would you reply to the thread if a member posted..

[Dancing Fire]

a fake diamond ring on SMTB forum?

 

[anitabee]

i suppose it's happened already but how, through pics and all, would we ever find out? cz, in pics (esp if it's not a close-up), is very hard to detect as compared to in real life.

i betcha there are peeps who've posted things that weren't their own. it doesn't take much to find a grading report on line with a photo and claim it to be their own.

 

[Ella]

Fakes are not allowed per our forum policies. We hope that anyone who spots a fake ring in the SMTB forum will use their discretion and the "report concern" button to let us know.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

This has happened before. Someone posted a cz. She was caught bc she also posted about the ring on another forum and said there it was a cz. I think she was called out/reported.

 

[ihy138]

I've seen a couple pictures that have looked funky but I don't think I could say definitively based on only a photo.

 

[Circe]

There's also this potentially awkward issue ... what if the poster doesn't know? I remember reading a few horror stories about dudes who presented their fiancees with CZs and hoped it would just slip under the radar ....

 

[Lottie]

If I thought someone had deliberately posted a fake in an attempt to pass it off as the real thing and I was 100% certain, then yes I would question it. Its hard to be 100% when you are only looking at a photo and it would be an awful thing to get it wrong and ruin someones big SMTB moment.

However if the poster was unaware that what they had wasn't real then I would keep quiet and simply not post on the thread, the truth is likely to come out one way or another and they do not need me to add to their humiliation.

 

[Dancing Fire]

There's also this potentially awkward issue ... what if the poster doesn't know? I remember reading a few horror stories about dudes who presented their fiancees with CZs and hoped it would just slip under the radar ....

yep,very possible...there's a ring on SMTB that i'm 99% sure it's a fake but i'm no expert.

 

[MissStepcut]

There's also this potentially awkward issue ... what if the poster doesn't know? I remember reading a few horror stories about dudes who presented their fiancees with CZs and hoped it would just slip under the radar ....

yep,very possible...there's a ring on SMTB that i'm 99% sure it's a fake but i'm no expert.

I saw one a few months back that I thought the same thing about. I just ignored it.

 

[usnwife]

Thanks DF- now I am trying to spot it. Can you give me a hint?

 

[ihy138]

What are the types of things you would look for to spot it? Now I'm curious...haha

 

[kenny]

Posted pics are rarely sharp or close enough to detect a fake.
I'm not even sure what to look for, maybe doubling, but again you'd practically need a microscope pic to resolve that.

BTW, how about posting a colored diamond with color that's the result of treatment without mentioning it was treated, as opposed to having color of natural origin?

Even if the poster states the color is treated should pics or discussion of such diamonds be banned also?
After all, it's the same offense: an unnatural and inexpensive alternative to something very expensive when natural.

If PS is going to make it a private party reserved for natural diamonds, why not natural color too?

 

[Dancing Fire]

How about posting a colored diamond with color that's the result of treatment without mentioning it was treated, as opposed to having color of natural origin?

Even if the poster states the color is treated should pics or discussion of such diamonds be banned also?
After all, it's the same offense: an unnatural and inexpensive alternative to something very expensive when natural.


If PS is going to make it a private party reserved for natural diamonds, why not natural color too?

i agree with ya Kenny only natural color stones on SMTB.

 

[kenny]

How about posting a colored diamond with color that's the result of treatment without mentioning it was treated, as opposed to having color of natural origin?

Even if the poster states the color is treated should pics or discussion of such diamonds be banned also?
After all, it's the same offense: an unnatural and inexpensive alternative to something very expensive when natural.


If PS is going to make it a private party reserved for natural diamonds, why not natural color too?

i agree with ya Kenny only natural color stones on SMTB.

I guess it comes down to the reason for the ban on fakes.
Is it so the people who can afford real diamonds get to feel classy and exclusive like in a fancy restaurant that requires all male customers wear a tux, or is it to maintain a focus so PS does not get watered down catering to another market?

