What am I missing? Too good to be true?

[scepture]

I have been looking/educating myself on this forum for several months now, and have learned quite a bit! So...why did this link cause me confusion?
http://www.markbroumand.com/product...agement-Anniversary-Ring__2098-1D3270610.aspx

I have viewed these forums long enough to know that there are never really any 'sales' or 'steal of a deal' situations in diamond prices, so how can this 1.24 ct center stone (I, Si2, H&A) be priced with the setting and side diamonds for $5,200?

I know there isn't pictures (idealscope, ASET) associated with the diamond, but just given the info and it being a H&A, how is the price so cheap? The closest comparison I could find in the PS search was from WF, and it's a 1.21 H sI2 h&a for $6,200. I know the color is different (an I vs an H), but that surely wouldn't compensate for the rather significant price difference.

So I guess the question is, what am I missing? Is it possible that the stone linked above is a h&a dud? Is that even possible?

TIA!

 

[kal2021]

My guess would be because it is EGL certified, which means it could really be a J color, I1 (or possibly lower) by GIA standards. I'm no expert, though, just speaking up based on my own personal research I have been doing lately. Try comparing to a similar J, I1 on WF and see what price it is. Also, and I could be totally wrong on this, but I didn't think EGL graded cut, especially H&A, but I'll leave that definite answer to the experts!

 

[Gypsy]

It's not eyeclean. It has a visible inclusion near the culet. That's what you are missing. Though Mark is now a PS advertising vendor (which unfortunately lends him a lot of credibility), in my opinion (and he can feel free to comment), his descriptions are often filled with marketing lingo that you have to interpret VERY carefully. As an excercise in marketing language, his listings have no peer. However, as an excercise in transparency to consumer I feel that his flowery speech is as transparent as frosted glass: you can see through it if you look real close, but otherwise it's opaque.


If you read the listing you will see that while he says the COLOR is face up white he omits saying anything about the EGL rated SI2 clarity being eyeclean (sometime what his listings DO NOT say are as important as what they do say), and instead says that the diamond has a 'beauty mark' near the culet... translation? Visible inclusion right smack dab in the middle of that sucker. Interesting that none of his pictures show this and the one head on shot is blank and fuzzy (as if possibly photoshopped) near the center of the stone.

The video goes too fast to tell anything about the clarity of the stone, and the lighting makes the facets by the culet dark as it is going by.

 

[yssie]

It's not eyeclean. It has a visible inclusion near the culet. That's what you are missing. Though Mark is now a PS advertising vendor (which unfortunately lends him a lot of credibility), in my opinion (and he can feel free to comment), his descriptions are often filled with marketting lingo that you have to interpret VERY carefully. As an excercise in marketing language, his listings have no peer. However, as an excercise in transparency to consumer I feel that his flowery speech is as transparent as frosted glass: you can see through it if you look real close, but otherwise it's opaque.


If you read the listing you will see that while he says the COLOR is face up white he omits saying anything about the EGL rated SI2 clarity being eyeclean (sometime what his listings DO NOT say are as important as what they do say), and instead says that the diamond has a 'beauty mark' near the culet... translation? Visible inclusion right smack dab in the middle of that sucker. Interesting that none of his pictures show this and the one head on shot is blank and fuzzy (as if possibly photoshopped) near the center of the stone.

The video goes too fast to tell anything about the clarity of the stone, and the lighting makes the facets by the culet dark as it is going by.

Goodness Gypsy, you are right, it doesn't say anything about eyeclean by any definition! Actually once I read your post I think I can see that "beauty mark" in the video from 14-18seconds - it is a significantly sized black splotch right in the middle of the stone that does not turn "on" and "off" like a facet would...an educated buyer may call and ask about the inclusion, but so many would not know to do that.

Some other vendors may use "flowery" language but their listings are forthright about every pro and con of the stone. This borders on deception IMO but then again, the price alerted OP to something amiss, yet more proof that the primary fair market leaves few real "deals" to be had..

