The highlighted text above...I take it is your words, not hers.Date: 12/15/2006 9:53:03 PM
Author: kenny
Jonathan recommended I take the asscher to a local qualified appraiser to find if she/he thinks the polish is still GIA Ex.
Today I called Jennifer Thornton-Davis, GG, MGA ASA, NAJA.
She's in the PS appraiser list.
She said the price was set by the GIA specs, and the only way to be sure is to send it back to GIA.
If it comes back Ex you can consider the issue is resolved.
If not then determine what price adjustment is fair. (I have no idea how to do this.)
She said she could look at it but GIA is the only one who can make the official call.
Oh yeah, VVs1 gal here too!Date: 12/16/2006 1:28:52 AM
Author: wallermama
(I also have a vvs2 asscher, by the way...so I know that many PS''ers roll their eyes at us) But I also know what it takes to find an asscher that is that awesome. Don''t think that any $28,000 asscher will look like yours, because really, none will. That''s the beauty, AND the pain in the *ss about asschers.![]()
Kenny, I understand how you''re feeling. Sure the chip or polish lines may be microscopic and could be hidden under a setting, but YOU know it''s there. Kind of like the "eye-clean/mind clean" definition of SI2''s. It would bother me too. Plus of course the more practical reasons of not having the GIA report match the diamond - could that cause some issues if/when upgrading? You''re not being too picky, you''re a smart and educated consumer. I understand how you couldn''t just "forget about it."Date: 12/15/2006 10:56:18 PM
Author: kenny
This is really strange.
Apparently most people think it is okay to be sent a $28,000 VVS2 diamond with a chip that is not on the report.
Then after sending it back finding out it now has a polish grade that may not match the report.
This is all just Kenny being too picky?
Just take whatever they send you and set it into a ring?
And don''t look too closely?
Kenny, then the only way to know that is to send the stone to GIA.Date: 12/16/2006 3:36:42 PM
Author: kenny
I don''t know what the magnification is of the pics; besides it will be larger if you have a larger monitor.
But it is not relevant because the original chip and the polish lines are MANY times more easy to see than GIA''s-plotted inclusions on the report - either with a 10x loupe or a microscope.
I don''t think it is possible to recreate the live experience of viewing through a 10x loupe on a computer monitor.
The resolution of the monitor itself would limit the detail you could make out.
I may be good at photography and do have access to good equipment.
The pics are higher magnification than 10x - that helps viewers see what I''m trying to describe.
That does not change the fact that the stone didn''t/doesn''t match the report based on what is visible with a 10x loupe.
The price was determined by the GIA report.
Everyone is bring up excellent perspectives to think about, but I feel the core issue is whether I got what I paid for.
Date: 12/16/2006 3:36:42 PM
Author: kenny
Everyone is bring up excellent perspectives to think about, but I feel the core issue is whether I got what I paid for.
seriously already.Date: 12/15/2006 6:54:32 PM
Author: ladykemma
kenny, get it set and quit fussin' with it....![]()
Well so have you talked to Jonathan about the price then? We ARE on page three of this thread after all. You either do want to keep the stone or you don't. If you do want to keep it, you either get a wee discount for it having miniscule polish lines or you don't.Date: 12/16/2006 5:10:05 PM
Author: kenny
Mara, the problem is visible with any 10x loupe.
So the magnification of the pics is irrelevant.
They just do a good job of explaining what I'm talking about.
The price was based on the stone not having this.
Pretty sure size of monitor is irrelevant - rather the resolution the monitor is set for. A pixel is a pixel.... it''s more how big is the pixel. I have my two monitors set the same and things look the same as per photos.... one is a 19" flat and one is a 15" laptop.Date: 12/16/2006 3:36:42 PM
Author: kenny
I don''t know what the magnification is of the pics; besides it will be larger if you have a larger monitor.
when my son was 2 he was attacked by a dog on the face and has some scars on his face from it.... they''ve faded a lot and are not super obvious and most of the time I look at him and I see my beautiful son and never notice them.... I might think wow I love his huge eyes or full lips or the shape of his face or smile.... but occasionally I remember the scars are there and I look and they GLARE at me and I flash back and feel so much anger and think how he is scarred and it will NEVER go away and they seem so big and obvious.... but your post just now made me realize that most of the time when I notice them it''s because I''m *LOOKING* for them. *anything* and even people seem worse under magnification. It''s important to look at the essence of things - and love.Date: 12/16/2006 5:11:33 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
I have a stone with polish lines on the table that if I tilt in *just the right way* in *just the right light* I can see with my naked eye. In the beginning it bothered me endlesly. I would find the right light and tilt the stone around and just get p*ssed off in general. But now, I wear my sapphire happily and I''m glad that it is as beautiful as it is.