Opinions on this Lucere? (ASET/Idealscope)

[rab813]

I found this Lucere on JA last week - I thought the price was reasonable, it's unique, and it has med blue Fluorescence. I definitely wanted to see it in person.

The main concern is obviously the large SI2 feather. Its quite hard to spot even when you're looking for it but in certain lighting environments its definitely visible without a loupe. I was planning to put this in a pendant so I can live with that, I'm more worried about the durability longterm.

I've attached some aset/idealscope images I took through the scopes (quite challenging).

I'm really interested to know what you all think.

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/0.91-carat-f-color-si2-clarity-sku-15461185

 

[lovedogs]

I really like unique diamonds so I think it's cool. I think for a pendant it should be fine. My biggest concern is the darkness In the center. Not all lucere stones look like that

 

[Karl_K]

I really like unique diamonds so I think it's cool. I think for a pendant it should be fine. My biggest concern is the darkness In the center. Not all lucere stones look like that

The large blue areas are ok in a pendant but could be dark in a ring or up close.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

I love this, I didn't know they were still cutting Luceres.
You must have it to have taken the photos. What do you think?

 

[kenny]

Red Flag ...

The comments section of the GIA report does not spell it Lucère.
Rather, GIA spells it Lusere, which means it is not a real Lucère branded diamond.

I think a typo from GIA is less likely than some bad people trying to copy (rip off) the Lucere brand.
It worked; multiple posters here did not spot the deception.


Buyer beware.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Is that the Cajun spelling?
Great catch.

 

[rab813]

The large blue areas are ok in a pendant but could be dark in a ring or up close.

The blue/dark areas are what immediately made it stand out in the search results. I was thinking... what the heck?

When you're not looking through a camera the effect is much less pronounced but you can still visually pick out those areas if you're looking for them. Most of the time when blue areas go dark it frames the "flower" facet pattern on the pavilion; so my focus gets drawn to the flower pattern and not as much to the dark areas . It reminds me of the arrows on an MRB but sort of inset or inverse.



That being said, and as @lovedogs mentioned, it definitely looks darker in the center than other Luceres. See the examples that I found on Good Old Gold's YouTube Channel (video 1, video 2) .

 

[rab813]

Red Flag ...

The comments section of the GIA report does not spell it Lucère.
Rather, GIA spells it Lusere, which means it is not a real Lucère branded diamond.

I think a typo from GIA is less likely than some bad people trying to copy (rip off) the Lucere brand.
It worked; multiple posters here did not spot the deception.


Buyer beware.

Good Catch @kenny . I just assumed it was a typo and wasn't too worried. I checked the actual inscription first thing when I received and reads "Lucere 26873". Getting the picture was a little more of a challenge


I would think the GIA would want to represent what is actually on the diamond since it is meant to be an identifying mark, so I'm leaning toward typo. If I end up keeping this stone, can I have the GIA update this certificate so it reflects what's actually on the diamond?

The other thing I'm noticing is that the shape and pavilion facet pattern looks more like the "flower" from this YouTube video as opposed to the pattern shown on this AGS cert here. Does anyone know if there were different versions? I'm definitely curious.


My understanding is that around 2010-2013 the primary cutting facility was closed, website shut down, and the was patent sold off. Because of that, and the fact that they weren't massively popular in the first place, its really hard to find much information about them.

The brand itself doesn't add value to me per se (like a tiffany diamond, for example). I like that it is "branded" only insofar as it must be cut to a minimum level of precision to meet the brand's patent/standards and because it's more unique. But Also on the other hand, I'm not sure of how I would feel about knowing it is definitely a fake - a "lusere".

 

[lovedogs]

The blue/dark areas are what immediately made it stand out in the search results. I was thinking... what the heck?

When you're not looking through a camera the effect is much less pronounced but you can still visually pick out those areas if you're looking for them. Most of the time when blue areas go dark it frames the "flower" facet pattern on the pavilion; so my focus gets drawn to the flower pattern and not as much to the dark areas . It reminds me of the arrows on an MRB but sort of inset or inverse.



That being said, and as @lovedogs mentioned, it definitely looks darker in the center than other Luceres. See the examples that I found on Good Old Gold's YouTube Channel (video 1, video 2) .

I went through a lucere research phase a while ago (trying to find a branded solitaire pre loved), and found SO much variation in the cut and overall look. As long as your eye loves it, then I think it's a winner!

 

[kenny]

Glad to hear you got the cut you wanted in spite of GIA's mistake, a typo that GIA should correct.
Yes, I realize everyone's only human but this error is serious, and can be corrected.

IMO, since it's GIA's error, they should make this right (send you a corrected grading report) at no charge to you.
I expect they'll want to examine the diamond in person, rather than accepting your impressive photo as sufficient evidence.
I'd say that's reasonable since these days all photos are subject to manipulation.

The below screen-capture shows that JA is not an authorized retailer for the Lucère brand.
So, I wonder how they got this stone to sell.

 

[lovedogs]

Glad to hear you got the cut you wanted in spite of GIA's mistake, a typo that GIA should correct.
Yes, I realize everyone's only human but this error is serious, and can be corrected.

IMO, since it's GIA's error, they should make this right (send you a corrected grading report) at no charge to you.
I expect they'll want to examine the diamond in person, rather than accepting your impressive photo as sufficient evidence.
I'd say that's reasonable since these days all photos are subject to manipulation.

The below screen-capture shows that JA is not an authorized retailer for the Lucère brand.
So, I wonder how they got this stone to sell.