 

[Gypsy]

Some other vendors may use "flowery" language but their listings are forthright about every pro and con of the stone. This borders on deception IMO but then again, the price alerted OP to something amiss, proof that the market prices leave few real "deals" to be had..

Certain does border on something doesn't it?


Yeah. The price alerted this OP. But that's because he's been on PS for a while and therefore his 'spidey sense' was going off, and he had a place to post about it to ask. Not all consumers know about PS, get that 'spidey sense' going, and have a place to ask questions of experienced fellow consumers. Most of them would be easily mislead by this listing. Which is really unfortunate.

 

[scepture]

Thank you for your responses!!! I figured something was up, and I did read the language about the small 'beauty mark', but I initially foolishly thought that a 'beauty mark' would be a small nearly not noticeable cloud or something, not a large visible inclusion that seems to be the case here.

It is a little 'misleading', although he does mention the mark, it seems a little shady that he puts it in such language that a 'normal' purchaser may not even think to ask. It makes me VERY glad that reading PS has at least given me an outlet to ask questions about findings like this. Kind of makes me wonder why they would spend the time to cut a h&a when there was such a visible inclusion.

lesson: if it's too good to be true, it is! Thanks!

 

[Gypsy]

I'm so glad we were able to help you figure out what was going on. With diamonds and jewelry you seldom get a ridiculous deal (especially if the piece is not pre-owned) as doing so usually requires the buyer knowing more about the piece than the seller does and is DEFINITELY the exception to the rule.

The golden rule is the one you stated: if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

 

[MarkBroumand]

Hello everyone,

Sorry it took a while to reply to the post. I didn't see the topic come up. I am a firm believer of transparency in business and in no way do I want anyone to feel that we are trying to be deceitful or misrepresent a piece in any way. I have plenty of clients that ask me for additional information and photographs of diamonds and I am always happy to oblige and provide it to them. My advice to anyone looking to purchase anything, whether its a diamond or a car or a pair of shoes - ask questions if you are not completely sure about something. Any respectable vendor will be happy to oblige.

This diamond in particular does have a "beauty mark" or inclusion, whichever you prefer, in the center by the culet. It is mentioned in the listing. It is the only inclusion in the whole diamond and it is noticeable when looking very closely at the diamond. But if you factor in the overall look, color, cut, size, brilliance and price of the piece it is an amazing value. I am not here to make an arm and a leg on each transaction. I price my items at a very fair price.

Also, keep in mind that not all SI2 diamonds are going to be the same. No matter who they are certified by. I did a search on one of the other PS sponsors' sites and put in parameters of 1.20ct to 1.30ct I color and SI2 clarity Excellent to Very Good Cut. All diamonds listed were GIA Certified and there was a price range of $4,114-$5,977 - thats a pretty large difference in price - reason being - not all SI2's are created equal. A center black inclusion will never get the same price as a side white feather. They are both SI2 but one is always going to be more expensive than the other. Of course if the price is not important to you you can get the best 1.25ct I-SI2 diamond at $6000 for the diamond itself plus the cost of the setting but if you are looking for a deal giving a little on the type of SI2 is going to help greatly in price. The piece advertised on my site in no way claims to be the best I-SI2 but you get a lot of value out of the piece at the price it is listed for. I wish you could all see the diamond in person so you would understand.

Nothing is cut and dry. Every diamond has its own beauty. I personally hand select the diamonds I purchase and pay for and put in my inventory for their overall combination, value and beauty. In my opinion you can't look at a car that doesn't come with a "CarFax" report but does come with an "Auto Check" report and say its bad because it doesn't have a carfax. Hope I'm making sense here

I am going to post a couple of very zoomed pictures of the diamond set on the ring for everyone to get a better look at it. Hope it helps.

