Would LOVE opinion of this stone

[greenspoon]

Hello there,

I have never posted before, but have followed many a post. I am looking for a radiant with a 1.3 L:W ratio minimum and have found this stone and called it in. I have attached ASET report to this first post, can''t figure out how to attach multiple images so I will post the Ideal Scope, Sarin report and 40x magnification in subsequent posts.

I would REALLY appreciate it if I could have some opinions from people who actually have experience looking at these images... as I don''t

THANKS!

 

[greenspoon]

Here is the Sarin report with the specifics of the stone.

 

[greenspoon]

The Ideal Scope image

 

[greenspoon]

The first 40x image

 

[greenspoon]

2nd 40x image.

Would really appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[JulieN]

It seems kind of average to me? Nothing amazing, though nothing horribly off, either.

 

[Dreamer_D]

The ASET has a lot of green. What does WF say about it?

 

[greenspoon]

Thank you for your input. I spoke to WF today and they said the reason there is more green than red is because of the elongated shape, I prefer a L:W ration of 1.3 or higher and this stone is a 1.4. Does this jive? They said for the L:W ratio the stone is cut well and has good sparkle.

I have attached another tweezer shot, the first one they said was at an angle and had a pretty big glare across the table.

IYO would you call an alternate in? Have the stone sent to me for personal inspection?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don''t think I would personally sacrifice the optical performance of a diamond for a shape I liked... but it is your choice! I don''t know if I would call more in... what else is out there??

 

[greenspoon]

Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it. I noticed there was another person asking for help selecting between 3 different radiants. You commented on their stones as well. I split screened and put my ASET image next to theirs. The 3rd stone in the post had significantly more red than my report shows. The other two stones seemed they had about the same, but that the red was more intense.

Do you know if this is a function of the stone being larger/facets being larger so they can reflect larger more intense concentrations of light?

The folks at WF DID recommend the stone, they thought I would be happy with it, but they didnt seem super stoked on it. It was just a weird conversation. Really did not make me feel comfortable in their recommendation.

 

[JulieN]

Yeah, the ASETs in the second radiant thread are more of what I expect to see. Don't settle, call in more stones.

It has nothing to do with the stone being larger.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/5/2010 11:27:24 PM
Author: JulieN
Yeah, the ASETs in the second radiant thread are more of what I expect to see. Don't settle, call in more stones.

It has nothing to do with the stone being larger.

If you are unsure then definitely call in some more. Also I agree with Julie, the colours in the ASET don't have anything do to with the size of the stone but have everything to do with the light return.

 

[greenspoon]

Wow... getting very confused and I am also getting frustrated. I have not had the best experience with WF. I know that alot of people on here are proponents and that was very helpful in deciding to work with them. It seems my experience might be an anomly, or maybe I just have trust issues.

Our budget for a stone is not huge, but decent and of course we want to get a good stone for our $. I had narrowed stone options to 6, Chris helped me narrow it to 4 and then turned them over to Bob to narrow to the final 2. Bob selected this stone (which was my first pick anyway) and a stone that Chris and I had elimated. So we decided to just bring the one stone in, that was Tues. Late Wed afternoon I was emailed the first set of pics. The ASET, Sarin, IS and 2 40x mag photos. I did not hear from the team at WF by Thurs. afternoon so I called them. Chris was very busy, said he had a chance to look at the images though and that he did not like one of the 40x mag photos and was going to have it re-taken. I also asked if they had other ASET images of radiant cut diamonds that I could see to compare to mine. He gave me a link to one. It had considerably more red than mine. That was the only image they showed me. He didnt offer any other opinion about the stone at that time, but offered to let me speak to Bob who had also seen the images, but not the stone. Bob said that based on the images he felt the stone would sparkle. That he would look at the stone in person and they would get back to me. That evening Chris sent over the re-take of the 40x mag photo, which was better. They called me about 1:45 on Friday to discuss the stone, Bob had now seen in person. I talked briefly with Chris, then to Bob. Bob said he had seen the stone in person and that it was "NICE". (he did put a qualifing emphasis on NICE) He then explained that the reason it did not have much red was because of the L:W ratio. He did not seem very forth coming in making a direct recommendation of the stone other than he thought is was nice and that I would be happy with it. It was a strange conversation. I felt like I had to pull the recommendation out of him. So then I thought I would phrase it another way, I asked if he felt that I should consider other stones. He told me there is always going to be a nicer stone out there if you want to take time to look for it. I said I wasnt asking if he thought there was "A" nicer stone out there, but if there many nicer stones out there. He then told me (again nicely, but I was still taken aback) that they could not hold this stone forever and that I needed to make a decision. I told him this is the first time anybody has made a recommendation of the stone and the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to someone who has actually seen the stone.

