A day at Tiffany''s with the I-Scope...

[awenuts]

Today was the day that I went and looked at 4 different rings at two different Tiffany''s locations. I already had all the specs on the diamonds that I would be looking at while I was there, so I was able to run them on the HCA before hand as a guideline.

Let me first start off by saying that the sales staff were phenomenal. Very friendly and accomodating. They weren''t frightened or condescending when I pulled out the I-scope to look at the diamonds. Both of my salesmen were very interested and asked if they could look at the diamonds through the scope. Both had never seen anything like it before and were really interested in it, so I gave them a quick tutorial and they played around with it a little bit. At the first place I went, these were the stones that I looked at:

Diamond #1
Round Brilliant .92 G VVS1
Table: 57%
Depth: 61.3%
Crown: 34.1 deg
Pavillion: 43.4 %
HCA : 1.4

Diamond #2
Round Brilliant .93 F VS2
Table: 59%
Depth: 60.1%
Crown: 33.9 deg
Pavillion: 43.6%
HCA : 2.3

Visually, the differences between the two diamonds were very hard to tell apart. Looking at the two under the I-scope is where they were worlds apart. They both showed minimal leakage which was nice, but where they differed was symmetry. Diamond #1 was very close to having well formed arrows, where as Diamond #2''s shafts did not line up straight with the arrowhead perfectly(shifted just a tad). As supported by the HCA, Diamond #1 looked like a better cut/more symmetrical through the I-scope. But as I said the differences were pretty minute. On the gemelogical report both were rated "Very Good" for symmetry. Which I would tend to agree, both were both nice looking diamonds. Now onto the second store...

At the second store these are the ones I looked at:

Diamond #3
Round Brilliant .94 F VVS2
Table: 59%
Depth: 61.8
Crown: 34.7 deg
Pavillion: 43.7%
HCA : 3.4

Diamond #4
Round Brilliant .91 F VS1
Table: 55%
Depth: 61.3%
Crown: 34.8 deg
Pavillion: 42.8
HCA : 0.6

Now, diamond 3 is the one that I thought was the best looking one a couple weeks ago when I went shopping, but wasn''t able to visually compare it to diamond 1 and 2 from the other store. Diamond 4 was shipped in after I requested those proportions for a comparison. Let me say, with the naked eye, there is absolutely no comparison between diamond 3 and 4. Diamond 4 is absolutely breathtaking and seems to have "life". It looks magnificent under all lighting conditions, (store,dim, incondescent, natural etc). However, when I used the I-scope that is when the real differences really showed up. Diamond 3 had some pale pink/white towards the center of the table (too deep?). Diamond #4 on the other hand could be the twin of the Ideal diamond on the I-scope box. The arrows looked perfect. So it looks like I will be going with diamond #4 as the winner. Surprisingly it is also the cheapest of all 4. Diamond 4 is 1,000 less than diamond 3... go figure.

I found that the HCA is very consistant with what you will see in the i-scope. Also, with the naked eye it is easy to to tell the difference between a stone that scores a 3.4 and one that scores a 0.6. Best of all, I found that Tiffany''s has HA stones, but they just don''t know it Thanks to Gary for creating the I-scope and HCA to take a lot of the guesswork out of diamond buying!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thank you Awenuts.

I am pleased to have been at your service.
These were the other threads I believe

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-tiffany-diamond.69188/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-question-ha-and-not.69340/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/i-think-i-might-have-found-a-contender.69419/

 

[Ellen]

How fun! Thanks for the great write up.

I''m just wondering, did any of the SA''s act as if they might be interested in purchasing an IS? did you tell them about Gary''s site?

 

[awenuts]

LOL

MY first SA seemed very interested in it and I told him that he should buy one for the store, to which he smiled. I did tell him about where to get it, though so who knows!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/27/2007 10:58:01 AM
Author: awenuts
LOL

MY first SA seemed very interested in it and I told him that he should buy one for the store, to which he smiled. I did tell him about where to get it, though so who knows!

Bet he doesn''t.

But hey, you tried!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well good for you for getting the BEST cut Tiffany stone! That $1000 is the price premium for the VVS. Definitely not worth it when you can get a better cut F VS1!!! This will be a great thread to explain to people that cut quality WILL vary at Tiffany''s!

 

[Shay37]

Awenuts, yay what a great experience. Isn''t it great the way information here can empower you to doing something for yourself at a jewelry store that you would have in the past had to trust to the SA. "Trust me. this is a Great diamond. You will never be able to do better than this one." and they''d say it with a straight face too.

shay

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/27/2007 6:44:01 PM
Author: Shay37
Awenuts, yay what a great experience. Isn''t it great the way information here can empower you to doing something for yourself at a jewelry store that you would have in the past had to trust to the SA. ''Trust me. this is a Great diamond. You will never be able to do better than this one.'' and they''d say it with a straight face too.

shay

So true Shay. So true.

There was a time when we would all bow down, especially those behind the counter of an estimed and upmarket business. Rather like the fear of questioning the somelier in a top French restaurant about the quality of a wine, or sending back something that was NQR.

Arise yee customers, arise .......

