Why Advanced Images Matter...A Bad 34.5/40.8...

[sledge]

I'm just as guilty as anyone. Helping someone find a stone and run across one with that 34.5/40.8 combo. You smile. You then run through the rest of the proportions....

57 table, 61.7 depth, 75 LGF's, 50 stars and medium-slightly thick girdle....check, check, check,check and check

You quickly pound in the GIA number to the HCA calculator to double check the proportion analysis you've already performed in your head. Yup, just as expected, a 1.3 to 1.7 score.

And while we don't love the cavity, it's the 3rd inclusion on the list and probably rather inconsequential.

Then your heart flutters a little as you notice there are advanced images. Maybe we should just go ahead and buy a lottery ticket today, because good luck is pouring out of us, eh? Wait, what the hell is wrong with that one hearts image. Hmmm, I better look at this closer.

Then the nightmare begins....

5-125082681 - Do Amore

www.doamore.com

 

[lovedogs]

WTF is happening here???? I've never seen such a weird hearts image.

 

[sledge]

WTF is happening here???? I've never seen such a weird hearts image.

Lots of variation in the pavilions and LGF's. That one heart sticks out like a sore thumb, but look closer at all the assymetrical things going on.

@Karl_K might enjoy this. For the record no consideration of purchase, just for learning and discussion purposes as I'd like trade to freely comment.

 

[lovedogs]

Lots of variation in the pavilions and LGF's. That one heart sticks out like a sore thumb, but look closer at all the assymetrical things going on.

@Karl_K might enjoy this. For the record no consideration of purchase, just for learning and discussion purposes as I'd like trade to freely comment.

It's just so odd. Looks asymmetrical in all images, but that one heart is insane. Overall that's just a sad sad set of images.

 

[mission1]

To be fair, the alignment looks all off even from the basic photo, even without the benefit of advanced images!

 

[Karl_K]

@Karl_K might enjoy this. For the record no consideration of purchase, just for learning and discussion purposes as I'd like trade to freely comment.

Its still a vendors diamond so we are limited.

There is a cutter out there intentionally cutting a bunch of twisted stones like this... buyer beware.

 

[foxinsox]

There is a cutter out there intentionally cutting a bunch of twisted stones like this... buyer beware.

REALLY?? why would they do that? Wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot by doing this?

 

[flyingpig]

REALLY?? why would they do that? Wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot by doing this?

To make the diamond good on paper and to achieve 1.0x carat weight. And it still managed to get excellent in symmetry.
It came out as the cutter intended. It is a well cut stone in this regard.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think you will find the stone images do not match the cert.
This manufacturer uses the very first Ideal-scope Capture that we sold 15 years ago. They have always used too much back light, but I very much doubt this is anything other than a human error of matching images to cert.
PS Edit - I have asked them if there is a mistake.

 

[CLL]

Its still a vendors diamond so we are limited.

There is a cutter out there intentionally cutting a bunch of twisted stones like this... buyer beware.

Karl, from initial image at the attached website by sledge I was seeing crooked areas around 12 and 6 o’clock. Are those the twisted areas?

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, from initial image at the attached website by sledge I was seeing crooked areas around 12 and 6 o’clock. Are those the twisted areas?

In th regular pic the worst one is at 8 oclock aprox.
There are 3 sets that are messed up that show up in the images.
Totaly messed up heart small heart and partialy messed up heart in the heart image.

 

[whitewave]

I was going to comment on the ring of death but I’ll wait and see if they reply to Garry

 

[foxinsox]

To make the diamond good on paper and to achieve 1.0x carat weight. And it still managed to get excellent in symmetry.
It came out as the cutter intended. It is a well cut stone in this regard.

It feels like extra effort for this tho - I get that making it look good on paper and hitting those magic whole numbers are worth it financially for them - it just sounded like the twist would actually result in poorer numbers so a detriment to that aim.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Please assume it is a typo mistake until I hear from the manufacturer

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

I think you will find the stone images do not match the cert.
This manufacturer uses the very first Ideal-scope Capture that we sold 15 years ago. They have always used too much back light, but I very much doubt this is anything other than a human error of matching images to cert.
PS Edit - I have asked them if there is a mistake.

This was my initial thought as well. Anxious to hear back from the vendor.

 

[sledge]

To compare the normal image to the advanced images, you have to rotate it it 90 degrees to the left.

Original view:


Original view -- with lines showing lack of symmetry. Also, notice the pink circle, where the lines DO NOT intersect in the middle. Yellow circles identify inclusions for reference points.


Original view -- rotated 90 degree to the left:

 

[monipod]

Aside from all the tech issues, am I seeing a very slight brown tint? I know it's not noted on the report and could be a reflection?

 

[sledge]

They have always used too much back light, but I very much doubt this is anything other than a human error of matching images to cert.

