The Final Four!!

[belle]

let us know what you think of it on friday!

 

[Mara]

See Val, as I don't see B as being tempting because of the 62.1 depth and the slightly thick average for the girdle. To me that speaks of diameter loss, which yes would be a good candidate for FIC I guess if that is what the consumer is looking for. It's not about ACA vs not as we all know I love the almost H&A stones for the value they represent, but if I know there are 3 stones in-house that I like then I don't know that I'd want to call in a 4th, for me especially because my picky self absolutely requires those amazing arrows and not all of the slightly off-make stones have that great symmetry!

I am more picky than most, but if you CAN be picky, then why not?

If this was an offline purchase and all 4 stones were available for viewing, B could be a contender. But virtually, I play it safe I guess.

Jim, can't wait to see what happens with D!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/4/2006 4:31:32 PM
Author: Mara

See Val, as I don't see B as being tempting because [...] my picky self absolutely requires those amazing arrows and not all of the slightly off-make stones have that great symmetry!

I am more picky than most, but if you CAN be picky, then why not?

Cool... why not. That was just a bit of (ineffective) dissent from my part - too little and late on the thread. I have no reason to support that one over the others any more than already done; it is never more than a possible point of view.

PS. the arrows show for a wider range of proportions than the hears and survive trully mangled symmetry that I wouldn't even put up with.

 

[blodthecat]

My choice would be ''A''

Good luck Blod

 

[jimk]

Val, what do you mean by: "the arrows show for a wider range of proportions than the hears and survive trully mangled symmetry that I wouldn''t even put up with"?

Meeting with the appraiser in the morning. My main concern is the girdle. Brian at WF said he would not worry more about this stone than any other. Hopefully, the appraiser will agree. I''ll keep you all posted.

 

[belle]

i''m sure that girdle is nothing to be worried about. i''ll be looking forward to what you find out tomorrow!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/4/2006 3:00:58 PM
Author: valeria101


Since the info gap came up.... it just occurred to me to look up the other listings of the same 1.5 cts G-VS2 and see if some other seller doesn't post the lab report at least - It happens.

And sure enough: here it is

Well, to be honest, I have a few questions about that grading report.

1. Grading report is dated 12/15/2005....so why isn't it the new style of AGS report? This one doesn't grade light performance, etc. Has anyone else run across this older style report for a newly submitted AGS stone?

2. Very nice...the area where they've whited out the AGS report number. If you're gonna go to that trouble, though, wouldn't it be logical to also white it out under the comments...which list the AGS report # in the girdle inscription info??

It may be nothing, but if I were John Q. average customer and saw the report # blocked out like that, and if I knew the report style was not one currently in use, I'd be a bit hesitant to pony up my $40 or $60 clams just to call it in.

 

[ep6585]

Date: 1/5/2006 8:21:04 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 1/4/2006 3:00:58 PM
Author: valeria101


Since the info gap came up.... it just occurred to me to look up the other listings of the same 1.5 cts G-VS2 and see if some other seller doesn't post the lab report at least - It happens.

And sure enough: here it is

Well, to be honest, I have a few questions about that grading report.

1. Grading report is dated 12/15/2005....so why isn't it the new style of AGS report? This one doesn't grade light performance, etc. Has anyone else run across this older style report for a newly submitted AGS stone?

2. Very nice...the area where they've whited out the AGS report number. If you're gonna go to that trouble, though, wouldn't it be logical to also white it out under the comments...which list the AGS report # in the girdle inscription info??

It may be nothing, but if I were John Q. average customer and saw the report # blocked out like that, and if I knew the report style was not one currently in use, I'd be a bit hesitant to pony up my $40 or $60 clams just to call it in.

I asked John Q. From WF about the different AGS certs. He said "The DQD definitely DOES contain the light performance report and a cut grade. The DQR does not."

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/5/2006 8:26:41 PM
Author: ep6585

I asked John Q. From WF about the different AGS certs. He said there is a 'Report' and a 'Document' and that the 'Document doesn't contain the light performance info.