I've seen other branded cuts on JAs site. It doesnt happen often, but it definitely occurs every once and a while

 

[Karl_K]

Glad to hear you got the cut you wanted in spite of GIA's mistake, a typo that GIA should correct.
Yes, I realize everyone's only human but this error is serious, and can be corrected.

IMO, since it's GIA's error, they should make this right (send you a corrected grading report) at no charge to you.
I expect they'll want to examine the diamond in person, rather than accepting your impressive photo as sufficient evidence.
I'd say that's reasonable since these days all photos are subject to manipulation.

The below screen-capture shows that JA is not an authorized retailer for the Lucère brand.
So, I wonder how they got this stone to sell.

Trade in or sold into the trade.
Right of resale.

 

[kenny]

Thanks guys.

 

[rab813]

I just want to say that I really appreciate everyone's feedback. you all are awesome.

I really like the diamond and it meets most of the criteria I was looking for. I'm just still a little concerned about the durability given that feather - I guess the next step would be to have a local professional look at it and advise or am I overthinking it?

As a pendant, do you think it would be ok to have it set in a halo or is a bezel necessary?

 

[lovedogs]

I just want to say that I really appreciate everyone's feedback. you all are awesome.

I really like the diamond and it meets most of the criteria I was looking for. I'm just still a little concerned about the durability given that feather - I guess the next step would be to have a local professional look at it and advise or am I overthinking it?

As a pendant, do you think it would be ok to have it set in a halo or is a bezel necessary?

I think as a pendant you are over thinking and it will be perfectly fine.

 

[rab813]

I think as a pendant you are over thinking and it will be perfectly fine.

Excellent. That's great news. I think this one is a keeper and I'm pretty excited.

I tried to get some good short videos for you all to see it in different lighting and at other angles than than in the JA video. Definitely not as easy as @Rhino makes it look.

Playlist

1. Med Blue Fluorescence (cropped)
2. Diffused Lighting
3. Size Comparison
4. Indoor Lighting (dark center more prominent)
5. Outdoor Lighting (dark center less prominent)
6. Inside Lighting (focus not great, but looks sparkly)

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

I love this! I think you made a great buy!
I think the diffuse lighting is what tipped me over the moon.

 

[rab813]

Yeah, ya know, that video confused me.

So we were discussing the blue areas in the ASET photos. For an MRB, the arrows are blue in the ASET. For this diamond, it has a lot of blue areas in the center framing the flower (arrows). But, both cut types in diffused spot lighting shine similarly on the arrows.

Based the aset images, I guess would've expected the blue areas in this Lucere to shine like the arrows on an MRB (example).

I'm kind of glad this Lucere is not like that (although it'd probably be interesting to see). But what am I misunderstanding? @Karl_K @Garry H (Cut Nut)

 

[rab813]

I have some bad news my friends. The sun finally came out today in Florida and the diamond has some transparency issues in direct sunlight.

Video 1 (Direct Sunlight from behind me, straight at the diamond)
Video 2 (Direct Sunlight from the right)

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Rats, I liked the cut. But that haziness is not for you.

 

[lovedogs]

I have some bad news my friends. The sun finally came out today in Florida and the diamond has some transparency issues in direct sunlight.

Video 1 (Direct Sunlight from behind me, straight at the diamond)
Video 2 (Direct Sunlight from the right)

I feel like its dusty/dirty rather than transparency issues. But I could be wrong

 

[rab813]

I feel like its dusty/dirty rather than transparency issues. But I could be wrong

That's exactly what I thought too. So I cleaned it. At least, I tried to. I let it soak a while in dawn dish soap and hot water and then scrubbed it with a soft toothbrush. I thought it looked much better afterwards, at least it did in indoor lighting. Back in direct sun lighting by the window it had more sparkle & fire but still looked dirty/hazy. I assumed it was because the fluorescence . I'll admit I don't have any experience with fluorescence and I also could've done a poor job cleaning it (Its small and slippery). So I'm really hoping you're right

I'm definitely going try again. Any tips for how to clean a loose stone?

edit: ok definitely still dirty in the loupe . It should be sunny again tomorrow so I can try again.

 

[rab813]

I used these instructions from Leibish and it looks much cleaner in the loupe now. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

So, where are you? I watched video 1 again and saw a couple shots where the table looked very grubby/water-spotted. Video 2 goes in and out of focus but the fire is something else. I know you've cleaned it since.
The report does not list any clouds or pinpoints that would implicate the fluor, just the feather.
I still like this diamond.

 

[rab813]

So, where are you? I watched video 1 again and saw a couple shots where the table looked very grubby/water-spotted. Video 2 goes in and out of focus but the fire is something else. I know you've cleaned it since.
The report does not list any clouds or pinpoints that would implicate the fluor, just the feather.
I still like this diamond.

The sun was out again on Friday and I had a chance to look go outside and look at it in different levels of shading . Being freshly cleaned, it looked fantastic. I didn't notice any issues with transparency. I think what I was seeing before was a combination of it being extra grubby and the diamond "going dark" in direct sun light.

Garry's article here has a section about evaluating milky/hazy fluorescent diamonds and it explicitly says it should not be done in direct sunlight. In shaded sunlight it looks very clean and transparent . I added some additional videos. At this point I'm pretty set on keeping it.

Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

YAY!!!

Garry's article helped me understand my diamonds with fluor. He's great.

 

[lovedogs]

Yayyyyy!!! Happy to hear that you're keeping it