A Tiffany mine cut with NO sparkle?

[purrfectpear]

Either they just can''t take a picture worth a darn, or THIS eBAY VINTAGE TIFFANY RING has no sparkle, no brillance, no nuttin, except a pedigree

The GIA cert checks out. It seems like even an old stone (or maybe especially an old stone) should have something more going for it. It looks like glass

 

[FrekeChild]

The prongs look off. I''m wondering why so cheap....

 

[vslover]

Hmm I usually think that EC diamonds look dull in photos and better in real life...but there seems to be something off about the price...

 

[oldminer]

The shank and blue box is probably Tiffany & Co. Maybe the 4 prong setting is too. It looks like the clarity is below what Tiffany sells although I don''t know what they sold in diamonds so long ago for certain. I think I am reading SI1 or SI2 on the GIA paper and can''t find the clarity in the Ebay ad otherwise. The stone was removed from the ring to have GIA grade it, or maybe it never was in the ring before the grading. If you are going to pay for the provenance, please have the seller give you the history of the ring "in writing".

The cut and the lighting are making the stone less sparkly than some others, but it may be a very pretty diamond in person.

 

[zerj]

No need to squint to try and read the cert, It''s cert number does check out and does show up on reportcheck

Report Type: GIA Diamond Grading Report
Date of Issue: August 09, 2007
Old Mine Brilliant
Measurements: 6.92 x 5.91 x 4.00 mm
Carat Weight: 1.19
Color Grade: F
Clarity Grade: SI1
Proportions:
Depth: 67.7 %
Table: 53 %
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: Slightly Large
Finish:
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Strong Blue

 

[Dreamgirl]

Date: 5/4/2008 4:06:07 PM
Author: oldminer
The shank and blue box is probably Tiffany & Co. Maybe the 4 prong setting is too. It looks like the clarity is below what Tiffany sells although I don't know what they sold in diamonds so long ago for certain. I think I am reading SI1 or SI2 on the GIA paper and can't find the clarity in the Ebay ad otherwise. The stone was removed from the ring to have GIA grade it, or maybe it never was in the ring before the grading. If you are going to pay for the provenance, please have the seller give you the history of the ring 'in writing'.

The cut and the lighting are making the stone less sparkly than some others, but it may be a very pretty diamond in person.

I bet they took the original diamond out of the setting and put this one in. The prongs look horrible. I wouldn't doubt if the whole thing isn't a Tiffany. It doesn't look like a Tiffany diamond to me at all............

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

I agree w/ dreamgirl too many variables and questions.

The shank looks horrid (inscription) and stone even worse.

They do have a 7 day return policy but I doubt you would be able to get any authentication from Tiffany''s in that time - you might have to use the archive dept. on this one and it costs like $500 for provenance.

They can spot check ore recent items by manager to confirm authenticity unoffically. Anything else has to go through NY.

Would stay away unless they extend refund time limit or provide better provenance.

 

[Imdanny]

Why would someone buy something like this? What a potential mess.