Advice on a Diamond (I think DCI is trying to scare me)

[Guess]

Never posted before, but I thought this experience was worth sharing.

Ok, so I didn''t learn about DCIs reputation until just now from the forum. Therefore, stupid me, I asked them for a free appraisal on a stone I''m considering based on the specs. I figured it would be positive because the stone has a great cut according to both AGA standards and the HCA. But hey, a third opinion never hurts right..... Here is a record of our interactions. My purpose is threefold:

1) To figure out whether it truly is a good stone (I suspect yes, but please let me know if that is not the case) PS what''s a fair price?
2) To share the DCI intimidation tactics because they''re worth a laugh
3) As a warning to others who might consider working with them

,Stone info
Appraisal Date: In the past 6 months (GIA)
Shape: Round
Other Shape:
Carat Weight: 1.12
Clarity Grade: VS2
Color Grade: H
Color Type: unknown
Flourescence: None
Table Percent: 55
Crown Angle: 34.5
Crown Height: 15.5
Pavillion Angle: 40.8
Pavillion Depth: 43.0
Girdle Thickness Field: thin-med
Total Depth Percent: 61.6
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: excellent
Authenticity: The Diamond is Real
Treatment: Diamond has not been treated as far as I know
Round Minimum Diameter: 6.69
Round Maximum Diameter: 6.72
Round Depth: 4.13
Book: No

Their first reply
Hi XXXXXX (must keep my identity a secret my GF reads here),

Did you know this is a class 4?

The Diamond Guy Helper


My response

Really? I thought class 4 was bad. It was my impression that these proportions place it in a class 1, ie very good. Please explain further if you don''t mind. Thanks.

-XXXXXX

Their Reply

Hi XXXXX,

Round diamonds should have a total depth percentage between 56% and 61%. When a diamond has a total depth percentage that exceeds 61%, the diamond is a class IV and its light return is negatively affected. Class IV’s will only return about 32% of the light that enters them compared to a well proportioned stone at 88% - 91%. Class 4’s have little or no resale value and fog out very quickly once they are worn. They also look much smaller that a well cut class 1 or class 2 of the same weight. The only advantage of a class 4 is the inexpensive price.

The Diamond Guy Helper


Inexpensive price????Little or no resale value??? 32% of light vs 88% for only 0.6% change in depth. If this guy hadn''t laid it on so thick I might actually have believed it wasn''t a good stone. Is there any validity to what this guy is claiming guys?

 

[Beacon]

Depth seems perfectly good. What a wild bunch of talk. I though depth had to be 63++ to go into a class 4.

It is obvious by inspection that many GIA EX cuts and AGSL Ideals go to 62. I never knew about that vendor, but I cannot say it is trusty.

 

[denverappraiser]

Guess,

Free advice is not always worth what it costs.

I’ let others parse the comments of Mr. Cuellar but there are a few red flags in your advertisement that I do recommend you clarify before buying this stone:

1) GIA doesn't do appraisals. If they did a diamond grading report within the last 6 months, you would have had a ‘cut grade’ included, which is applying a much more considered grading scale than the one he is apparently using. If this was available, why was it not included?
2) ‘Color Type: Unknown’’. ‘Treatment: Diamond has not been treated as far as I know’, and ‘Authenticity: The Diamond is Real’ all give me pause. ’ Is it treated or not? Is it synthetic (which is still real)? This may just be generic weasel words but a seller should make a clear statement about whether it's treated or not. It's important and '... as far as I know' is not an acceptable disclaimer.
3) ‘Flourescence: None’. This is only a question because I believe GIA now uses the term ‘negligible’ on their reports. Are you sure that this stone is GIA graded? If not, who provided the information and what did they mean by 'Appraisal Date: In the past 6 months (GIA)'?
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Mara]

OH MY LORD!!!

The perfect depth is between 56 and 61?

56? 56? That's insane!

I always knew they were fulla crap but this post just makes it all the more fresh to us...heheee.

That stone has stellar specs by the way just from the #'s. If it's a H&A or has a good arrow pattern and good light return I would imagine it'd be a firecracker! I'd check into what Neil asked with his very valid Q's also though.

 

[Guess]

Neil,

Thanks for your reply. To clarify:

This stone is not being sold by Mr. Cuellar, I just filled in the information here on his website. I knew it was a tool to get my information, but I was still interested in what he might have to say. http://www.diamondcuttersintl.com/diamond_education/articles/buying_diamonds/diamondvalue.cfm

After you fill in the fields on that website they send you an email which includes the information you sent them. I copied that into the post. The website field asks for "Appraisal or Certification Date" but this is truncated to Appraisal in their reply to you. I did not catch the change when I copied it. You are correct, it is a GIA certifation not an appraisal.