Can you further explain why you think this is just overly bright back lighting and not true leakage?

It's my understanding that you can use the table reflection as a guide to what is too bright vs what is true leakage. We know that 40.76 is the pavilion angle where red & green light meet so if it's <40.76 then we see green, and >40.76 we see red. Since we are seeing a green table reflection, I'd assume the pavilion is <40.76.

I circled the table reflection in pink. Using that as a control reference, I think the other pink areas we could say is because of overly bright back lighting. The yellow circles I see as some leakage, but maybe over pronounced because of the bad back lighting. But the blue seems to be true leakage, with the areas at roughly 5 and 9 o'clock as the worst.

Lastly, the black circles is showing manipulation of the girdle. Not really leakage, but less intense light return as a result.

Am I misinterpreting? If so, please explain in detail so I do not repeat the mistake.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Can you further explain why you think this is just overly bright back lighting and not true leakage?

It's my understanding that you can use the table reflection as a guide to what is too bright vs what is true leakage. We know that 40.76 is the pavilion angle where red & green light meet so if it's <40.76 then we see green, and >40.76 we see red. Since we are seeing a green table reflection, I'd assume the pavilion is <40.76.

I circled the table reflection in pink. Using that as a control reference, I think the other pink areas we could say is because of overly bright back lighting. The yellow circles I see as some leakage, but maybe over pronounced because of the bad back lighting. But the blue seems to be true leakage, with the areas at roughly 5 and 9 o'clock as the worst.

Lastly, the black circles is showing manipulation of the girdle. Not really leakage, but less intense light return as a result.

Am I misinterpreting? If so, please explain in detail so I do not repeat the mistake.

Firstly I have on occasion bought a few diamonds from this company and I have very often seen they over do the backlight.
Secondly, I developed the system they are using and know they are using too much backlight.
Thirdly Sledge, I am 90% certain that you are barking up the wrong tree and the diamond is not the one on the cert and you should not waste time until I get a response. The backlight is not strong enough to cause this issue.

 

[Karl_K]

Backlight or not...right report or not... the diamond in the images has some very serious issues.
If they cut the diamond in the image ask them why they are doing it.
I would really like an answer to that.

 

[sledge]

Firstly I have on occasion bought a few diamonds from this company and I have very often seen they over do the backlight.
Secondly, I developed the system they are using and know they are using too much backlight.
Thirdly Sledge, I am 90% certain that you are barking up the wrong tree and the diamond is not the one on the cert and you should not waste time until I get a response. The backlight is not strong enough to cause this issue.

Fair enough. Just so you know I'm not trying to get sideways with you about rather the backlighting was too bright or not. I agree it was. But as you expressed in your last statement, I just didn't feel it accounted for all the problems we saw.

I will reserve further comments for when we hear back from the vendor. But I am very curious to hear their explanation.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Backlight or not...right report or not... the diamond in the images has some very serious issues.
If they cut the diamond in the image ask them why they are doing it.
I would really like an answer to that.

Pretty simple Karl, they buy a rough diamond. The top part would cut a really nice 0.95ct and go bankrupt because the miner sold the rough based on producing at least 1ct from the top part and GIA help by making it easy to know they can get XXX. Or stay in business, keep employing 2,000 people and make a decent living in Surat, so you push it out to 1.02ct and everyone is happy.
This is the crusade I have been on for more than 20 years - to change the perception of enough consumers via education. But when a diamond like this has this potential - whatcha gunna do?

 

[Mlh]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) , are .95's typically better cut than just over 1 ct.? Is this too general a conclusion? Is there a range around the 1 ct. mark that is usually a safer bet overall?

 

[flyingpig]

Can you further explain why you think this is just overly bright back lighting and not true leakage?

It's my understanding that you can use the table reflection as a guide to what is too bright vs what is true leakage. We know that 40.76 is the pavilion angle where red & green light meet so if it's <40.76 then we see green, and >40.76 we see red. Since we are seeing a green table reflection, I'd assume the pavilion is <40.76.

I circled the table reflection in pink. Using that as a control reference, I think the other pink areas we could say is because of overly bright back lighting. The yellow circles I see as some leakage, but maybe over pronounced because of the bad back lighting. But the blue seems to be true leakage, with the areas at roughly 5 and 9 o'clock as the worst.

Lastly, the black circles is showing manipulation of the girdle. Not really leakage, but less intense light return as a result.

Am I misinterpreting? If so, please explain in detail so I do not repeat the mistake.

The ASET is mis-aligned and/or not held properly.
The leakage is exaggerated even considering strong backlighting.
Excess greens around the edges when there is very little or no sign of digging.
Excess greens under the table.
Reddish blue arrows under the table.

The ASET scope is not properly covering the diamond.

