding to spend thousands of dollars on anything based on a picture, then you are making a mistake and perhaps opening yourself up to being taken advantage of. From my perspective the picture is just a nicety which in this case shows at least one half of a matched pair. If the other half truly does match when I have them in my hand, then I''m O.K. with it. I''m saying this from the position of a buyer, since I''ve only cut a few matched pairs in the last 30 years and have only purchased them for different projects.Pictures don''t mean anything to me really, since I usually buy blindly and rely on people whose opinions I trust. If the pictures mean a great deal to you and the pictures look a little flaky, then ask for more pictures or make sure that the person selling has actually looked at the stones, has the opinion that they do match well and is willing to back that opinion up by offering a complete refund if the stones don''t match.

 

[VapidLapid]

Date: 3/5/2010 12:52:40 PM
Author: Michael_E

Author: Gailey

.

.

.

Whatever his intentions had been in having his images photoshopped (and I think NSC and most of us will have to agree to differ as to the extent), the minute he digitally altered those photos in even the most miniscule of ways, he put in jeopardy all those years of work his he and his family had dedicated to promoting untreated sapphires. A non-disclosed, treated photo of an untreated sapphire flies in the face of everything his company stands for no matter how honourable his intentions.

Gailey and Ma Re,



Trust has always been at the core of the jewelry business, but the reaction to a few tweaked photographs has been out of proportion in my opinion. There are two things happening here. The most prominent is that a few people attempted to communicate with Mr. Arnstein and were rebuffed rather harshly. Bad juju on that one and I can''t make any further comment on that other than that it is separate from the initial issue of a few pictures out of hundreds that are obviously faked for one stone of a pair.


The original issue involves the second thing that is occurring here, which is the prevalent attitude that Gailey has mentioned and which I feel is a little too strongly held by many. I would have to say that it''s all a matter of degree. The reason is because every image that you''ll ever see is tweaked in some way. Just the act of taking a picture is going to favor one lighting situation, direction, background and a whole host of other things which affect that image and make it different from the reality of the stone shown. Many of the people commenting have actually become ''picture connoisseurs'' and seem to believe that they can discern things from a picture that may or may not actually be true. It gets really funny sometimes, reading comments about pictures when the opposite comments would have been obtained had the same stones image been taken under different conditions or with a different direction of modification.


Anyway, back to the idea that faking the picture of one stone of a pair implicating someone in an evil plot in partnership with the devil

(or just being no longer worthy of trust)...I really doubt this. I imagine that what probably happened was that whoever took the pictures couldn''t get them to match as closely as they did IRL and so they just faked it, not thinking that anyone would inspect those images at the 40X magnification that was offered. I doubt if Mr. Arnstein took the pictures or even inspected them...he probably had no idea that some were faked. He was most likely told that all of the pictures were right on the mark and took that to be the case, (which it probably is for the majority of their pictures). They are not selling pictures. The object of the pictures is to accurately represent the thing being sold as you would see it at a normal viewing scale. If the magnified images had not been available, then this discussion would not be taking place right now, since I''ve not read one comment on here from someone who was dissatisfied with the actual products from them. If you buy something based on what a picture shows, it doesn''t look like the picture after you get it AND you have no recourse in returning it for a refund, then there is a problem. This hasn''t happened and so the ''problem'' is small to nonexistent except to those people who are more focused on those pictures than the actual stones, (understandable, since the only thing we get to see looking at the computer is the pictures). I find this whole deal pretty humorous, except that some people are pretty upset by it. Being upset is a not a very nice way to spend your time and for you folks that are, I sure hope that you can gain a slightly different perspective and have a much better day today !

"Bad juju on that one and I can''t make any further comment on that other than that it is separate from the initial issue of a few pictures out of hundreds that are obviously faked for one stone of a pair."

IT is not a few pics out of hundreds, nor is it innocent color correction. Much of t his is collage!

Time for some detailed analysis and statistics. I only did the yellows, there are 66 pairs. Of those 21 pairs (32%) were either good or undetermined so I counted them as good. 45 pairs (68%) were at least mirrored, to seriously altered or total collage constructions.