Mark Broumand

 

[MarkBroumand]

Zoomed1

 

[MarkBroumand]

Zoomed2

 

[scepture]

Mark,

I really appreciate your honesty and transparency in this. I by no way was trying to 'call you out' on anything, I was just curious as to why it was priced so low for the 'nut-shell' specs given. I also really appreciate you showing enlarged pictures of the diamond as it seems to present that you are not 'afraid' or trying to hide anything from anyone.

As far as that exact diamond goes, i'm sure the great cut makes the diamond look wonderful. The inclusion is quite evident just from its placement in the stone, which is unfortunate for what i'm looking for, but I am sure will be a great deal for someone who is not as sensitive to such matters.

Again, I appreciate your response and help with clearing this up!

 

[kenny]

What's going on here?

Below left is the pic from the vendor's website next to the pic the vendor himself posted in this thread.
Notice the black inclusion is missing from the website pic.
It is clearly present in the vendor's video and very very noticeable, way too noticeable to explain its absence by lighting or shadows or any photographic artifact.

Mark, was that black inclusion Photoshopped out of the pic on your website?
If you look closely at all the facets, shadows and highlights and details it looks like the same pic, not another ring or diamond.
Notice how many minor subtle details matches perfectly, even the four black reflections on the top of each prong matches, but the big honking black inclusion is mysteriously absent.



Here's a website screen capture...

 

[yssie]

Mark -


Your input here is appreciated.

As a consumer I do have a couple of comments.

Had I been in the market for a stone three years ago, and seen your listing and another identical description for exactly the same stone on another website, the only difference being that that other paragraph included information such as A) "beauty mark" is a pretty way of saying "inclusion", the word the industry and labs use, and B) visibility/"eyeclean?" by whatever metric you want to use, I can say with surety that I would have been drawn to your listing over the one with these details. Beauty mark just sounds so much nicer than inclusion!

And unless I frequented a diamond enthusiast forum, how would I know to question what is *not* written, like Gypsy said - visibility of the 'beauty mark', price difference because of the EGL report, ask for extra pictures when nothing is visible in the ones posted? This sorts of misdirection is standard for the NYC diamond district, I know, but I'm disappointed not to see more transparency from a PS vendor with active representatives on the forums. Your explanations here make sense to us, but we already knew enough to question. But, you of course must run business however you see fit, and we cut-nuts are not your primary market.

I do have a question regarding your return policy: your exchanges for customizations with no restocking fee is generous. But I see you only offer exchanges on sized items - So If I buy this ring from you (the one we are discussing) without doing my homework and I'm unhappy with the visibility of the inclusion IRL, but I had the ring sized from whatever it is now to a 4 - no other changes, would I be able to return for refund per your policy?

 

[Gypsy]

What's going on here?

Below left is the pic from the vendor's website next to the pic the vendor himself posted in this thread.
Notice the black inclusion is missing from the website pic.
It is clearly present in the vendor's video and very very noticeable, way too noticeable to explain its absence by lighting or shadows or any photographic artifact.

Mark, was that black inclusion Photoshopped out of the pic on your website?
If you look closely at all the facets, shadows and highlights and details It is clearly the exact same pic, not another ring or diamond.
Notice how many minor subtle details matches perfectly, even the four black reflections on the top of each prong matches, but the big honking black inclusion is mysteriously absent.



Here's a website screen capture...

This. Is. My. Exact. Point.

Thank you Kenny for writing this up and taking the time to capture the images, I was about to, but you saved me the effort and I greatly appreciate that.

Mark, the picture on your website is photoshopped to remove the inclusion. That's not transparency.

Also, as Yssie says, "Beauty Mark" is just plain misleading.

 

[yssie]

PHOTOSHOP - I would not be so quick to jump to this conclusion!

Kenny - I know you stick to high-clarity stones, I think you would be shocked by how easy it is to hide a surprisingly large/visible inclusion with a tiny change in angle, so that the light hits some facets a slightly different way.

