AGS round ACA 1.24 H Si1 turns out to be an J Vs2

[diamondstud]

Rich:

Your input is appreciated because I''m sure you understand the difficulties that a indep appraiser goes through when a customer discrepancies arises. I was going to send it to someone reputable from PS like yourself to appraise my diamond purchase. The only reason I went with an Indep app near me was so I could talk face to face and have my questions answered as we went through and to learn the process. I looked at it purely as a learning experience and get a value for ins purposes as "oldminer'' insists. I had no idea it would put me in turmoil.

I think it is really great you have such an offer. I will talk with WF first to discuss my concern.

scott

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Scott, I think the issue is that you PAID for an H. If it is not really an H, then you don''t want to pay $7500. for it. There are more where that one came from.

 

[RockDoc]

My experience has been that AGS, many times is more stringent than GIA, paticularly in clarity and color.

It is very nice ( and professional) of Richard to make the offer, and I''d also make the same offer using my Master Set and Gran to verify the color, if you wish another appraiser''s opinion. When grading the color what was the environment for the lighting? Did the appraiser have a lexan filter that he used as well?

As to the proportions, Richard has an OGI and I have the Sarin, so we could iron out the angle differences for you as well. As for the appraiser that looked at the stone, how were the proportions determined?

I very much agree with Richard about his opinion about the master set of 1 carat stones, being a bit unusual. I have a 7 stone set, which has been color graded by GIA standards as well as AGS standards. Although they are going to be sent to AGS shortly for grading again. Part of the requirements for the ICGA. This is because when my set was graded, the grading by AGS standard was done by the lab at GIA. Now AGS is doing it, and the new grading will verify much more exactly where each stone falls more precisely.

I don''t agree that CZ''s can be used for color grading. It is like comparing an apple to an orange. They way they refract light is different, and CZ''s can yellow with age. I have always wondered how good the color grading is for each set of them, as I do not believe that GIA or AGS will color grade CZ masters. The color grading of master sets is quite different from the procedure and method for grading a diamond reported in their "regular" grading reports. Master color comparison diamonds have to have a lot more requirements to qualify, and the set has to be "in sync" with the other stones in the set.


Hope this helps.

Rockdoc

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/5/2006 1:45:25 AM
Author: decodelighted


''K'' would have been the original poster''s opinion. ''J'' was something the appraiser thought was possible. I still believe the title is completely fair and that consumers have a right to their opinions and to express their concerns without being personally criticized.

Gotta agree with Mara on this one.

Yes, consumers have the right to express their opinions.......but when you express your opinions *in a public place* that is intended to stimulate discussion, it''s just not reasonable to expect that everyone will agree with you, and it''s unreasonable to expect that other who don''t agree with you shouldn''t have an equal right to say so.

If someone wants his/her opinion or assertion to go unchallenged, an open discussion forum isn''t the best medium for that.

No one "personally criticized" the OP.....they didn''t say he was being mean-spirited, slanderous, or any other such thing. They simply disagreed with how it was expressed, and it''s their right to say so.

 

[aljdewey]

On a related note, quick question for Rich S. and RockDoc....

The poster notd that the master set of the appraiser had an E, H, K. Is that standard? I guess I always thought that a master set contained a stone of each color grade.

In your professional opinion and experience on the job, what is the minimum that an appraiser should have in his master set to adequately fulfill customer needs?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/5/2006 1:45:25 AM
Author: decodelighted


As to the popular ''2x appraisal'' amount ... it''s just that: ''popular'' ... not in every case for sure and savvy consumers do ask for ''replacement value'' or more ''realistic'' appraisals to save on insurance. But I *personally* would not be thrilled to find a stone I paid $7500 for appraised even in the most stringent terms at $9K. That''s just me. I expect to ''do better''.

If you expect to "do better", then maybe it''s better to work with an appraiser who isn''t familiar with pricing online.

When we bought my stone, the price for it was $5998......the appraisal for it was $7700. That wasn''t 2x either, but Rich S. (who appraised my stone) noted I could easily replace online again for far less than retail and if he put a retail replacement, I would pay more for insurance.

Do I think that I "could have done better" just because I didn''t appraise at double the stone cost? Nope......I listened instead to what he said about my stone. TOP H, TOP SI2, amazing cut - a blazing stone and I really made a great pick. THAT is what mattered to me.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 2/5/2006 1:54:33 PM
Author: aljdewey
On a related note, quick question for Rich S. and RockDoc....

The poster notd that the master set of the appraiser had an E, H, K. Is that standard? I guess I always thought that a master set contained a stone of each color grade.

In your professional opinion and experience on the job, what is the minimum that an appraiser should have in his master set to adequately fulfill customer needs?

I was wondering the same thing, Al. I always thought they had a full set but can see that it would be cost prohibitive as Richard said before. But that was at the one carat mark. Looking forward to hearing the answer to this.