1) mirrored, center altered
2) rotated
3) could be ok
4) undetermined
5) same pic dodged and burned
6) mirror
7) same pic, dodged and burned
mirrored and rotated about 15 degrees
9) same pic rotated 5%
10) collaged
11) same pic, collaged, burned and dodged
12) same pic, center cut and rotated, burned and dodged
13) rotated 95 degrees
14) mirrored
15) could be ok
16) mirror
17) could be ok
1 same pic rotated 30 degrees
19) mirrored and rotated
20) flipped horizontal
21) both collaged
22) center collaged, burned and dodged
23) mirrored burned and dodged
24) same pic 5 degree totaion
25) different, but possibly both collaged constructions
26) could be ok
27) rotated, collaged, burned and dodged
2 good
29) 180 degree rotate
30) horizontal flip, center altered, burned dodged right edge clone
31) mirror
32) could be good, maybe just bad photo could be collage
33) mirror
34) mirror
35) center cloned cut pasted rotated burn dodge
36) mirrored, rotated
37) mirror
3 mirror & rotate
39) same pic rotated 5 degrees
40) rotated 60 degrees
41) could be ok
42) mirrored collaged burned dodged
43) same pic with collage
44) mirror
45) mirror rotate collage burned and dodged
46) could be ok
47) collaged, same centers, scaled
4 centers mirrored left/right, outer mirrored north/south
49) they''re different, though likely collage
50) mirror
51) could be ok
52) exact same photo!
53) could be ok
54) could be ok
55) could be ok
56) could be ok
57) could be ok
5 could be ok
59) center rotated left, outer rotated right
60) could be ok
61) center cloned, scaled burned and dodged
62) mirrored
63) mirrored
64) good
65) good
66) good

And before you ask I am a photography professional, taught photo at a New York university art school, exhibited in NY galleries, have had books of my work published and received a guggenheim fellowship in photography so yes, I am qualified to make these judgements.

 

[Gailey]

Date: 3/5/2010 12:52:40 PM
Author: Michael_E

Author: Gailey
.
.
.
Whatever his intentions had been in having his images photoshopped (and I think NSC and most of us will have to agree to differ as to the extent), the minute he digitally altered those photos in even the most miniscule of ways, he put in jeopardy all those years of work his he and his family had dedicated to promoting untreated sapphires. A non-disclosed, treated photo of an untreated sapphire flies in the face of everything his company stands for no matter how honourable his intentions.

Gailey and Ma Re,

Trust has always been at the core of the jewelry business, but the reaction to a few tweaked photographs has been out of proportion in my opinion. There are two things happening here. The most prominent is that a few people attempted to communicate with Mr. Arnstein and were rebuffed rather harshly. Bad juju on that one and I can''t make any further comment on that other than that it is separate from the initial issue of a few pictures out of hundreds that are obviously faked for one stone of a pair.

You see Micheal, as VL has pointed out we are not talking about an over reaction to a "few tweaked photographs", or some innocent colour correcting, which is something we all understand is a necessity of digital photography sometimes. I think 4,891 views of this thread (at the time of writing this response) bears that out.

I did not think it would be long before someone more experienced than I would talk about some of the specific manipulations Pricescope members believe have been carried out to many of these images.

But what sent this thread into the stratosphere was the "whitewashing" that NSC chose to give us which just made them appear to be all the more duplicitous.

It has nothing to do with the pros and cons of buying stones based on a photograph or whether or not photographs ought to be supersized or not.

This thread has everything to do with respect and integrity, or as some feel, the apparent lack of it.

 

[princesss]

My issue with this is illustrated in the below photo.

PSers are educated about cut. We are passionate about it. And one of the things learning about cut has taught us is that depth and facet patterns affect how a stone faces up and performs. Unless the angles are the same, the leakage and performance cannot be assumed to be identical. But by using duplicated pictures, NSC is telling their customers light return, colour, and performance will be identical.

I cannot see how these two stones could perform the same way. THAT is my biggest problem. I do not blindly trust a vendor unless I am willing to part with my money and never see it again - as we know, even the best vendors can be fooled, and withou due dilligence we do not know what we are buying. NSC is asking us to blindly trust them by giving us the same picture for a pair of stones, and no consumer should be doing that but especially not on a high-value purchase.