 

[Karl_K]

Pretty simple Karl, they buy a rough diamond. The top part would cut a really nice 0.95ct and go bankrupt because the miner sold the rough based on producing at least 1ct from the top part and GIA help by making it easy to know they can get XXX. Or stay in business, keep employing 2,000 people and make a decent living in Surat, so you push it out to 1.02ct and everyone is happy.
This is the crusade I have been on for more than 20 years - to change the perception of enough consumers via education. But when a diamond like this has this potential - whatcha gunna do?

Cut an honest gia ex steep deep rather than playing games trying to deceive people.
A slightly steep deep would have less visual impact than the game they are playing with these stones.

 

[flyingpig]

I don't know who's taking these photos for this vendor.
The quality of these ASET and IS photos remind me of those of Brilliantly Engaged.
Maybe it is the same supplier??

Regardless, it absolutely puzzles me that the cutter worked so hard to make the diamond appear good on paper, yet this vendor/supplier provides this ASET that looks more horrible than it actually is. What a mess.

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

Out of curiosity (since B2C has access to this same diamond) I requested all of the images. Our diamond partner sent us the same images posted here (plus a few more). I have asked our team to verify that this diamond certificate and the images sent to us are from the same diamond. We, too, will await a response.

 

[sledge]

Pretty simple Karl, they buy a rough diamond. The top part would cut a really nice 0.95ct and go bankrupt because the miner sold the rough based on producing at least 1ct from the top part and GIA help by making it easy to know they can get XXX. Or stay in business, keep employing 2,000 people and make a decent living in Surat, so you push it out to 1.02ct and everyone is happy.
This is the crusade I have been on for more than 20 years - to change the perception of enough consumers via education. But when a diamond like this has this potential - whatcha gunna do?

This post evokes lots of thoughts. One of the primaries being that if the sale of a 1 carat stone (vs 0.95ct) can not only save a factory of 2,000 workers but keep it profitable then either I am in the wrong line of work and/or we are paying way too much bloody money for diamonds in the first place!

Granted the following graphic is from 2016 and for pear shapes, but it illustrates a point. Looking at the charts we can see:

• 0.90-0.99ct, I, SI1 = approx $3,900 per carat
• 1.00-1.49ct, I, SI1 = approx $4,500 per carat

So roughly $600 makes the difference of shutting the doors or staying open and remaining profitable.



I get the fact you were just giving a fictitious example. But in that example, you'd think the guy buying the rough and approximating the finished carat weight would be more precise at his job as well. And possibly the buyer would be a better negotiator if it was a 50/50 call on the carat weight.

And using the picture you posted, there are still more diamond possibilities, albeit smaller ones, that would likely absorb that $600 difference, right? At the very least, two diamonds?



But in reality, probably something more like this...right? Although in fairness, we could just as easily pick on one of the smaller lesser well cut diamonds for the same issue. But in the diagram below, at least the "poor make" stones are easily identified and didn't go through the measure to provide great proportions but twist and butcher the thing to death.

@Garry H (Cut Nut) , are .95's typically better cut than just over 1 ct.? Is this too general a conclusion? Is there a range around the 1 ct. mark that is usually a safer bet overall?

I think that's too general of a conclusion. There are some nice 1 carat stones that land right on the 1.00 mark. But anytime a stone just creeps to a magic carat weight number, I think you are wise to inspect a little closer and ensure nothing is being manipulated in a negative manner.

Cut an honest gia ex steep deep rather than playing games trying to deceive people.
A slightly steep deep would have less visual impact than the game they are playing with these stones.

Agree. It's understandable not every stone can be perfect. But it feels very malicious to go through the efforts to make a stone appear as great and then hack it up.

Out of curiosity (since B2C has access to this same diamond) I requested all of the images. Our diamond partner sent us the same images posted here (plus a few more). I have asked our team to verify that this diamond certificate and the images sent to us are from the same diamond. We, too, will await a response.

Can you share the additional images? And has the supplier indicated if there was a mix up on the cert number? I know....I'm being impatient....it's not my strong suit, lol.

 

[gm89uk]

What about it makes you think it's not. 57/34.5/40.8?? The leakage?

I think proportions wise it seems to fit that credential from the photos.. Maybe with the table looking slightly small for 57.

Regardless, even with the ASET properly taken, I think even properly taken, that stone would be leaking.

 

[flyingpig]

What about it makes you think it's not. 57/34.5/40.8?? The leakage?

I think proportions wise it seems to fit that credential from the photos.. Maybe with the table looking slightly small for 57.

Regardless, even with the ASET properly taken, I think even properly taken, that stone would be leaking.

Agree.
Before we hear back, I play this game and bet the photos match the cert.
Overall facet patterns are consistency with what you expect from 57/34.5/40.8.
There are two crystal inclusions on the bezel; consistent with the report.
The big black dot is possibly because of the cavity inclusion on the pavilion side.