The GIA cert is real (I put in the report number and carat weight at the GIA website http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/) and they confirmed it. The cert does also has a cut grade, it is listed as excellent. The DCI web form didn''t ask for it so I didn''t supply it. The GIA certificate does say "none" as opposed to negligible for fluorescence.

The color grade is H. The color type (which according to Mr Cuellar is a subgrade of color ie 1 is closer to G and 5 is closer to I) is unknown because it was not on the cert. Are color types for real or is this something he has made up? Similarly the "diamond is real" was included b/c the DCI form asked if it was real or synthetic.

The disclaimer "as far as I know" was added by myself because I have only the word of the vendor (reccommended by others on the forum) to go on that it was not treated.

I hope this clears things up. You have a discerning eye for suspicious facts though. Thanks for looking out for me.

 

[RockDoc]

I would also seriously ask him the methodology he is using to come up with the percentages of light return.

32% vx 88%.?????

Interestingly he says the GIA''s cut grade is 4 - when GIA graded it Excellent?

He certainly isn''t getting that from any diagnostic gemological equipment I know of.

Sounds like it came from the Alice in Wonderland School of Gemology - Mad Hatter''s Light return analysis dept.


Rockdoc

 

[Rod]

Date: 7/20/2006 5:34:21 PM
Author: RockDoc
I would also seriously ask him the methodology he is using to come up with the percentages of light return.

32% vx 88%.?????

Interestingly he says the GIA''s cut grade is 4 - when GIA graded it Excellent?

He certainly isn''t getting that from any diagnostic gemological equipment I know of.

Sounds like it came from the Alice in Wonderland School of Gemology - Mad Hatter''s Light return analysis dept.


Rockdoc

Too Funny!!!!!!

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 7/20/2006 5:41:22 PM
Author: Rod

Date: 7/20/2006 5:34:21 PM
Author: RockDoc
I would also seriously ask him the methodology he is using to come up with the percentages of light return.

32% vx 88%.?????

Interestingly he says the GIA''s cut grade is 4 - when GIA graded it Excellent?

He certainly isn''t getting that from any diagnostic gemological equipment I know of.

Sounds like it came from the Alice in Wonderland School of Gemology - Mad Hatter''s Light return analysis dept.


Rockdoc

Too Funny!!!!!!

Actually Rod......


One day I will get one of my goals....

To get a consumer who is really financially damaged by Freddie Quack Quack''s advice, who hires me as the opposing expert witness - and it gets covered by the media.

Maybe with wish fairy will grant this for me.

Rockdoc

 

[denverappraiser]

Yup, that cleared it. I thought you were copying the data from someones advertisement.

I''m not aware of an accepted color grading scale that includes a sub-grade of 1-5 below each letter grade and I have a tough time imagining it''s usefulness. I''m also unfamiliar with a cut grading scale that assigns a ''class IV'' grade based on a depth percentage of greater than 61%. Although I don''t know of a way to calculate light return to 2 significant digits using depth percentage, I am certainly interested if there''s a way to do this that''s more accurate than, say, rolling dice.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[WinkHPD]

Mr. Cuellar has quite the problem with the truth, at least as the rest of the world sees it. As the light performance studies at AGS have clearly shown a stone with a 56% depth would be a very poor light returner compared with a stone of 61.6, especially one with the crown and pavilion angles that you have listed.

A quick glance with any of the light measuring and observation tools would quickly show his fallacious statement for what it is.

Since his views do not sit with the rest of the diamond community it would appear that he has made up his own diamond grading standards and this stone would in no way be a class 4 by GIA or AGS standards.

I recommend you take a dose of (smelling) salt before taking any more advice from Mr. Cuellar as he definitely is feeding you bait you would only take with your eyes closed.

Wink

P.S. I used diamcalc to take a 6mm H&A model down to a 56% depth, dropping the AGS grade from 0 to lower than 10 (at 58.5 depth it was an I kept the table at 55 degrees but the pavilion angle dropped to 38.5 and the crowwn angle to 31.36. Pretty pathetic looking stone in the idealscope view compared to the H&A it could have been at the 61.6 that you mention.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Too funny Guess!!!

Occasionally people have defended this guy - and it is always great to see this type of detective work to bring out his true colors