Yikes! Is this antique jewelry vendor doctoring their photos??

[anne_h]

These are from (what I thought was a reputable) online store based in New York City. I just noticed that the emerald center stones in these two rings appear to be identical...look at the facets and shadows within them. What is going on here?? Is this normal?

Anne

 

[anne_h]

Here''s the second ring.

 

[amoorerhea]

They look the same to me!

 

[anne_h]

Also, here''s another diamond ring photo I found where the colored sparks of light appear to have been added on (vs authentic).

 

[ebonykawai]

It looks like a default stone in a different setting, like what you might see on Blue Nile''s site. They pop in a stone of various sizes so you can see what the finised ring might look like. Does it say on the website that these are the actual stones? Call and ask.

 

[pricescope]

Anne, yes, it's the same center sone in both rings. Unless those pictures are represented as photos of an "actual" ring it's fine, many vendors who sell mountings do not have a center stone set till it's actually purchased and for the representation will photoshop for the site listing.
What's bothering me more is a quality of bezel of the side stones in the second picture.

 

[kcoursolle]

This is one thing I dislike about *some* online vendors. I want to see an actual pic of the ring i''m ordering!!! Many times, even reputable companies, will give you a doctored picture, a drawing, or an otherwise non-real picture of a setting. I hate that!

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 2/8/2007 1:53:07 PM
Author: anne_h
Also, here''s another diamond ring photo I found where the colored sparks of light appear to have been added on (vs authentic).

I''ve noticed that Tiffany''s does the SAME EXACT THING with "color flashes".

You kinda get used to it on "display" photos -- photos not purported to be a single ring for sale.

EBAY is also full of that stuff ... "display" photos used to lure people in to rings of "similar" quality - HA! As if!

 

[Adylon]

I''m not a fan of where they cut and paste diamonds from one mounting to another, because it doesn''t show the craftsmenship used to set the stone. It''s very common in the industry to clean up photos from small blemishes, reflections that were picked up in the jewelry from the camera or it''s surroundings, etc..... you''d be surprised, the best photos on the web are done by photographers that charge in excess of $150 PER SHOT (each angle). So a ring with 3 angles will easily run you $450 in photography costs if not more. Pictures that are found on Tiffany''s website, etc are very high quality and are cleaned up very nicely, and it takes a lot of time and effort to clean them like that.

In order to get something look incredibly sparkly for example you need lots of hard lighting with direct light, but if you do that you get a bunch of glare on the jewelery part. So what''s done a lot is they take a picture in diffuse light for the jewelry and hard lighting for the diamonds and combine the best of both in one photo to have something with a beautifully even-tone ring and a very sparkly diamond.

Personally I see nothing wrong with cleaning up a photo of a ring or whatever as long as it''s done in a way to show the real attributes of the ring, and you''re not editting it to give a false sense of craftsmenship or quality... like prongs shouldn''t be straightened, the clarity should not be enhanced, or colors shouldn''t be made more intense or diamonds be made whiter, or sparkle more artificially, etc. And I''d rather see them get a mounting set with a CZ if nothing else and take photos of that ring so we can really see how well it''s set from a variety of angles, instead of taking a picture of it as an empty mounting and just copying/pasting a diamond from another photo in it''s place like some websites do.

 

[anne_h]

In the examples I''ve posted above, the images of the rings shown were purported to be *the* rings in question, not just illustrations of the settings. So that sort of scares me because then you''re not sure what you may be buying. I''ve also noticed this vendor doing something else a little sneaky... there was 3-stone ring, with the center being an emerald. The 2 side diamonds had idential facets and shadows... meaning the photo had to have been doctored to make the side diamonds appear perfectly symmetrical. To me, that''s totally misleading.

BTW, most the center diamonds on their many vintage rings appear to be unique (and hopefully not doctored!). There''s only a few I notice that definitely are duplicates or have mirrored side stones, etc. Although with the earrings, they almost always do that - take a photo of one earring and duplicate it to show the "pair".

Anne

 

[Kismet]

What vendor is it, btw?

 

[DiamondExpert]

I don''t believe that the EC pics are identical...the reflections in the prongs and the outer edges of the crown facets at the top and bottom edges differ. Furthermore, the bottom stone seems to my eye to be slightly wider than the top one.

I DO see many similarities, however, but this may be due to the shooting the pics in a photo dome of some sort.

I also agree that the use of dup pics to represent different stones is, in fact, MISrepresentation.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 2/8/2007 11:05:21 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
I don''t believe that the EC pics are identical...the reflections in the prongs and the outer edges of the crown facets at the top and bottom edges differ. Furthermore, the bottom stone seems to my eye to be slightly wider than the top one.

I DO see many similarities, however, but this may be due to the shooting the pics in a photo dome of some sort.

I also agree that the use of dup pics to represent different stones is, in fact, MISrepresentation.

Well Gary, that just shows us that you are not using photoshop too much yourself, which is probably ....a good thing.

 

[Officers girl]

I wish vendors would realize how important it is to see the actual stone or ring your getting.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Check out Tiffany advertisments and you will very often find the exact same tapered baguettes in opposite sides of the ring - cut and photoshopped in.

It is common (and bad) practice for cheap store flyers to cut and paste the same small diamond 100 time into their catalogues.

Should there be a law against it?

I do not know - but would be interested to know all your opinions

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 2/8/2007 1:49:57 PM
Author:anne_h
These are from (what I thought was a reputable) online store based in New York City. I just noticed that the emerald center stones in these two rings appear to be identical...look at the facets and shadows within them. What is going on here?? Is this normal?

Anne

I don''t think its uncommon to doctor photos - I''ve seen doctored photos that whiteflash has... where they have the EXACT same ring in gold and platinum and it''s not two different rings - it''s photoshopped. I guess it matters how and when they do it. Doesn''t bother me that whiteflash would do that - but I did notice it.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 2/8/2007 11:10:43 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 2/8/2007 11:05:21 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
I don''t believe that the EC pics are identical...the reflections in the prongs and the outer edges of the crown facets at the top and bottom edges differ. Furthermore, the bottom stone seems to my eye to be slightly wider than the top one.

I DO see many similarities, however, but this may be due to the shooting the pics in a photo dome of some sort.

I also agree that the use of dup pics to represent different stones is, in fact, MISrepresentation.

Well Gary, that just shows us that you are not using photoshop too much yourself, which is probably ....a good thing.

ITA PS - the differences can be explained far more easily than the exact similarities.