When my SI2 was loose I could take photos that made the crystal/feather inclusion in it (very visible before it was pronged) completely disappear. I could also, with a few tiny changes, make it look monstrous. The pics are a bit different - see the obstructed main at 4 o'clock, I would believe that the small change in angle it took to create this contrast would be sufficient to unmask the bogey. I would not be so quick to assume that the picture was photoshopped - that is an outright deception that most vendors wouldn't dare stoop to, I'm thinking! *cough natural sapph.. cough*

 

[kenny]

PHOTOSHOP - I would not be so quick to jump to this conclusion!

Kenny - I know you stick to high-clarity stones, I think you would be shocked by how easy it is to hide a surprisingly large/visible inclusion with a tiny change in angle, so that the light hits some facets a slightly different way.

When my SI2 was loose I could take photos that made the crystal/feather inclusion in it (very visible before it was pronged) completely disappear. I could also, with a few tiny changes, make it look monstrous. The pics are a bit different - see the obstructed main at 4 o'clock, I would believe that the small change in angle it took to create this contrast would be sufficient to unmask the bogey. I would not be so quick to assume that the picture was photoshopped - that is an outright deception that most vendors wouldn't dare stoop to, I'm thinking! *cough natural sapph.. cough*

Look closely at both pics.
A change of angle would changes things a lot.
The smallest details are are too identical for such an inclusion to just not show up.

 

[yssie]

PHOTOSHOP - I would not be so quick to jump to this conclusion!

Kenny - I know you stick to high-clarity stones, I think you would be shocked by how easy it is to hide a surprisingly large/visible inclusion with a tiny change in angle, so that the light hits some facets a slightly different way.

When my SI2 was loose I could take photos that made the crystal/feather inclusion in it (very visible before it was pronged) completely disappear. I could also, with a few tiny changes, make it look monstrous. The pics are a bit different - see the obstructed main at 4 o'clock, I would believe that the small change in angle it took to create this contrast would be sufficient to unmask the bogey. I would not be so quick to assume that the picture was photoshopped - that is an outright deception that most vendors wouldn't dare stoop to, I'm thinking! *cough natural sapph.. cough*

Look closely at both pics.
A change of angle would changes things a lot.
The smallest details are are too identical for such an inclusion to just not show up.

Kenny - again, look at the pavilion main facet at 4 o'clock.

There is a clear difference. Meaning there is a difference in angle of photography.

Let's not jump to conclusions about a very serious accusation.

 

[kenny]

That's why I asked whether it was Photoshopped instead of stating it.

Also angle-wise, in order to get all 8 arrows to show up like that you have to position a diamond VERY precisely and perfectly on axis with the lens.
I know because I try it and it's not easy.
When you make the tiniest angle change the arrows go all wonky.
The arrows look virtually perfect in both pics, meaning they are both on axis.

Also, look at the video.
The inclusion remains VERY visible over a WIDE angle range, so tiny angle changes in a pic could not make such an inclusion vanish.

Again I'm asking, not stating.
Something looks wrong to me.
I know too much about photography to just throw up my hands and say, "Oh it must be the lighting or some reflection or something."

 

[yssie]

That's why I asked whether it was Photoshopped instead of stating it.

Also angle-wise, in order to get all 8 arrows to show up like that you have to position a diamond VERY precisely and perfectly on axis with the lens.
I know.
I try and it's not easy.
The tiniest angle change and the arrows go wonky.

Also, look at the video.
The inclusion remains VERY visible over a WIDE angle change from on axis.

Again I'm asking, not stating.
Something looks wrong to me.

Yes, I saw the video, and I too thought the inclusion was quite visible over over a range of views. And I know how tough it is to get those arrows to line up I'm just pointing out that whilst the entire listing is guilty of misdirection - IMO, it's possible that his photographer got those shots without any post-imaging manipulations - IMO.

Now that this question has been raised I agree it is in Mark's best interest to address it - in the eyes of the many current and future readers keeping quiet may as well be an admission of guilt. I hope he sees this thread soon so this question can be resolved quickly - one way or the other!

