AGS Report question on a 3.04 carat diamond

[Vinche]

Hi I know this diamond comes out as an ideal cut, but what is the white spot? Is it just a leaky area of the diamond. Any information on how to read an AGS report would be helpful. Thank you! For reference I attached the GIA report as well

 

[flyingpig]

The white is leakage, meaning the area will not return any light or fire, at least face-up. It will appear glassy and windowy. You also see some green spots under the table. Those are partial leakage, in this case. A computer generated ASET is a bit lenient and shows these partial leakages green. But under the real ASET scope, you will see more white. The green spots around the edges (12:30) are not leakage, but it is a sign of girdle treatment (digging). You are not getting well defined contrast (arrows) because both crown angle and pavilion angle are too high and not complementary.

The high crown angle, high pavilion angle and girdle treatment have one purpose: to achieve the 3.0x carat mark at the expense of light return. I do not like a stone like this. It is like an American car from 90s and early 2000s that looks good on paper , but miserable IRL. You deserve something more well crafted.

 

[Vinche]

The white is leakage, meaning the area will not return any light or fire, at least face-up. It will appear glassy and windowy. You also see some green spots under the table. Those are partial leakage, in this case. A computer generated ASET is a bit lenient and shows these partial leakages green. But under the real ASET scope, you will see more white. The green spots around the edges (12:30) are not leakage, but it is a sign of girdle treatment (digging). You are not getting well defined contrast (arrows) because both crown angle and pavilion angle are too high and not complementary.

The high crown angle, high pavilion angle and girdle treatment have one purpose: to achieve the 3.0x carat mark at the expense of light return. I do not like a stone like this. It is like an American car from 90s and early 2000s that looks good on paper , but miserable IRL. You deserve something more well crafted.

Thank you so much for the wealth of knowledge, I did purchase this diamond but once I receive it I have 10 days to return it if I’m displeased. I did see it in person along side other ideal cut stone and it did perform well, some of the stones were true H&A. The stone was 28k, is that a fair price?

 

[latte_espresso]

I bought a "super ideal" stone for $25K and it was 2.39ct H Si1. Given that you were able to achieve a 3.0 ct mark for under $30K is quite impressive to me.

A lot of PSers here will tell you about the cuts/proportions etc. And in my opinion, it shouldn't really matter as long as you (as the wearer) looked at it and love it. My girlfriend saw some pretty crappy diamonds and she thought they were beautiful.

Congratulations!

 

[Vinche]

I bought a "super ideal" stone for $25K and it was 2.39ct H Si1. Given that you were able to achieve a 3.0 ct mark for under $30K is quite impressive to me.

A lot of PSers here will tell you about the cuts/proportions etc. And in my opinion, it shouldn't really matter as long as you (as the wearer) looked at it and love it. My girlfriend saw some pretty crappy diamonds and she thought they were beautiful.

Congratulations!

Thanks for responding! My criteria was ideal cut, eye clean and 3 carats for 28k so I probably shouldn’t be too upset that it’s not a super ideal cut, right! And I’m actually the wife. My husband bought me my first engagement ring 8 years ago (ideal cut, it was so beautiful!) but unfortunately I lost it! It slipped off my finger and I didn’t notice ... I had lost some weight and the ring was too loose unfortunately ...This is a replacement ring (thank goodness for insurance!)

 

[rockysalamander]

I'd be leery of the clouds in a SI2. Clouds in both grade setting and notes. When you get the diamond, really look at it in tons of lighting conditions. See if it is "cloudy". Clouds can scatter light leading to pretty uneven light return and significant loss of light return as those clouds send light in every direction.

 

[latte_espresso]

Thanks for responding! My criteria was ideal cut, eye clean and 3 carats for 28k so I probably shouldn’t be too upset that it’s not a super ideal cut, right! And I’m actually the wife. My husband bought me my first engagement ring 8 years ago (ideal cut, it was so beautiful!) but unfortunately I lost it! It slipped off my finger and I didn’t notice ... I had lost some weight and the ring was too loose unfortunately ...This is a replacement ring (thank goodness for insurance!)

I just placed my order for the ring. But it seems like I should probably get insurance for it!

 

[Vinche]

I just placed my order for the ring. But it seems like I should probably get insurance for it!

Yes definitely! I can’t say enough good things about Jewler’s Mutual. In a week they approved my claim and let me chose the jeweler, I went with GoodOldGold because that’s where my husband bought my first engagement ring. I never thought I would lose my ring! I feel so fortunate that my husband is so good at being responsible and did it!