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 3/5/2010 4:14:42 PM
Author: VapidLapid
.
.
.
And before you ask I am a photography professional, taught photo at a New York university art school, exhibited in NY galleries, have had books of my work published and received a guggenheim fellowship in photography so yes, I am qualified to make these judgements.

Well, you REALLY picked the meat off those bones VapidLapid ! As for your qualifications...hmmm, I''ve got a $200 digital camera and I know how to use it, (kind of).

I guess you win, since I certainly didn''t look that closely. I''m backing off into a corner now with a beer and some popcorn. Off with their heads and on with the feeding frenzy!(the popcorn I mean)

 

[RockHugger]

Wanna send some beer my way Micheal? .

WOW this has become bigger then then toyota recall! LOL.

 

[Linda W]

You all know me and how much I love my Pads, I have bought from NSC. All I will say is they are beautiful and look like what they were described to me, on and off the phone.

Would I buy from them again??? Sure I would. I have been dealing with them, since 2006. If someone is not happy with their stone no questions asked, send it back.

I agree with Michael E... 8 pages of a feeding frenzy. I don''t even know if the OP has ever bought from them before.


Linda

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/5/2010 7:56:54 PM
Author: Linda W
You all know me and how much I love my Pads, I have bought from NSC. All I will say is they are beautiful and look like what they were described to me, on and off the phone.

Would I buy from them again??? Sure I would. I have been dealing with them, since 2006. If someone is not happy with their stone no questions asked, send it back.

I agree with Michael E... 8 pages of a feeding frenzy. I don''t even know if the OP has ever bought from them before.


Linda

Um, Linda, does it matter? I think she was looking to before she saw all these mirrored photos.

You can buy from them all you want...you have past experience and are comfortable. But for many people who haven''t, I see no real incentive to buy from them over a vendor with better practices.

And I really don''t see this as a feeding frenzy, but I guess you have your opinion and I have mine.

 

[Kaleigh]

Tgal,
If I say I had a good experience with them, am I going to be flogged?? JK!!!

I am sad about all this. I haven''t dealt with them since I bought my ring. It''s a gorgeous cushion blue sapphire flanked by two cushion cut D VVS2 diamonds. It was to replace a ring that was stolen from me, but not insured.


I love it, and wear it as a RHR most every day. I get tons of compliments on it.

The company needs to take a good hard look....

Because PS''ers are watching what they do.

That''s lethal if they aren''t up to snuff....

SO NSC, hey I am a happy customer.

BUT you need to listen to the wise Prosumers here.

It will live on and on , internet and all.

I am appalled you wouldn''t take what they say seriously.

The PICS?? You gotta stop that.....

And if you read this, don''t send me an email.... K???

I don''t like any vendor sending me an unsolicited email.

 

[Linda W]

Yes T-gal you are correct, we each have different opinions.

But.......... to deliberately get on a forum to try and ruin someones business, is way beyond something I can comprehend. Maybe Michael E and I are just older and think differently, who knows.

No matter who it is, to me, WF, Brian, etc. I would never ever trash a vendor (or not a vendor) I would deal with them directly and ask them what is and why???? Seems to me it is just trouble.

Yes, someone did call Michael, but Michael E already posted why he thought that didn''t sit to well.

 

[Hera]

They didn''t seem to help their case by responding the way they did either. Quite possibly had they been more polite and forthcoming, perhaps they might be more of the innocent victim.

Ultimately, I''m not so put off by the fact that they touched up the pictures here or there, but there does seem to be an element of deception in rotating the pictures and replacing the interior of another stone. That''s where it crosses the line for me.

 

[chrono]

Date: 3/5/2010 9:17:23 PM
Author: Linda W
Yes T-gal you are correct, we each have different opinions.

But.......... to deliberately get on a forum to try and ruin someones business, is way beyond something I can comprehend. Maybe Michael E and I are just older and think differently, who knows.

No matter who it is, to me, WF, Brian, etc. I would never ever trash a vendor (or not a vendor) I would deal with them directly and ask them what is and why???? Seems to me it is just trouble.