So now I feel very torn. I am getting conflicting information from this resource(which seems to be in agreement) and from the people at WF. I am not really trusting what they are telling me now and the whole experience has gotten pretty frustrating, where it should be exciting.

I can only think that they would not recommend a stone that is not a good performer. According to their policy if a stone is not a good performer they will absorb the cost to send it back. SO I don''t know if that is why they are reluctant to say this stone is not. I don''t know if I need to ask them to rate the stone on a scale of 1-10 or what I need to do to get a better feel for how they think this stone performs.

And the rub might be between a "NICE" and "EXCELLENT" stone.

 

[JulieN]

Stones look A LOT different in real life than they do in pictures, videos, or in IS/ASET pictures. So, when it comes down to it, eyes do have the final word.

What I'm dissatisfied with is that you only had one stone called in. It's always better to have a choice. That's why the other poster with three choices got so many more opinions. But of course, we will defer our opinions to Brian, who gets to see the stone.

WF has built a company on dealing with people who want the best. Yes, I'm sure the stone is nice and you would be happy with it. But this isn't a time to be settling for merely "nice." Have another stone called in for peace of mind, IMO.

 

[Dreamer_D]

If you are not happy, then tell them you want more called in to compare. If that is not possible, then I would call GOG and work with them and see if it goes more smoothly.

 

[Laila619]

The length to width ratio should have absolutely nothing to do with how much red is in the ASET. Weird that they said this.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 2/6/2010 4:55:06 PM
Author: Laila619
The length to width ratio should have absolutely nothing to do with how much red is in the ASET. Weird that they said this.

Rounds are optimal for light return. Stretching out the shape will result in less optimal light return.

 

[greenspoon]

If I called an additional stone or two in, would it be customary for them to hold on to this stone while we wait for the others to get in to compare?

I am really regretting that decision now.

I am half thinking to just have that stone sent to me so that >>I<< can physically look at it and then go from there, but I dont'' really know how painful the return process is.

There seems to be some conflicting views about whether the L:W ratio affects the light return. I would love to get more opinions on this.

Thanks so much everyone for responding. It is great to have someplace to go with questions.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/6/2010 5:16:19 PM
Author: greenspoon
If I called an additional stone or two in, would it be customary for them to hold on to this stone while we wait for the others to get in to compare?

I am really regretting that decision now.

I am half thinking to just have that stone sent to me so that >>I<< can physically look at it and then go from there, but I dont'' really know how painful the return process is.

There seems to be some conflicting views about whether the L:W ratio affects the light return. I would love to get more opinions on this.

Thanks so much everyone for responding. It is great to have someplace to go with questions.

The return process is easy, all you pay is shipping back and I believe you are charged the shipping to you as well in the case of a return (so 2x shipping is the cost of seeing it in person). Is this really the only one you have considered? I would want to be able to pick from 2-3 stones myself. You can call another vendor or ask WF to call some others in. They are trying to make a sale, not doing you a favour, so it is up to them in some respects to work to make you happy and allay your fears and give you options. At least, that is how I think it should be.

 

[greenspoon]

Thanks again for the posting help. I did talk to WF yesterday and I had actually gone over my concerns, I am a bit of a communicator, they were very good about everything and all is going in a very positive direction so I am happy to continue to work with them.

We are calling in two of the alternates from my original list. We couldnt locate any other candidates that weren''t considered before. Those images should be in this afternoon and I will post.

Hopefully I will get some additional input and I will be able to make a decision soon!

Incidentally, they provided a more detailed opinion of the original stone. They felt that it was "above average", that the spread was very good and that is showed no noticable bowtie (which is pretty good considering the 1.4 L:W, I think) So I feel alot better about the .8 stone, but I think I need to compare it to these two continders in order to make a decision.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/9/2010 12:01:51 PM
Author: greenspoon
Thanks again for the posting help. I did talk to WF yesterday and I had actually gone over my concerns, I am a bit of a communicator, they were very good about everything and all is going in a very positive direction so I am happy to continue to work with them.

We are calling in two of the alternates from my original list. We couldnt locate any other candidates that weren''t considered before. Those images should be in this afternoon and I will post.

Hopefully I will get some additional input and I will be able to make a decision soon!

Incidentally, they provided a more detailed opinion of the original stone. They felt that it was ''above average'', that the spread was very good and that is showed no noticable bowtie (which is pretty good considering the 1.4 L:W, I think) So I feel alot better about the .8 stone, but I think I need to compare it to these two continders in order to make a decision.

Sounds like things are really moving in a positive direction, thanks for the update.