- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 10,433
Rockdiamond|1344025890|3245521 said:Gypsy|1344025629|3245517 said:And Jeff, that might be just what this appraiser did.
In my experience people don't hear qualifying words like "it appears to be" or "it might be" and "I can't say with certainty because it is set and an inclusion could be hidden by a prong". They hear what they want to hear. Then they come on here and tell us that "this person said this"... when that person did not, in fact say that-- it's just what they thought they heard.
This is very true Gypsy....however it seems this appraiser made a point of going all the way to VVS1
Gypsy|1343943601|3245064 said:Okay well, since JA has so generously offered to have the diamond examined in house, I would do that.
Also I would NOT send it to AGS. Why? The original grading was done by GIA. If you send it to GIA and it comes back different, and it corroborates what the appraiser said, then you know that you can assume the original assessment was in error. By holding the lab constant you aren't introducing the variable of a new lab's possible grade generosity (and we have now seen a few instances were AGS and GIA dual certified stones are coming back with higher color grades by AGS) and you are getting to the heart of the issue: is the original lab report correct or incorrect. If you send it to AGS you do not get an answer to that question. Because if it comes back a higher color grade then it could simply be AGS error.
By sending it to AGS you are forum shopping.
By sending it back to GIA you are confirming the appraisal.