Yes, someone did call Michael, but Michael E already posted why he thought that didn't sit to well.

Linda,
2 PSers (Rock Hugger and Indy Lady) did indeed contact them directly and they were treated quite rudely.

 

[Linda W]

Date: 3/5/2010 9:47:02 PM
Author: Chrono

Date: 3/5/2010 9:17:23 PM

Author: Linda W

Yes T-gal you are correct, we each have different opinions.


But.......... to deliberately get on a forum to try and ruin someones business, is way beyond something I can comprehend. Maybe Michael E and I are just older and think differently, who knows.


No matter who it is, to me, WF, Brian, etc. I would never ever trash a vendor (or not a vendor) I would deal with them directly and ask them what is and why???? Seems to me it is just trouble.


Yes, someone did call Michael, but Michael E already posted why he thought that didn''t sit to well.

Linda,

2 PSers (Rock Hugger and Indy Lady) did indeed contact them directly and they were treated quite rudely.

I know Chrono, that is while all this feeding frenzy was going on. I meant I would have called to find out why, before even starting a thread.

 

[chrono]

I guess the OP wasn''t sure if he/she was "reading" the pictures correctly and so wanted confirmation from other experienced posters to be sure that what she/he is seeing is correct. That''s his/her perogative.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/5/2010 9:17:23 PM
Author: Linda W
Yes T-gal you are correct, we each have different opinions.

But.......... to deliberately get on a forum to try and ruin someones business, is way beyond something I can comprehend. Maybe Michael E and I are just older and think differently, who knows.

No matter who it is, to me, WF, Brian, etc. I would never ever trash a vendor (or not a vendor) I would deal with them directly and ask them what is and why???? Seems to me it is just trouble.

Yes, someone did call Michael, but Michael E already posted why he thought that didn''t sit to well.

Linda, I''m sorry, I think you''re way off. How you could think that the OP was deliberately trying to ruin a business is beyond me. Those pictures were there. She thought it was dodgy and brought it up here because it''s a CONSUMER forum. I think NSC is doing a swell job ruining their own business, or at least their public opinion here. I said back several pages ago that I can understand why Michael would be irritated...RH''s emails toward him could be perceived as antagonistic. But Michael, if he chooses to be the voice of the company needs to get his stuff together. Or, he can just be like Leon and not care, and people take it or leave it. There have been way more threads bashing Leon around here (and much of it probably deserved), but his products speak for themselves. If NSC really IS such a great company and they represent their products well, then one or two bad threads will not derail their business.

Honestly, I think your personal positive dealings with Michael is clouding your opinion. Pricescope is a forum to discuss gems and gem vendors - good AND not so good.

 

[Indylady]

This thread would have been slanderous if VL''s findings weren''t true. But because they are, it is entirely fair that this would be posted on PS. The pictures VL posted to this thread are advertised and in plain sight; there wasn''t any sneaky detective work going on...they''re photographs presented by NSC. I don''t think VL "trashed" the NSC. I think they trashed themselves when they started this procedure without disclosure.

I imagine the OP was more or less shocked when he/she discovered the doctored images, and thought to post their findings to get feedback. PS is a consumer site, and much of what goes on are consumer to consumer conversations; its a community. I''ve posted gems on PS for opinions more than once, and asked for opinions on vendors. Discussing vendors is commonplace, and the NSC isn''t the only vendor on PS to have been criticized. I think most vendors, if not all, have been looked at critically from time to time. I did call the NSC personally to see what was going on before posting, and after the extremely poor treatment I recieved from Michael, I doubt doing so would have made a difference.

 

[Burberrygirl]

Okay, for the most part I’ve stayed out of this thread because I felt there wasn’t much I could add and my opinion had already be expressed quite eloquently by other PSers. I’m sorry if I’m rambling, I just woke up from a nap and when I saw this last page I had to comment.