 

[Demelza]

My understanding was that appraisers only needed a range of colors (e.g. E, H, J, M, etc.). I don''t think I would expect an appraiser to have a diamond in every color from D to Z. Even in a half carat size, that could be quite pricey and probably unnecessary. I''ll be interested to hear what the appraisers say about this.

 

[dimonbob]

“I asked how many WF diamonds he has seen and his reply was "5 " a week.”

I am sorry but this particular appraiser does not and has never seen 5 WF diamonds in any week. It is possible that he has seen 5 AGS diamonds in a week but now from WF.

The appraiser in question is supposed to have a CGA title which is an AGS title. The requirements for a CGA title is to have a complete lab which includes an AGS graded set of master diamonds. The CGA title requires not three but five or more AGS graded master diamonds. I just went to the AGS website and looked up appraisers and he is not listed.

I agree that something is not right about his masters. Appraisers are not rich people but three 1ct master diamonds would mean a considerable amount of money for an appraiser to have tied up in “lab equipment”. GIA can afford 1ct masters but I do not know any independent appraisers that can afford them.

Measurements: AGS uses a Sarin machine to record measurements on the diamonds they grade. If you send the same diamond to anybody else, including WF, that has a Sarin machine the number will not match. The Sarin machine is not yet an exact measuring device but it is the best technology available for now. Does the appraiser have a Sarin machine? If he does, did he calibrate it before measuring your diamond? If he does not then he used a Leverage Gauge and/or a table gauge. This is the old way of measuring diamonds and not near as accurate.

I would take Rich’s or RocDoc’s free offer or you can send it to D.Atlas.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/5/2006 3:38:44 PM
Author: dimonbob

“I asked how many WF diamonds he has seen and his reply was '5 ' a week.”

I am sorry but this particular appraiser does not and has never seen 5 WF diamonds in any week. It is possible that he has seen 5 AGS diamonds in a week but now from WF.

Funny that this came up, because I said the same thing to Mara earlier today. The OP said that he chose an appraiser near him, and I see from the OP's profile that he's in MN. I thought "wow, WF is selling 5 diamonds a week to folks in MN? Gee, that's a lot!" I got the feeling that the appraiser was maybe overstating just a bit....along the lines of "OH, YEAH....I'm expeirenced with those - see em all the time. Routine."

OP also said he expected that the appraiser would be impressed because it was an ACA. WF sells more than ACA diamonds (ES stones and brokered stones).

I was especially surprised to read this from the appraiser too: "His response about the symmetry was that AGS isn't as good of a report as the GIA. And that my stone as an AGS 0 would be a GIA of 1"

That would make me even a little more suspect.....what does "an AGS0 would be a GIA of 1" mean? GIA didn't even grade cut until recently, and even if they did........that kind of statement seems like a really loose, blanket type of statement. It's also departs greatly from what we've heard here from the many appraisers that participate.

Based on those asssertions from the appraiser, I personally would feel the need to verify with another appraiser myself. I just get the feeling from the comments that he's inclined to a bit of overstatement, and it would make me feel more comfortable getting yet another opinion elsewhere.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 2/5/2006 3:12:41 PM
Author: kaleigh

Date: 2/5/2006 1:54:33 PM
Author: aljdewey
On a related note, quick question for Rich S. and RockDoc....

The poster notd that the master set of the appraiser had an E, H, K. Is that standard? I guess I always thought that a master set contained a stone of each color grade.

In your professional opinion and experience on the job, what is the minimum that an appraiser should have in his master set to adequately fulfill customer needs?

I was wondering the same thing, Al. I always thought they had a full set but can see that it would be cost prohibitive as Richard said before. But that was at the one carat mark. Looking forward to hearing the answer to this.

what is a full set D to Z or ?

i still don't believe the appraiser use 1 ct real diamonds,imagine the cost

the local appraiser i went to use .50 ct diamonds.he had E-G-I-K-M colors for masters.he look at 2 stones for me, one was GIA H ,the other one was AGS H. he put his I color side by side and he said...this is better than I,then he put his G color side by side and he said...nope this stone is not white enough to be a G,so your stone is an H.

 

[Kaleigh]

I didn''t mean D-Z, that''s crazy.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/5/2006 4:23:17 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 2/5/2006 3:12:41 PM
Author: kaleigh

Date: 2/5/2006 1:54:33 PM
Author: aljdewey
On a related note, quick question for Rich S. and RockDoc....

The poster notd that the master set of the appraiser had an E, H, K. Is that standard? I guess I always thought that a master set contained a stone of each color grade.

In your professional opinion and experience on the job, what is the minimum that an appraiser should have in his master set to adequately fulfill customer needs?

I was wondering the same thing, Al. I always thought they had a full set but can see that it would be cost prohibitive as Richard said before. But that was at the one carat mark. Looking forward to hearing the answer to this.

what is a full set D to Z or ?

i still don't believe the appraiser use 1 ct real diamonds,imagine the cost

the local appraiser i went to use .50 ct diamonds.he had E-G-I-K-M colors for masters.he look at 2 stones for me, one was GIA H ,the other one was AGS H. he put his I color side by side and he said...this is better than I,then he put his G color side by side and he said...nope this stone is not white enough to be a G,so your stone is an H.

