Please post your thoughts on this ACA (pics)

[Kerbear560]

Some of you may remember my story, here is the link. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/please-post-your-thoughts-on-this-aca.30384/. Here is the update (I apologize, it''s long)! Thank you to those of you that read it all of the way through, as we could really use some help.

My boyfriend finally made the decision to buy the ACA! Yipee! It arrived on Tuesday morning, and I had to wait until we could get together on Wednesday to see it (pure torture)! Well, when I opened up the paper it was wrapped in….WOW! It is prettier than any diamond that I have ever seen in person! Based on recommendations that people have given here on Pricescope to others, I spent a few minutes looking at it face up (without looking at the cert first) to see if it was eye-clean to me. I couldn’t see the feather at all! Then, I looked at it through the Whiteflash viewer. That’s when I noticed it. You can make out the feather in one of the arrow shafts. It shows up in the idealscope picture on Whiteflash’s site in the arrow in what would be between the 7 and 8 o’clock position. Until looking at the diamond in person through the viewer, I wasn’t sure that it was the feather I was seeing on Whiteflash’s idealscope picture. Here is the idealscope picture from their site.

 

[Kerbear560]

After seeing the feather using the Whiteflash viewer, I didn’t have much trouble finding it in the face up position from about 4 – 6 inches away. I then proceeded to look at the AGS cert. The feather didn’t show up in the scan of the cert (in the face up plotting diagram) on Whiteflash’s site. Here a scan that we made.

 

[Kerbear560]

The feather looks pretty substantial on the plotting diagram. It really doesn’t look that long in person, even with the loupe.

My boyfriend had made an appointment with a Pricescope recommended appraiser in our area (Jim Krol) for that afternoon. He agreed with the AGS cert on the diamond’s specs, but he did say that the feather breaks the surface of the crown. We were told by Whiteflash that the feather did not break the surface. Many here on Pricescope have said that they would not consider a diamond with a surface reaching inclusion. Our appraiser did say that he wouldn’t be concerned about it at all, and that in his 27 years of experience, he had not seen a diamond break due to an inclusion.

So, we have spent all weekend playing with this diamond in different lighting conditions. It is such a beautiful stone! Here are some pictures that I took.

 

[Kerbear560]

In this one you can see the feather in the 10 o''clock position.

 

[Kerbear560]

This is one face down from the side, showing the feather.

 

[Kerbear560]

We have until Thursday to decide if we want to keep it. My boyfriend has trouble finding the feather without cheating (looking at it through the side or through the Whiteflash viewer first)! After being reluctant at first to even give the diamond a chance, he seems to be under the impression that: a. we shouldn’t be concerned about the feather, because the appraiser told us not to be. b. that unless someone was staring at it for a long period of time (from a very close the distance) they wouldn’t be able to see the inclusion. and c. that everyone will be blown away by the stone’s light performance. He thinks that if we return it, that it will take us a long time to find a diamond that meets all of our criteria, thus extending the amount of time before we are able to get engaged.

He is also concerned that a different diamond may not perform as well as this one. In the end though, he says that I need to be happy with the decision.

I’m having trouble deciding how I feel. I love the way this diamond performs! It really is beautiful, and as much as I didn’t want to, I’ve become somewhat attached to it already (as has my boyfriend)! Although, after staring at it all weekend, it has become pretty easy for me to spot the feather (even from about 10 inches away). It also bothers me somewhat that it breaks the surface. I love the cut, color and size combo of this stone. It has maxed out the budget, so if we returned it to get a diamond with a better clarity, we would have to sacrifice, most likely in the size range (it’s probably just a psychological thing, wanting a “colorless” stone).

Thank you to everyone who took the time to read to the end of this ridiculously long post! I would love to hear any opinions you may have to offer.

 

[belle]

the idealscope image looks amazing

i understand your quandry, but since you have had the stone examined by an appraiser, i wouldn''t worry about the inclusion. i actually like the idea of an ''almost'' visible inclusion in the stone....it''s reassuring. you can look down and know you''ve got your ''baby''

it''s a winner in my book!
best of luck in your decision!