Background on me:
My father owns a business. This isn’t something that he started on his own; it was established by my great-father 80 years ago. I only say this because NSC has been around for a long time as well which was pointed out by Helen and on their website. Listen that’s great, good for them for making it this long, but that is no reason to be rude, dismissive, and nasty in my opinion to people over the phone or through email. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I think he came across as extremely condescending. I have spent a lot of time working alongside my father, and I can tell you he would never, ever act that way to ANY customer, I don’t care what the situation is. Let’s not make excuses for bad behavior. I’m glad you’ve had great experiences with them, Linda, but clearly many people have not.

Linda, I don’t know if you read the entire thread, but I don’t think VapidLapid “deliberately got on a forum to try and ruin someone’s business,” or whatever it is that you think.

I’m sick of all the excuses from them, my father operates a similar business (maybe not as large as NSC, but fairly big), he has a website (has gone through technology changes just like every other business thats been around for a long time) and I’ve never heard any of the same excuses from my dad as the ones NSC has been handing out. Maybe I’m not comparing apples to apples here, but hopefully you understand where I’m coming from.

I really don’t think I’d ever buy anything from them or recommend them to anyone, but that’s just me—I guess we all have different expectations. I think RH and Indy handled themselves perfectly fine in this situation, I bet I wouldn’t have been as nice to deal with

Alright, I’m off my soapbox. Hopefully you all made it through my little rant and can kind of understand how I feel about this

 

[VapidLapid]

Thanks Burberry, Chrono, TGal, Kaleigh, Gailey, et al. for helping to try to keep this thread factual and on topic.

I have for months been agonizing over which sapphire to buy myself. I am very committed to natural and untreated, that is why I regretfully became so deeply acquainted with nsc''s website. I know pretty much every stone in their inventory that''s listed online anyway. For me this is a big purchase. I had it pretty much down to 3 stones and only looked at the pairs when I had the thought of maybe making a matched set of rings.
I don''t think that how many sapphires I have or how many from them has any more bearing on my starting this post than how I take my tea does. Though I am new here I am fairly confident that this is a public forum of people who are professional consumers, amateur professionals and ad hoc experts who share their expertise and experience of their appreciation for finely colored stones. I came here for all of you opinions and advice and a free, open discussion. I was about to spend thousands of dollars on a stone smaller than my eye-tooth, and I found something that made me uncomfortable. I brought it here for consultation. I asked if this was scandalous or status quo. There turned out to be many here who were more outraged than I had been uncomfortable.

The merits of the situation and the extent of the ethical breach were openly discussed, photos were consulted and commented on. As it should be in an open forum and market-place of ideas. Other members with personal experience with nsc and so were comfortable approaching them did so to ask for some explanation. We all know that wasn''t handled well by nsc and that in turn complicated things making addenda of the issues of accountability, trust and insult that soon dwarfed the original topic.

At one point I saw this going nowhere and naively thought I could turn it toward the good. I suggested that we should end this thread, that nsc could learn from this and become a better company with more allies they could easily have made us all into willing ambassadors for their business. I made it clear that I like the idea of nsc and it''s stated values and cited it as a strong voice educating the people about quality natural gemstones and gemstone treatments. I do not see how that could be construed as deliberately trying to destroy their business. To accuse me of that out of the blue and without antecedent is as much a passive-aggressive act as that fox woman of a year ago''s protestations that she doesn''t want to have to sue them is a passive-aggressive threat to sue them.

I wish this thread had ended when I asked for it too, or at least turned into a spirited discussion of what an ideal nsc would be like from it''s customer''s pov. Michael E, as well intentioned as he may have been in his detailed conjectures of nsc''s mindset,emotions and possible reasons for doctoring a few pics only made the thread 2 pages longer, polarized the discussion and forced the need for tabulated facts and stats. That did not serve him or nsc well. Hypothetical explanations from a third party is not a defense by nsc for its indefensible deed. To turn the discussion into suspicion of my motives and/or my super-powers to destroy their business is unjust. If this situation has the power to destroy their business then they did it themselves. They made the decisions they doctored the photos they insulted the customers and they didn''t do anything to make ammends, but instead made things worse.

Linda, I am glad for you that you love you sapphires from nsc and that you are loyal to your friends. I don''t think you''re helping them here, now.