 

[kenny]

I do hope there is an explanation and this is cleared up.
Perhaps it is just a mistake and a pic of another ring got put into the listing.
A professional photography set up can be very very repeatable when nothing is changed between rings.

Perhaps someone just uploaded the wrong pic.

Yissie, I respectfully disagree with you about it being possible that the angle the pic was taken at could vanish such an inclusion.
IMHO it has to be another diamond if it's not Photoshopped.
I'd kiss Rockdiamond on the cheek on national television if those are two unaltered pics of the same diamond.

 

[Gypsy]

I stated it instead of asking... bull in china shop over here. I thought it looked pretty clear what happened as the center facets are missing too.

ETA: Kenny, I'll be on the other side kissing his cheek wearing a chicken costume.

 

[kenny]

Notice the 4 arrow heads near 3:00 and 9:00 look different.
Only the 8:00 arrowhead on the left is blue.

Also there is a dark particle of dust on the ring just to the right of the stone in the right pic and not the left.
I could understand Photoshopping dust out but not in.

I'm more thinking a pic of the wrong ring got uploaded.

If so, it's a much more-possibly honest mistake . . . but STILL!

 

[kenny]

I stated it instead of asking... bull in china shop over here. I thought it looked pretty clear what happened as the center facets are missing too.

ETA: Kenny, I'll be on the other side kissing his cheek wearing a chicken costume.

 

[MarkBroumand]

Scepture, I did not take it in a bad way at all. I like forums like this because it helps me express my point of view as well. Not every diamond will work for every client. Some people like Kenny only like superior quality diamonds in the VVS-IF range and every aspect of the diamond has to be perfect - understandable because those diamond are so immaculate in every sense but of course not every one can afford them. I have a very broad range in taste. I like the big, beautiful, spectacular diamonds like the 7.53ct Emerald Cut Diamond I have that is GIA Certified at H-VVS1 and I also love my 1.02ct Cushion Cut that is GIA certified at H-SI2 that has a big black inclusion on the corner that is visible by the naked eye but the cut is so amazing that it makes up for it.

Kenny, thank you for posting the pictures off of the site. The ones I posted yesterday are actually new pictures I took myself yesterday after reading this post at a much closer and enlarged view to show the inclusion larger. The similarity in the shadowing is from the way the camera system is set up in my store and the reflection of the camera lens on the prongs and facets.

As far as the pics from the site go - WE DO NOT PHOTOSHOP INCLUSIONS OUT OF PICTURES! That is immoral, not transparent at all and just plain wrong! As you can see from the front picture thats on the site the ring is much farther away from the camera then the picture I took very close up. The inclusion is there but not as apparent. That is not to mislead but just the overall distance we use for all the rings on the site to keep the look constant. Trust me, after all these years of trying to perfect taking pictures and videos and listing I can tell you that it is VERY DIFFICULT to please everyone. No matter what there will always be skeptics and thats fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[kenny]

Scepture, I did not take it in a bad way at all. I like forums like this because it helps me express my point of view as well. Not every diamond will work for every client. Some people like Kenny only like superior quality diamonds in the VVS-IF range and every aspect of the diamond has to be perfect - understandable because those diamond are so immaculate in every sense but of course not every one can afford them. I have a very broad range in taste. I like the big, beautiful, spectacular diamonds like the 7.53ct Emerald Cut Diamond I have that is GIA Certified at H-VVS1 and I also love my 1.02ct Cushion Cut that is GIA certified at H-SI2 that has a big black inclusion on the corner that is visible by the naked eye but the cut is so amazing that it makes up for it.

Kenny, thank you for posting the pictures off of the site. The ones I posted yesterday are actually new pictures I took myself yesterday after reading this post at a much closer and enlarged view to show the inclusion larger. The similarity in the shadowing is from the way the camera system is set up in my store and the reflection of the camera lens on the prongs and facets.