 

[Jelly]

It''s a lovely stone even with the feather. Are you already in love and unable to part with it? If you don''t think you''d be happy with it, then by all means keep looking! Is it possible the feather won''t be noticeable once you have it set in an ring?

I ordered an ACA stone on Friday...smaller than yours.

I''ll be anxiously awaiting it this week since they are shipping it on Monday I think.

Keep us updated!

Stephanie

 

[strmrdr]

I would be inclined to keep it as long as it passes the 8 inch away 30 second stare test.
Because someone looking at it closer than that or longer than that is rude so if it passes then its good in my book.

But in the end you are the one that has to be happy with it follow your heart :}

 

[mkb]

The stone is very pretty.
The feather gives your diamond it''s personality. It is your diamond with your feather!

 

[valeria101]

I wouldn''t think that feather makes this one more ''breakable'' or anything. Surface reacing inclusions have a bad name because in some cases the breack is rather large and sometimes the presence of these have something to do with the overal quality of the merchandise (think below I1 and lots of cracks). Neither is the case here, so... why not. Perhaps such a non-issue could become a real problem as a ''bargaining point'' if you ever decide to sell the stone, but how likely is that ? Upgrades are taken care of by WF''s policy for what that matters.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/8/2005 12:40:40 AM
Author: Kerbear560

I’m having trouble deciding how I feel. I love the way this diamond performs! It really is beautiful, and as much as I didn’t want to, I’ve become somewhat attached to it already (as has my boyfriend)! Although, after staring at it all weekend, it has become pretty easy for me to spot the feather (even from about 10 inches away). It also bothers me somewhat that it breaks the surface. I love the cut, color and size combo of this stone. It has maxed out the budget, so if we returned it to get a diamond with a better clarity, we would have to sacrifice, most likely in the size range (it’s probably just a psychological thing, wanting a “colorless” stone).

Hard to say, because on the one hand you''re attached to it, and on the other hand, it bothers you.

One thing I want to note.....returning this diamond, if you do, doesn''t necessarily mean you have to get a diamond with better clarity. You may be able to find another diamond with the same clarity but with the inclusions *not* appearing to the naked eye.

Not all SI1s are created equal.....not all SI2s are created equal. I have an SI2 stone, and it is completely eyeclean. If I had looked at another SI2 stone that wasn''t eyeclean before I saw this one, I might have decided against SI2, and that would be a shame because *this* SI2 *is* eyeclean.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

 

[Mara]

I hugely agree not all SIs are created equal. For example I had an SI1 previously that Brian said should have been a VS. I never could find one inclusion visible in that thing even with a loupe and the plot to guide me. This stone I have now is an SI2 and it has some small scattered inclusions, I can only find one and it''s a very very tiny black carbon speck that I can only find with my naked eye up close to the stone. So IMO a very nice SI2 as well. No one has ever seen an inclusion in it. So another SI2 won''t necessarily have a big feather, it may have smaller more scattered inclusions etc. I adore SI''s because they represent the best deals and if you can get lucky and find one that was harshly graded, even better.

I believe Garry has said in the past that he prefers one bigger inclusion rather than a bunch of small scattered ones? Or maybe it''s the other way around. Can''t recall, but I think it''s the first one. IMO if the feather breaks the surface in an area that can be protected or will not easily be hit, then I don''t see a problem. But if you feel like the stone would easily get banged up around the feather area, you may not be comfortable really ''wearing'' it and wearing it well due to possible breakage.

Solution is to get the stone and just get it insured against damage. Then you are covered regardless. The appraiser did say not to worry.

In the end you have to feel 10000% comfortable with the stone and decision as you will be wearing it. Go with your gut.

Good luck!

 

[kenny]

It bothers you.
It will always bother you.
I'd send it back.

Get one that doesn't bother you.

What bothers me is vendors posting report plots that don't show all the flaws.
But they go to GREAT trouble to photograph the stones.
I wonder what they did to make such a noticable feather vanish.
You say you can see the feather with the naked eye at 10 inches, so why can't we find it in their superb magnified photo? . . .