That's correct....and there have ALWAYS been two versions, the Diamond Quality Document (DQD) and the Diamond Quality Report (DQR). The DQR is the stricter of the two; it provides a cut grade. The DQR does not.

HOWEVER......here is what the DQD looks like now: http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/certificates/ci_AGS-6809404.gif - see how cut grade now grades light performance, etc.? This is what the DQD has looked like for at least 5-6 months now. The DQD for the diamond Val pointed to is the version that was used PRIOR to the new AGS cut guidelines.

My question is this: This diamond was graded just 3 weeks ago, so why doesn't it have the newer grading document format that's been in use for 6 months or so now? And how can this diamond be graded as an AGS0 *today* without grading its light performance....which is now one of the components of achieving an AGS0 grade?

 

[belle]

for clarification, here is the ''old'' dqd with the recent date and whited out ags number from jamesallen that alj is referring to.
a stone that makes ags ideal under the ''new'' system will get a ''new'' style report whereas this one uses the ''old'' one.

 

[belle]

and the ''new'' reports with light performance grading

 

[valeria101]

Peace ?

 

[jimk]

Val, with all of those posts (most of which went well over my head), I''m sure you missed my last question to you. What do you mean by: "the arrows show for a wider range of proportions than the hears and survive trully mangled symmetry that I wouldn''t even put up with"?

Thanks!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/5/2006 8:26:41 PM
Author: ep6585

I asked John Q. From WF about the different AGS certs. He said ''The DQD definitely DOES contain the light performance report and a cut grade. The DQR does not.''

I see you''ve revised this.....and again, that''s always been the case, which is exactly my problem with the grading report of the J/A stone.

It IS a DQD document that does NOT contain light performance because it''s the old style DQD report. Why are they issuing DQD reports *today* that don''t reflect the amended cut grade requirements of today??

This is a way for stones to slide through and acquire the coveted "AGS0" distinction without *really* having to meet all the criteria for *today''s* definition of AGS0. I think it substantially devalues the new system to do that.

 

[jimk]

I had the appraisal done this morning by Jennifer Thornton-Davis. She was very impressed with the stone and the price I got on it. I spent a lot of time looking at the girdle and what appeared to me to be a small table. Jennifer was not overly concerned about the girdle thickness. The stone looked great to my eye, but I haven''t looked at many, so I relied heavily on what you all thought, the fact that it was in WF''s expert selection and Jennifer''s thoughts.

I''m proposing this weekend. I''m taking my gf to a place called the Post House Inn, which has been rated the #1 hotel in North Amercia and tied for best in the world by Conde Nast Traveler. It''s ludicrously expensive, but I wanted the weekend to be special. It''s going to be a huge surprise for her.

Thanks to everyone here, the folks at WF and to Jennifer Thornton-Davis.

On to settings ...

 

[belle]

that''s wonderful! awesome!
please start a setting thread...we''d love to help!

 

[Kaleigh]

That sounds wonderful!!! Very romantic I''m sure!!! Glad the appraisal went well.

 

[jimk]

Thanks, everyone (and especially Mara, Belle, Kaleigh and Val) for your thoughts and insight.

I want my gf to pick out the setting, so (if?) when she says "yes," I''ll have her on this site to see what you have to say. If it were up to me, I''d lean more toward the platinum Knife Edge Tiffany replica. I like the simple, classic look. I''ll keep you all posted and start a new thread when appropriate.

 

[Janis]

Can''t wait to hear about the weekend!

That #B stone is no longer available..someone here may have decided to give it a try! I am looking at that size and G VS, so I was sorry to see it taken!

Janis

 

[jimk]

Janies, it appears that WF took that listing down (as opposed to someone buying it, in which case it simply reads "SOLD"). It may have something to do with Val''s and Al''s posts about the certs.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/6/2006 6:47:27 PM
Author: jimk

Janies, it appears that WF took that listing down (as opposed to someone buying it, in which case it simply reads 'SOLD'). It may have something to do with Val's and Al's posts about the certs.