I don't know and it's not my place to say.
It is PS's house and their rules do not have to be explained.

It's just that the price difference between a fake and a real 2-ct colorless diamond is small compared to the price difference between a color-treated and a naturally-colored 2-ct blue diamond.

 

[that_someone_special]

I loathe when people attempt to post cz and pass it off as a diamond.
No, it's not the same thing.

I don't view lab-created to be the same either

It's not a natural diamond. Don't post it here.
There are PLENTY of forums that allow it and encourage it so I'm not sure why they would want to post it here.

I am also extremely annoyed with the obviously treated blue diamonds that are not mentioned to be treated. Everyone here knows that a 2 carat blue diamond is not natural in color (and if it is, Joe Shmoe doesn't own one!), but that doesn't mean that it won't dupe others that don't know much about diamonds.

And for the record, I've also seen some posters admit to posting fakes on here on another site. Seriously? What's the point in not admitting to it? To make people think you can afford more than what you really can? I don't get it.

</soapbox>

 

[Lottie]

The only issue I would have, would be the attempting to pass one off as another. Personal taste is exactly that - personal and if someone is happy with cz then fine, but stand by it - trying to pass it off as something else is dishonest.

 

[Enerchi]

The only issue I would have, would be the attempting to pass one off as another. Personal taste is exactly that - personal and if someone is happy with cz then fine, but stand by it - trying to pass it off as something else is dishonest.

I agree with that statement. You should love what you have and, if you are embarrassed about it and have to pretend it is not what it is, then ... maybe you should just not brag or boast!

If I had unknowingly purchased then posted a CZ, I'd be really peeved off, but I think I'd rather find out the truth than continue to believe an untruth.

As for detecting from a photograph - there are some pretty amazing repro's out there. How *DO* you tell a fake on a photo only??

 

[MichelleCarmen]

There's also this potentially awkward issue ... what if the poster doesn't know? I remember reading a few horror stories about dudes who presented their fiancees with CZs and hoped it would just slip under the radar ....

yep,very possible...there's a ring on SMTB that i'm 99% sure it's a fake but i'm no expert.

Ooh, tell us! Hurry up before that person's thread gets deleted!!! Hehehe

 

[MissStepcut]

Posted pics are rarely sharp or close enough to detect a fake.
I'm not even sure what to look for, maybe doubling, but again you'd practically need a microscope pic to resolve that.

nearly impossible to conclusively PROVE a fake, but I bet, in a test using photos taken by non-professionals, most of PS's old guard would have a high accuracy rate. CZs just don't look like diamonds. Not in photos, not in real life... Some are better fakes than others but none are a perfect copy.

 

[isaku5]

Oh, an exclusive club where only those with the $$$$ to buy untreated coloured stones too can post now????!!! There are lots of us poor sods that own tanzanite (99% of which are treated), so we're out. Some sapphires, I understand, are treated as well.....hmmmm. I suppose the only way to keep it honest is a certificate of authenticity or a piece of the rough from which it came.

If those are the criteria, then it's time to move on

 

[kenny]

Oh, an exclusive club where only those with the $$$$ to buy untreated coloured stones too can post now????!!! There are lots of us poor sods that own tanzanite (99% of which are treated), so we're out. Some sapphires, I understand, are treated as well.....hmmmm. I suppose the only way to keep it honest is a certificate of authenticity or a piece of the rough from which it came.

If those are the criteria, then it's time to move on

Which is exactly how those who can't or don't buy real diamonds (due to lack of funds or other reasons) must feel about PS.

 

[Circe]

Posted pics are rarely sharp or close enough to detect a fake.
I'm not even sure what to look for, maybe doubling, but again you'd practically need a microscope pic to resolve that.

nearly impossible to conclusively PROVE a fake, but I bet, in a test using photos taken by non-professionals, most of PS's old guard would have a high accuracy rate. CZs just don't look like diamonds. Not in photos, not in real life... Some are better fakes than others but none are a perfect copy.