If I had a dollar for every time this thread has been read I would walk into the penthouse at 6 E 45th st tomorrow and buy a big deep stone, then come in here later in the day to gloat. I would love to have a happy buying experience there and a restoration of my trust. As it is, I am likely backing off on my sapphire purchase for a while to look around for more options to a natural, unheated purchase.

I made a lemon/blood orange reduction meringue pie today. Who''d like a piece?

 

[chrono]

I will pass on it for a slice of tiramisu, please.

 

[Indylady]

Date: 3/6/2010 2:29:13 PM
Author: Chrono
I will pass on it for a slice of tiramisu, please.

+1 for tiramisu.

 

[Harriet]

VapidLapid,

I see your point of view. That said, I must thank MichaelE for explaining matters from the NSC's perspective. In addition, to those of you who claim that the NSC's, er, phototaking implies misrepresentation about the gem as a whole, do be careful to avoid writing anything libellous.

Now, I'm going to be contrary. May I have the blood orange pie over tiramisu?

 

[winternight]

I agree with Harriet.

Also, while I don''t care for the practice of flipping pictures and I''m glad it was pointed out to us to go to the extremes of personal and business attacks that many posters did was uncalled for.

But I do care for blood oranges and will take the pie, since I just had a delicious blood orange champagne cocktail Friday night. Actually if I could get that recipie I''d probably be getting even more jewelry from my dear husband who loves his food!

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 3/4/2010 8:07:48 PM
Author: Harriet
Pairs, members individually photographed and filmed:


http://www.paraibainternational.com/products.php?category=&page=all&sort=&products_quantity_type=2

Thanks, Harriet.

 

[elmo]

Date: 3/5/2010 9:15:10 PM
Author: Kaleigh
If I say I had a good experience with them, am I going to be flogged??
SO NSC, hey I am a happy customer.
The PICS?? You gotta stop that.....
And if you read this, don''t send me an email.... K???
I don''t like any vendor sending me an unsolicited email.

Me too, excellent experience working with Michael Arnstein a few years ago, back then I was treated more like a trade client than a consumer which suits me just fine.

Agree with your pics comment - it''s not so hard to get decent undoctored pics with some investment in a photo setup, so just do it

.

However I don''t mind getting an occasional unsolicited postcard or email e.g. informing about a promotion or show appearance, as long as there''s an easy way to opt out.

 

[karpouzi]

That pie looks amazing. Before I accept a slice, do you promise that picture hasn''t been photoshopped?

This thread recalls a situation in the New York Times Magazine a few months ago. The magazine commissioned a photographer to photograph abandoned construction projects across the country. The photographer claimed the images were unaltered. One sharp-eyed reader at Metafilter noticed that most of the pictures were too symmetrical, looked closely, flipped a few of the pictures and, sure enough, the pictures had been flipped. It was one of those things where hundreds, thousands of people saw the photos and didn''t notice anything was off, but once someone pointed out the symmetry, it became obvious.

I think that''s why this kind of thing is so insidious. How many of us had looked at the pairs section at NSC and never noticed anything was amiss? I know I have. And to claim on one section of the Web site that their photos are unaltered is just inexcusable. Frankly, though, it doesn''t seem that different from the fact that they call themselves the "natural" sapphire company and their banner at the top of every page says "pure. natural. untreated." and yet they sell treated stones.

 

[kayla.tastikk]

These garnets are from Peter Torraca's website, and seem to very very closely resemble each other... any thoughts?

I totally don't want to insinuate that he does alter his images, just maybe that the cuts are so similar on these that they are indeed different ones just skillfully cut. Though that also isn't to say that I don't think NSC faked their pictures, it's obvious they did, but this is just food for thought.

 

[chrono]

Kayla,
As noted in my example picture of a pair of Richard Homer amethyst rounds, I believe that it is more difficult to discern a matched pair that is precision cut compared to native cut stones. Also, in your example picture, there are minute differences if you look closely at how a few facets flash a little differently than on the other pair due the slight angle on which one is orientated versus the other.

 

[kayla.tastikk]

I thought that was the case which is why I tried not to blatantly say either way. I think it''s interesting how different of a situation it is.

 

[Barrett]

Trying to compare a precision cut like Peter''s to some commercial cuts on NSC stones is like apples to oranges