Hi JimK,

Actually, we didn't take it down. That B option was a diamond from what is called the 'virtual list' (which we don't have control over). New internet diamond shoppers sometimes don't know the dif between the virtual list and a vendor's in-house stock. That's not surprising, as the notion is a bit foreign...

Virtual List: There is a list of around 50,000+ diamonds located at suppliers/manufacturers that public sellers have access to. Diamond B was listed by many stores. It has been switched off, so perhaps it was sold by someone else (?)

In-House: The other options from page 1 (diamonds A B and D), are different. They are diamonds WF has purchased that are 'in-house,' living in our vault. They can only be listed/sold by us. If one becomes 'sold' (like D) the page still appears, but it reads 'sold' - as you indicated.

If a vendor has a diamond 'in-house,' you can learn a lot more about it up-front.

For those interested, PS has a good 'in-house' search feature on the front page. You can quickly separate diamonds located with the PS vendors from those on the virtual list.

 

[jimk]

Thanks for the clarification, John.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Here is a piece that elaborates on the above, and gives different scenarios for acquiring information.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/6/2006 7:31:29 PM
Author: jimk
Thanks for the clarification, John.

My pleasure.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/5/2006 9:28:22 PM
Author: belle
for clarification, here is the ''old'' dqd with the recent date and whited out ags number from jamesallen that alj is referring to.
a stone that makes ags ideal under the ''new'' system will get a ''new'' style report whereas this one uses the ''old'' one.

I have just skimmed this long thread - but surely there is something dreadfully wrong with the AGS report that seems to have been falsified?

Has anyone looked into this?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/6/2006 9:31:01 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/5/2006 9:28:22 PM
Author: belle
for clarification, here is the ''old'' dqd with the recent date and whited out ags number from jamesallen that alj is referring to.
a stone that makes ags ideal under the ''new'' system will get a ''new'' style report whereas this one uses the ''old'' one.

I have just skimmed this long thread - but surely there is something dreadfully wrong with the AGS report that seems to have been falsified?

Has anyone looked into this?

I''ve learned from one source that vendors can still request to have stones issued under the old grading standard/system. So the grading report may not be falsified.

However, I personally feel that doing this completely undermines the new cut grading system they are trying to promote, and it certainly could discourage buyers from paying a premium for an AGS0 stone under the stricter standards.

If today, I can still get paper that says "AGS0" even though the diamond won''t meet *today''s* AGS0 criteria, that''s ridiculous. It also has the potential to be abused. Customers who have digested that AGS0 is desirable may not know enough to realize that these grading reports are "sub-par" AGS0 ratings that may not make the grade by today''s standards. I see much potential for abuse.

 

[jimk]

At this point, I''m glad I got a GIA stone.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/5/2006 8:21:04 PM
Author: aljdewey

Well, to be honest, I have a few questions about that grading report.

1. Grading report is dated 12/15/2005....so why isn''t it the new style of AGS report? This one doesn''t grade light performance, etc. Has anyone else run across this older style report for a newly submitted AGS stone?

In answer to this question:

Hi Garry:
Happy New Year to you and yours!
Lab clients can request either the old proportion based DQD ( Diamond Quality Document ) or the new Light Performance based DQD. This is a transition period to allow all segments of the manufacturering industry to bring their cutting accuracy up to the new system. The proportion based DQD will eventually be retired or discontinued, probably from obsolescence. Or, the AGS Board may set a final date.
Heartily,
Peter Yantzer

(Off the record, i am sure that after all the work Peter and his team have done that he would prefer to rdop the old report asap)

 

[belle]

thanks for sharing that info garry.
now what say ye on the issue of the white out? tampering with such a document can''t be cool.

 

[Mara]

Random but maybe just the scan/copy was whited out and not the original...I doubt anyone would tamper with the original like that if they wanted to sell the stone?