Can you mix OEC and modern brilliant?

[mrssalvo]

Date: 10/9/2007 1:00:31 AM
Author: wolftress



Mrssalvo, I love, love, love that look! Do you have any more pics? I know you said the contrast is quite obvious in person, but I have a similar eternity band and I think that''s how I want my finger to look

wolftress, this is the only other pic I took...

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 10/8/2007 10:22:22 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

Date: 10/8/2007 5:38:35 PM

Author: surfgirl

isis, honey, IT'S GOT A CRACK IN IT! Dont get it. I1 AND a crack? Walk away now. Quickly.

Unless of course the I1 is because of the crack (feather).

Here we go again WHFSR...A crack is a CRACK. A feather is something quite different. IF, and again you're assuming, IF it is really a feather and not a crack, I wouldn't buy it from them anyway because someone who's selling diamonds ought to know the difference between a crack and a feather. And if they don't know that difference, then I cant trust them with any of the information they're giving me. And since when is a crack within a stone okay just because it doesn't break the surface? Cracks are whack. Period. I dont want one regardless of whether or not it breaks the surface or not.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 10/9/2007 12:47:26 PM
Author: surfgirl

Date: 10/8/2007 10:22:22 PM

Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

Date: 10/8/2007 5:38:35 PM


Author: surfgirl


isis, honey, IT''S GOT A CRACK IN IT! Dont get it. I1 AND a crack? Walk away now. Quickly.

Unless of course the I1 is because of the crack (feather).

Here we go again WHFSR...A crack is a CRACK. A feather is something quite different. IF, and again you''re assuming, IF it is really a feather and not a crack, I wouldn''t buy it from them anyway because someone who''s selling diamonds ought to know the difference between a crack and a feather. And if they don''t know that difference, then I cant trust them with any of the information they''re giving me. And since when is a crack within a stone okay just because it doesn''t break the surface? Cracks are whack. Period. I dont want one regardless of whether or not it breaks the surface or not.

He called it a crack, true, but he also called it an inclusions (within the stone). We also know that Gerard, whoever he is, was a middle man and didn''t look at the stone himself. So we have a jeweler who looked at the diamond, told gerrard and gerrard told her that there is an "inclusion" that is a "crack".

Further, he said that nothing was visible with the naked eye, but that there was an inclusions visible with a loupe at 10x man: that inclusion being a crack.

Because it was defined as an inclusion and no other grade setting inclusions were mentioned it is very logical to assume that the crack is a natural occurring feather.

If it is not a feather but is instead a crack on the surface of the diamond then it is a "blemish" I do believe, though I may be confused in which case I apologize. Further, if regardless of if he misspoke, if it is what you suggested, and "I1 AND cracked" then the sales rep did not disclose information on the I1 grade setting inclusion. Which would obviously have been visible under 10X mag to a well trained jeweler.

So which is more likely?

that he called a feather a crack--which is just a non-technical term

or that he misspoke, called a blemish an inclusion, and withhled the details of the gradesetting I1 inclusion?

Either way he messed up a bit, but I for one suspect the former

Though I would advise getting a little more clarification if anyone wanted to make the purchase.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

and %$#@ it everyone please stop saying "here he goes again" and "that is assinine" and "there is no evidence to support that"

When I make a comment it is always based on some evidence. If I say that I have seen a trend in pricing and you disagree, free to go and get evidence to the contrary, but don''t just make some broad comment about benchmark prices and yell at me for making comments without support.

If I suggest they should ask about an inclusions, color, position, angles, it is always based on, at least, my OWN PERSONAL observations, data, and research. I very rarely just hop around saying things without considering what I have learned and how I learned it.

I have been watching in person, reading online and speaking with Sales associates and gemologist. I have been keep track of information and observing.

So sometimes, while I do not refute major labs like GIA, AGS or well known persons such as Gary and JQ (I would defer to them If my observations were somewhat different), I do make mention of observations that I have noted myself and haven''t heard opposing positions on by recognizable others. I do, in fact, have a mind of my own.


but I thought that this was a "CONSUMER FORUM" not a "REPEAT WHAT "PROFESSIONALS SAY ONLY FORUM".

So if my experience is to take SA words with a grain of salt and to be meticulous and ask specific questions before giving them 7000 dollars with a 24 hour return window--well that is based on my personal experience. This is a consumer forum and they are welcome to take that advice or not. But I hardly feel the need for such criticism all the time.

I am usually the first one to warn TAKE MY WORDS well salted, because they are based on MY experiences as CONSUMER. But they are always based on logic, reasoning and data that I have gathered studying, and will sometimes be wrong and might occasionally be a bit overkill. But not worth so many of you calling me out on it and sometimes even insulting me for.

 

[isis~goddess]

it is a forum, and i like it becuase it helps me make informed decisions. i appreciated everyones opinions. it helps me stop and think. i know that the "gerard" guy did see it himself and said it was nice and no visible inclusions, but then again, he wants to sell and i am buying on impluse, so im just going to try to refrain and think about it some more. and try to learn more about cracks, feathers andt he like. i dont know though, i guess a crack sounds bad. thanks!