 

[Vinche]

I'd be leery of the clouds in a SI2. Clouds in both grade setting and notes. When you get the diamond, really look at it in tons of lighting conditions. See if it is "cloudy". Clouds can scatter light leading to pretty uneven light return and significant loss of light return as those clouds send light in every direction.

Ok good to know! Thanks!
I’m trying to find the cloud in the diagram that the GIA report shows, I attached it to this thread. All I really see are those twinning wisps. But when I saw the ring in person I couldn’t see them with my naked eye. I hate clouds! I think those and black carbon deposits are the most noticeable to the eye

 

[rockysalamander]

Ok good to know! Thanks!
I’m trying to find the cloud in the diagram that the GIA report shows, I attached it to this thread. All I really see are those twinning wisps. But when I saw the ring in person I couldn’t see them with my naked eye. I hate clouds! I think those and black carbon deposits are the most noticeable to the eye

Yup. Think of a diamonds as having mirrors that are to focus light back at the viewer. Clouds can be a like putting snow in between you and the mirrors. So, light gets bounced all around on the way to the mirror and away from the mirror, so you only get a portion of the light bounced back at you. Light return is a volume games, so more is better. So, just be tough on this and really spend time in outdoor light (direct, indirect, day, dusk), indoor light (led, fluorescent....especially at your work and home).

A yellow room or dark ceiling will make the best diamond look bad, so avoid those areas. Bright, direct light will also make the stone look grey. Happens to them all.

 

[HDer]

Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown.

That's the one you really need to watch out for.

 

[Vinche]

Clarity grade is based on clouds that are not shown.

That's the one you really need to watch out for.

Why would they not show the cloud that the clarity rate is based on ? Oh man I’m a little confused about that

 

[HDer]

Why would they not show the cloud that the clarity rate is based on ? Oh man I’m a little confused about that

It doesn't apply in your case but that's an indication that the cloud sets the clarity grade. In your case it looks like there's a small cloud and then maybe other ones that are too small to plot. That is generally OK. Generally being the key word.

 

[HDer]

The reason they wouldn't show the clarity setting cloud is maybe because it's too big or too amorphous. Basically kiss of death almost guaranteed to be murky.

 

[Vinche]

It doesn't apply in your case but that's an indication that the cloud sets the clarity grade. In your case it looks like there's a small cloud and then maybe other ones that are too small to plot. That is generally OK. Generally being the key word.

I see, thanks for clarifying. I think since twinning wisps is the first flaw they listed and there appears to be multiples that this is why it got an SI2

 

[ringo865]

If they I haven't yet shipped it, ask them about the internal graining. Sometimes that can cause transparency issues.

 

[Vinche]

If they I haven't yet shipped it, ask them about the internal graining. Sometimes that can cause transparency issues.

Okay thank you!

 

[Vinche]

It doesn't apply in your case but that's an indication that the cloud sets the clarity grade. In your case it looks like there's a small cloud and then maybe other ones that are too small to plot. That is generally OK. Generally being the key word.

Since you spiked my curiousity and I'm a beginner at understanding diamonds and grading reports, I just read an article about the difference between "clarity based on clouds not shown" verses "additional clouds are not shown." I feel really bad for people who buy cloudy diamonds. I saw this diamond in person and was unable to see the small cloud that was diagramed with my naked eye. To my luck, it was eye clean but I only spent an afternoon viewing the diamond so maybe I will notice something when it finally arrives (hopefully not). I also compared it with other SI2 diamonds and some of them did have large enough clouds that were noticeable with the naked eye, others had carbon deposits, and one of them had a bad feather that would light up. These flaws, I'm unable to live with. I appreciate you bringing this detail in GIA reports to my attention.

 

[OoohShiny]

I bought a "super ideal" stone for $25K and it was 2.39ct H Si1. Given that you were able to achieve a 3.0 ct mark for under $30K is quite impressive to me.

A lot of PSers here will tell you about the cuts/proportions etc. And in my opinion, it shouldn't really matter as long as you (as the wearer) looked at it and love it. My girlfriend saw some pretty crappy diamonds and she thought they were beautiful.

I think care is needed here - cut and proportions can be 'not SuperIdeal', but they still need to be not that far off it for a diamond to perform to its best (in terms of MRBs, especially).

Just because one is not aware of how good they can be, it does not mean one should accept mediocre (at best) stones from a local store - they might look beautiful to the untrained eye, as you have noted, but that is almost certainly to do with deliberately-designed shop lighting.

The point of the SuperIdeal / AGS000 ratings is that even without seeing the stone, it can almost certainly be guaranteed to be one of the top-performing stones available.


Has your girlfriend seen the SuperIdeal stone yet? Have you compared it to the stones she thought were beautiful previously? If not, that could be an interesting / eye-opening exercise