But the other thing that happened here is that 2 sales people learned that not all their diamonds are equal (or some are more equal than others?

)

I hope that this will empower more of you who are already armed with Ideal-scopes and information about diamond cut quality to venture out into the Malls and stores and let vendors know that it is not that hard to identify well cut diamonds. Dave and I are never going to get rich selling little pink plastic loupes, but it makes us feel good when we read stories like Awenuts experiance.

The Internet means we can learn about diseases before we visit a doctor, check camera, restarunts, movie, phone company and all sorts of reviews.

One last great frontier we can work on is bringing up the standards of diamond cutting. The market does listen and respond - but it needs to know that you know.

If a good cut is between 60% and 62% for table and total depth, then thats what cutters will cut. If a good cut has to look good through an ideal-scope, Brillliancescope, Imagem, ISee2, DiamCalc, GemAdviser, ASET or whatever, then we will all get more good cuts to choose from. You consumers, me and other retailers etc etc

 

[Hest88]

Thanks for the report! Nice to see such an affirmation of the IS as well as the HCA.

 

[Kats]

My partner and I chose my ring from Tiffany's immediately after getting engaged on holiday without knowing about HCA or ideal scope but I was very pleased to find it has a score of 0.6 when I plugged the numbers in. All of the rings looked just as sparkly in person though, I chose it not because it was the best looking (they all looked good to me) but because it was of the size, colour and clarity we wanted.

 

[SpeedracerII]

I found that the HCA is very consistant with what you will see in the i-scope. Also, with the naked eye it is easy to to tell the difference between a stone that scores a 3.4 and one that scores a 0.6. Best of all, I found that Tiffany''s has HA stones, but they just don''t know it Thanks to Gary for creating the I-scope and HCA to take a lot of the guesswork out of diamond buying!!

Congrats on finding a great stone. When you see one you finally understand why cut is so important. The challenge is to find one to look at among all the more common maul stones.

Now someone correct me if I''m wrong but the HCA knows nothing about H&As/symmetry. It only know the mathematical relation of the dimensions of the exterior of the stone. I think what you are noticing is that a cutter that takes the time to perfect the cut is more likely to also make it symmetrical, but it doesn''t have to be that way to get a good HCA score. The I-scope will let you see if the symmetry is there, but you could get low leakage/high performance, good HCA on a non-H&A stone.

 

[awenuts]

Oh, and another interesting tid-bit. Tiffany''s no longer has GIA reports available for the stone, even upon request. According to both of my SA''s, now that Tiffany''s has its own gemological laboratory, the only certificate you are supplied with is the Tiffany''s one.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/29/2007 2:16:12 AM
Author: SpeedracerII

Now someone correct me if I''m wrong but the HCA knows nothing about H&As/symmetry. It only know the mathematical relation of the dimensions of the exterior of the stone.

Speed Racer you are correct that HCA has no symmetry input. GIA added it to their Facetware system, and I anticipated it in my patent claims. But until there is some practical and effective method for symmetry grading with regard to optical performance, the usage of the sym grades from reports is a very blunt instrument (even Bill Brae’s excellent patented system does not handle optical performance).

In a perfect world what the addition of Sym would do would allow tolerances to be wider – say + or – HCA 0.5 for H&A’s sym ranges of diamonds that can be too deep or too shallow.

Date: 9/29/2007 2:16:12 AM
Author: SpeedracerII

I think what you are noticing is that a cutter that takes the time to perfect the cut is more likely to also make it symmetrical, but it doesn''t have to be that way to get a good HCA score.

There is no safe assumption that if a stone has EX EX that it will have better propotions. H&A’s rules out some bad proportions – but not all. And many in the trade abuse H&A’s. Moreover, many newer equipped factories produce EX EX very often without even trying. 10 years ago there were many Good/Good GIA stones. Today there are far more EX EX, and that is because the processes are tighter – not because labs are weaker.

Date: 9/29/2007 2:16:12 AM
Author: SpeedracerII

The I-scope will let you see if the symmetry is there, but you could get low leakage/high performance, good HCA on a non-H&A stone.

Yes you can have excellent optical performance for stones with Good to VG sym. I do not believe anyone can tell the difference between NQR H&A’s and very tight H&A’s with certain proportions. Even the H&A’s experts decline to take this Pepsi Taste Test.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/29/2007 9:55:37 AM
Author: awenuts
Oh, and another interesting tid-bit. Tiffany''s no longer has GIA reports available for the stone, even upon request. According to both of my SA''s, now that Tiffany''s has its own gemological laboratory, the only certificate you are supplied with is the Tiffany''s one.

We have discussed that on the Forum before Awenuts, but thx for bringing it up.
In general Tiffany is probably concerned about GIA''s quality control and occasional propensity to give the same re-submitted stone different grades.

Also there is an ongoing bubbling away possability that the NY Diamond Dealers Club will force GIA to name those suppliers involved in recent grader bribery case "Certifigate". tiffany probably would not want their reputation sullied via association if and when the names of those companies were named. Of course there can be other interpretations than this one of mine, but mine is an about middle of the road explanation.