I dunno, I would respectfully disagree with this: I think the dead giveaway on most fakes is the setting. Moissanite, you can tell even in a pic ... but a well-cut CZ can fool even a jeweler up-close. You have to get very personal to be sure. So there's not much use to focusing a beam of suspicion on posters unless it's really obvious, or, as mentioned, one's seen the same poster bragging about it being a fake elsewhere (which, dude, why? Do you feel like you've fooled the fat cats? ).

As for the issue of what makes the cull on being up for discussion ... so long as it has a natural origin, I'm good with it. If you know just how many stones out there are treated, it's hard to discriminate, and, frankly, if uneducated Joe Schmoe thinks the great big shiny crimson ruby from Sears from the poster who casually mentions having a $200 budget is for real ... well, Joe Schmoe should do some reading, like the rest of us.

So I'm fine with irradiated diamonds, which fool no one (unlike CZ, you can tell a treated diamond from a mile away). I'm fine with clarity enhanced, though I do wish posters would mention it, just because I think it's nice to be honest, and gives viewers a chance to judge for themselves how they feel about the treatment. And so on and so forth ... because, frankly, while PS might be a luxury forum with an eye towards encouraging purchases in its field (with full consumer advocacy, etc.), there's also the gateway-drug, community-enjoyment aspect to be considered. Well worth weeding through the chaff, I say ....

 

[Amys Bling]

ditto. I can't really tell in pics

 

[kenny]

So I'm fine with irradiated diamonds, which fool no one (unlike CZ, you can tell a treated diamond from a mile away).

Maybe you and I can spot treated color, but not everyone can.

I'm concerned about something like the following . . .

A proud new owner (let's call him/her poster A) of an irradiated blue diamond posts it, thinking it is natural like the eBay listing told them.
(Recently there was a thread about this exact thing).
Then some noob (Poster B) likes the blue diamond and asks where it came from.
The Poster A gives a link to the eBay seller's site were more 1-ct "natural" blue diamonds are for sale for $3,000.

Later that Poster B comes back to PS and complains, saying his fiance found out that the color origin is not natural, only the material.
He says he wishes someone here at PS would have gotten past their misplaced obligation to be "nice" and not hurt Poster A's feelings by revealing that the blue color is the result of treatment and that the 1-ct diamonds with material AND color of natural origin cost a zillion bucks.

It's about education and disclosure, rather that stroking the ego of poorly-informed people who got suckered by a slimy seller into thinking that they got something for nothing.
I think here at PS we have an obligation to inform.

 

[Amys Bling]

What are the types of things you would look for to spot it? Now I'm curious...haha

same here! I have to say- through updating the SMTR folder at times I see a post I question but honestly- i am never positive. I would hope that if someone is very sure they woudl report it.

 

[Circe]

So I'm fine with irradiated diamonds, which fool no one (unlike CZ, you can tell a treated diamond from a mile away).

Maybe you and I can spot treated color, but not everyone can.

I'm concerned about something like the following . . .

A proud new owner of an irradiated blue diamond posts it, thinking it is natural like the eBay listing told them.
(Recently there was a thread about this exact thing).
Then some noob likes the blue diamond and asks where it came from.
The OP gives a link to the eBay seller's site were more 1-ct "natural" blue diamonds are for sale for $3,000.

Later that noob comes back to PS and complains, saying he found out that the color origin is not natural, only the material.
He says he wishes someone here at PS would have gotten past their misplaced obligation to be "nice" and not hurt that OP's feelings by revealing that the blue color is the result of treatment and that the 1-ct diamonds with color of natural origin cost a zillion bucks.

It's about education and disclosure, rather that stroking the ego of poorly-informed people who got suckered by a slimy seller into thinking that they got something for nothing.
I think here at PS we have an obligation to inform.

Yikes! I totally missed that thread - and, yes, under those circumstances, people most certainly have an obligation to chime in. I was thinking more along the lines of *letting* people post *honestly,* not encouraging their delusions ....