The feather was not visible in the plot OR their photo.
You had no way of knowing it was there.
I can understand your dissapointment.

They know a lot about photography.
They should photograph the plot flaws with as much care as the stones themselves.
If I were you this would bother me more than the feather.

They should also post a dark field photo that *emphasizes* the flaws instead of concealing them.
Now THAT is a vendor that would earn my trust and business.

I have returned stones for this exact reason.

 

[Maxine]

I would also be concerned that the vendor TOLD you it wasn''t visible.........

And I agree with Kenny re: plots......it seems like most AGS plots don''t really do a good job of showing the inclusions...regardless of what vendor supplies them....this is one area where I prefer looking at GIA plots.......

 

[belle]

kenny,
kerbear knew of the feather...to speak of her dissapointment and perceived deception regarding the inclusion is presumptuous and unfounded.

 

[belle]

Date: 8/8/2005 12:50:36 PM
Author: Maxine
I would also be concerned that the vendor TOLD you it wasn''t visible.........

And I agree with Kenny re: plots......it seems like most AGS plots don''t really do a good job of showing the inclusions...regardless of what vendor supplies them....this is one area where I prefer looking at GIA plots.......

maxine,
brian said it was eye-clean not non-visible. kerbear stated that she could not see the feather after looking at it for a few minutes and only after looking through the viewer (which is a magnified view).
it sounds like my kind of si2!

for non-visible inclusions, you''d have to go vs.

 

[MissAva]

Date: 8/8/2005 11:30:33 AM
Author: kenny
It bothers you.
It will always bother you.
I''d send it back.

Get one that doesn''t bother you.

What bothers me is vendors posting report plots that don''t show all the flaws.
But they go to GREAT trouble to photograph the stones.
I wonder what they did to make such a noticable feather vanish.
You say you can see the feather with the naked eye at 10 inches, so why can''t we find it in their superb magnified photo? . . .

The feather was not visible in the plot OR their photo.
You had no way of knowing it was there.
I can understand your dissapointment.

They know a lot about photography.
They should photograph the plot flaws with as much care as the stones themselves.
If I were you this would bother me more than the feather.

They should also post a dark field photo that *emphasizes* the flaws instead of concealing them.
Now THAT is a vendor that would earn my trust and business.

I have returned stones for this exact reason.

WF takes pictures straihgt on and the feather is visable face down...I think it would be hard to make it show up.
If you want darkfeild photos look to GOG. But I do not think WF was being dis-honest.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 8/8/2005 11:30:33 AM
Author: kenny

What bothers me is vendors posting report plots that don''t show all the flaws.

But they go to GREAT trouble to photograph the stones.

I wonder what they did to make such a noticable feather vanish.

You say you can see the feather with the naked eye at 10 inches, so why can''t we find it in their superb magnified photo? . . .


The feather was not visible in the plot OR their photo.

You had no way of knowing it was there.

I can understand your dissapointment.

Kenny, the idealscope image did show the feather. You accusation that WF was "hiding'' it seems a little unfair to me. Kerbear did know about the feather as belle said.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 8/8/2005 1:31:16 PM
Author: Matatora

WF takes pictures straihgt on and the feather is visable face down...I think it would be hard to make it show up.

If you want darkfeild photos look to GOG. But I do not think WF was being dis-honest.



Well, Actually, Kerbear got a pretty good pic of the feather face up. I don't know why it's not in the WF photo Kenny posted, but I agree, I do not think Wf was trying to be dishonest or Hiding it.

 

[MissAva]

Ahh I cant see it....which may be a good thing when it comes to my stone search. I even went and got my glasses and I cant see it.

 

[kenny]

My apologies.
I thought Kareber did not know about the feather.

Still looking at the online plot and photo the feather would be a surprise.
This should not be the case.
It is not necessary.

Buying off the internet is difficult and scary.
Trust is a big factor.
Vendors can make it easier by bending over backwards to reveal as much about the flaws as possible, instead of making the photos and the plots look as clean a possible.

They have the technology.

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/8/2005 1:45:46 PM
Author: kenny
My apologies.
I thought Kareber did not know about the feather.