As far as the pics from the site go - WE DO NOT PHOTOSHOP INCLUSIONS OUT OF PICTURES! That is immoral, not transparent at all and just plain wrong! As you can see from the front picture thats on the site the ring is much farther away from the camera then the picture I took very close up. The inclusion is there but not as apparent. That is not to mislead but just the overall distance we use for all the rings on the site to keep the look constant. Trust me, after all these years of trying to perfect taking pictures and videos and listing I can tell you that it is VERY DIFFICULT to please everyone. No matter what there will always be skeptics and thats fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Oh really?

I'm not stating this was Photoshopped or a pic of a different diamond, as I don't feel like being sued.

But you cannot make such a black large inclusion like this vanish by backing away the camera
Proof of this is how the top of all 4 prongs captured much smaller black reflections so clearly in your website pic on the left.

If it captured those 4 small black reflections it would easily record that much larger black inclusion.
AFAIC I'm still waiting for a plausible explanation of why that large black inclusion is missing from your web pic.

My buying VS or VVS stones is not relevant.

 

[Gypsy]

Maybe it wasn't photoshop but MS Paint?

Mark if the picture on the website is truly unaltered then you have my sincere apologies, but I would advise you to put a more accurate picture that clearly shows the inclusion (like the ones posted in this thread) in the listing. But I do think the complete LACK of any blemish on the pics Kenny posted from your site is suspicious and I don't think that distance can account for it either.

 

[MarkBroumand]

Kenny, were not trying to make any inclusions vanish. I wouldn't take such a zoomed picture and post it if I was trying to hide something. The great thing is that we have freedom of speech. You can state your point of view the same way I can. BUT you should be careful not to accuse people or companies, especially those that work so diligently in their field, of wrong doing without substantiation. What we do as jewelry designers, manufacturers, and retailers of high end fine jewelry is not easy. There are a lot of people behind the scenes and a lot of work goes into what we do. Please do not dismiss anyone so easily.

 

[scepture]

WHOA! I checked back to see if anything had been said and see an explosion of posts. I really REALLY appreciate people taking the time to respond, and KENNY for doing the comparison of the two photos.

Mark, I again appreciate your response. I however think that the point here maybe missing. I know that there is a major difference in a cut nut type customer as you have here and your average consumer. Pricescope allows you to obtain a wealth of knowledge about diamonds, and in some cases it may cause you to change your preferences accordingly. That fact is fine. No one is debating that some people enjoy IF stones while others don't mind an I1; their priority structure, for which reasons are irrelevant, is different. I think the REAL issue here (at least as I see it) is that preferences aside, no one wants to be mislead. I am not accusing anyone of anything at all. I am simply stating that when people feel as though a business is run in a fashion that they consider to be misleading to not only them but the general public, they are willing and able to express those opinions.

My very limited knowledge of camera angles and such does not allow me to even comment as to what inclusions can and cant be seen with certain angles.

I appreciate all of your responses, hopefully the experts (and maybe some vendors - however I doubt that they will be willing to get involved in this- ) will continue to chime in.

 

[MarkBroumand]

Scepture, thank you for that. I completely agree with you! I also want to thank Kenny, Gypsy and all the other PS posters for their input. After examining the picture on the site over and over for the past hour trying to figure out what is going on I decided to have a new picture of the front taken. I will do more comparisons and refresh the image to the new one. It should be uploaded later today.

Mark Broumand

 

[iugurl]

I am VERY inexperienced, so I probably should not even be responding in this thread... But, as someone inexperienced, I would have looked at the diamond, and thought, hmm it is really cheap. Is there something wrong with it?? In the picture on the website, there are two small black shadows??(maybe). I may have thought that was what the "beauty mark" was. But comparing it to the other picture, WOW! If I received that in the mail, I would have been shocked! In my, perhaps ignorant, opinion, I would have felt deceived. I think that even if it is not photoshopped, it is still deceiving... I circled what I would have though the inclusion *could* have been.