 

[Dancing Fire]

Oh, an exclusive club where only those with the $$$$ to buy untreated coloured stones too can post now????!!! There are lots of us poor sods that own tanzanite (99% of which are treated), so we're out. Some sapphires, I understand, are treated as well.....hmmmm. I suppose the only way to keep it honest is a certificate of authenticity or a piece of the rough from which it came.

If those are the criteria, then it's time to move on

IMO,CS would be a different case.

 

[kenny]

So I'm fine with irradiated diamonds, which fool no one (unlike CZ, you can tell a treated diamond from a mile away).

Maybe you and I can spot treated color, but not everyone can.

I'm concerned about something like the following . . .

A proud new owner of an irradiated blue diamond posts it, thinking it is natural like the eBay listing told them.
(Recently there was a thread about this exact thing).
Then some noob likes the blue diamond and asks where it came from.
The OP gives a link to the eBay seller's site were more 1-ct "natural" blue diamonds are for sale for $3,000.

Later that noob comes back to PS and complains, saying he found out that the color origin is not natural, only the material.
He says he wishes someone here at PS would have gotten past their misplaced obligation to be "nice" and not hurt that OP's feelings by revealing that the blue color is the result of treatment and that the 1-ct diamonds with color of natural origin cost a zillion bucks.

It's about education and disclosure, rather that stroking the ego of poorly-informed people who got suckered by a slimy seller into thinking that they got something for nothing.
I think here at PS we have an obligation to inform.

Yikes! I totally missed that thread - and, yes, under those circumstances, people most certainly have an obligation to chime in. I was thinking more along the lines of *letting* people post *honestly,* not encouraging their delusions ....

There have been a couple threads where people have posted their irradiated colored diamonds without mentioning they were irradiated.
I struggled with whether or not to mention color origin.
It might be seen as unkind, elitist, snobby, arrogant, bragging, cruel even.
I think one time I did and another time I didn't.
Since I'm a collector of fully natural FCDs I worry about coming across as a snob and raining on someone's parade, and I've wished someone else here would mention it for the educational benefit.

Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with treated FCDs or heated Colored Stones, but IMHO here at PS disclosure is appropriate since there is such a price difference and some sellers do not disclose treatments, and most importantly people come to PS to get educated prior to their own purchases.
There IS most certainly something wrong with a treated stone bought by a person who does not know it is treated.

 

[isaku5]

Oh, an exclusive club where only those with the $$$$ to buy untreated coloured stones too can post now????!!! There are lots of us poor sods that own tanzanite (99% of which are treated), so we're out. Some sapphires, I understand, are treated as well.....hmmmm. I suppose the only way to keep it honest is a certificate of authenticity or a piece of the rough from which it came.

If those are the criteria, then it's time to move on

IMO,CS would be a different case.

'



Well, there are some 'elitists' on PS who evidently want only untreated stones to be shown whether they be diamonds or coloured stones.

I'm usually fairly quiet here - a lot of lurking, but very little posting - but if that's the way the forum is heading, it's time to go.

 

[kenny]

Oh, an exclusive club where only those with the $$$$ to buy untreated coloured stones too can post now????!!! There are lots of us poor sods that own tanzanite (99% of which are treated), so we're out. Some sapphires, I understand, are treated as well.....hmmmm. I suppose the only way to keep it honest is a certificate of authenticity or a piece of the rough from which it came.
If those are the criteria, then it's time to move on

IMO,CS would be a different case.

'
Well, there are some 'elitists' on PS who evidently want only untreated stones to be shown whether they be diamonds or coloured stones.
I'm usually fairly quiet here - a lot of lurking, but very little posting - but if that's the way the forum is heading, it's time to go.

Let's not do anything drastic.
It doesn't matter what any poster posts.
Only admin can establish such policies.

The current admin has proven to be quite reasonable.
They listen to the community so I think it's good everyone is offering their opinions.