Still looking at the online plot and photo the feather would be a surprise.
This should not be the case.
It is not necessary.

Buying off the internet is difficult and scary.
Trust is a big factor.
Vendors can make it easier by bending over backwards to reveal as much about the flaws as possible, instead of making the photos and the plots look as clean a possible.

They have the technology.

That''s why you should not go just by the pictures when you buy from the internet. Call and talk to the vendor about the stone. My experience is that WF is very honest about describing the stone and whether or not it''s eye clean. The inclusion in my SI2 stone didn''t show up on the picture of the diamond, or the idealscope picture they had posted. It was on the plot, and I called and talked to them and got a good description of what the inclusion looked like. I wasn''t surprised when I got the stone, it looked pretty much exactly like I thought it would, based on the photos in combination with the description I got over the phone. I lived with the stone for a couple of months before I decided I couldn''t live with the inclusion and decided to upgrade it for a better clarity. It had nothing to do with feeling "duped" or "misled" by the vendor. The other option is to have the vendor send the stone in question to a local apprasier where you can view it in person. I''ve heard of a lot of people doing that. Photographing diamonds, even with advanced technology, is not as easy as you would think!

 

[Mara]

I''m sure if someone requested a darkfield photo then it would be supplied. But photographing the stones takes time. Even GOG does not just supply darkfield photos for all their diamonds without being asked.

The feather was known of, it was shown in that photo that MrsS posted. The only thing I see as a negative is that WF noted it did not break the surface and the appraiser did. BUT that could be subjective as well, maybe to one it does and to the other it does not. I do trust WF''s eyes having purchased a few stones previously and Brian has never led me astray.

 

[Lynn B]

I think it looks like a KILLER stone,

and I would snap it up in a second. No one, I repeat NO ONE is going to notice that tiny little feather - all they are going to see is blinding sparkle!

Honestly, IMHO - you won''t find a more beautiful diamond. I think it''s a KEEPER. Definitely.

Lynn

 

[Kerbear560]

Yikes! I didn''t mean to insinuate that I felt "duped" by Whiteflash at all! I was aware of the feather from the beginning; I had just hoped it was as hard to see in person as it was in the picture posted on their site

. I don''t think Whiteflash tried to hide the inclusion in their photo. I think that due to whatever photography technique they use to make the arrows in their diamonds appear dark, in this instance the feather was hidden (as it appears in an arrow shaft). I have seen pictures on Whiteflash''s site of other diamonds where I was able to see the inclusion(s). I don''t think they purposely try to hide them. And as for the AGS cert, we were told that the feather did not show up on the scan of the cert posted on their site. As Mara said, the only discrepancy was that we were told by Whiteflash that the feather did not break the surface of the stone, and our appraiser said that it did. Maybe it''s subjective, as Mara suggested? Hmmm...can anyone please clarify this for me?

I''d like to thank each and every one of you who have posted their thoughts. You have been very helpful, although I still haven''t completely made up my mind. I''ll keep you posted!

 

[sxn675]

Hi there! I think the stone is lovely. BUT, if the feather bothers you, then I think you should send it back. You want to be totally happy with your stone, know what I mean? Good luck!

 

[Kerbear560]

I made up my mind....I''m keeping it!

I thought long and hard about it, and took everything that you guys had to say into consideration (thanks again for all of your help). I also had my boyfriend call and speak with the appraiser one last time to talk to him about my concern about the feather. He was very adamant that the stone is beautiful and eye-clean, and that the feather poses NO additional risk to its durability. He said that he has no problem recommending this diamond, and went as far as to say that he would have no issues purchasing it himself for his wife!

It really is a gorgeous stone! The more I thought about it, I couldn''t stand the idea of sending it back (to sit all lonely in the Whiteflash vault instead of on my finger

). Speaking of which...Now for the agonizing wait! I have no idea how long it will be before the proposal!

Thanks again everyone!

 

[belle]

glad to hear that your fears were unfounded and you''re keeping that beauty!!

here''s to hoping the wait isn''t too long!

 

[mrssalvo]

oh that''s wonderful, it truly is a gorgeous stone