See, I don't know. I guess I always thought that a master set would at least have to have every other color in D-J range (so D, F, H, J) in it to cover the colorless/near colorless ranges, since that's where you're paying the most premium for color. I don't know....hence the reason for my asking Rich/RD.

On the 1 ct masters....that's the other thing that just make me feel a bit suspect on it. It seems most appraisers are saying that's unusual, so I'd have to wonder about this myself.

I guess I'm just feeling that the combination of a few things here would set off my internal alarms. The "I see five WF stones a week" (which I find a bit incredible), the "AGS0 would be GIA1", and the 1 ct. master stones (which would be unusual)......all of those things would likely make me want to verify elsewhere.

He may be totally on the up and up, and maybe all those claims are possible.....but it would enough to make me have doubts, and if so, I'd personally need to resolve those doubts by getting another appraisal or expert opinion.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 2/5/2006 1:54:33 PM
Author: aljdewey
On a related note, quick question for Rich S. and RockDoc....

The poster notd that the master set of the appraiser had an E, H, K. Is that standard? I guess I always thought that a master set contained a stone of each color grade.

In your professional opinion and experience on the job, what is the minimum that an appraiser should have in his master set to adequately fulfill customer needs?

I believe the AGS require a set of 4 diamond masters.

I do know that MANY people grading diamonds use standard graded diamonds, and/or CZ''s to use as master stones.

AGS requires the use of diamonds and the diamonds need to be non-fluoresencent, and ideal cut and VS Clarity or better.
The set has to be "spaced" properly too.


My set was graded in 1984, when I purchased them. Most of the stones a "split grades" which sell for a premium.
They are light 1/2 carat stones.

The ranges of the report at that time are as follows:

E-F F-G G H-I I-J K-L K-M

Since AGS now has opened its own lab, the standards have changed slightly. My set has bruted girdles, which at the time was acceptable. Recently I took my set to Richard''s when Marty was there delivering his SAS 2000.

We graded the stones, and there was evidence of "tweezer dirt" on them. To remove this "dirt" the diamonds have to be boiled in sulfuric acid, which is a rather dangerous process. This week they are going to be boiled professonally, and then the girdles faceted, which is the current requirement of AGS for its labs. (CGA''s and ICGA''s).



On my recent visit with Richard and Marty, in Sarasota, we ran my master set with Richard''s new SAS 2000, and Marty said most of them would probably grade a hair better once they were cleaned, re-girdled and regraded.

I also brought "Camille" my Chameleon diamond and that was tested as being a natural diamond.

My next trip I''ll be taking my fancy color natural diamonds. A red, orange, green, violet and silver one to run it''s paces with Butthead, and to re-test the master set after it is boiled and re-girdled. Then we will compare the results of the SAS with AGS''s results when they are regraded.


Hopefully Richard will be going to the AGS meeting in April, and bring Butthead with him.

As for which stones to have it is a personal choice. One that is controlled by budget.
It used to be rather uncommon to see a diamond that was less than N color, hence the "spread" of stones from D-M pretty much covered what we would commonly be given to test.


Back in 1984 my master set cost about $ 6000.00. Now, it is probably at least doubled in its cost, maybe more.

Having a properly graded master set is imperative, in both mine and AGS''s opinion. This year I will spend about $ 1200.00 for the re-girdling, cleaning, re-grading to keep the set up to snuff.

Hope this answers your questions for me. If you have more, just ask.


Rockdoc

 

[solange]

In light of Diamond Bob's response, I would not trust anything this appraiser has told you. I think you should ask for your money back and send the stone for a "real" appraisal from one of the highly regarded appraisers who responded on this site.

 

[RockDoc]

RE: 5 WF stones a week ??? In Minnesota?

I have people having stones sent in from all over the country, and some out of the country, and I don''t see 5 WF stones per week on a regular basis.

Using the resources here, there is ONE listed appraiser in MN. I looked at their website and they do not list a non contact measuring item of equipment.

I am not sure how accurate his statement about the angles was, and without an OGI, Sarin or Helium, I''m not sure what that statement, if made was based on. Perhaps the purchaser will let us in on that.

Rockdoc

 

[diamondstud]

I spoke with Bob from WF this afternoon, who was generous enough to offer his time. He made me feel much better about my purchase and for that I am grateful. He eased my mind about my purchase - even on Superbowl Sunday.

To make things clear, this appraiser was not CGA. He is GG ASG NAJA. I want to iterate that I only compared the diamonds he had brought forth to me and cannot know for sure what they were. They may not be 1ct E H or K. They were rather big ( but not as much as the 1.24), 2 of which had more color than the first stone he compared and I can only say what he told me they were. Also, the only reason I brought this to him was to verify the stone (stage 1) and have my final setting appraised when it is complete (stage 2) in case I had my diamond set elsewhere other than WF. The number of appraisal appts were built into the price so I figured why not. I read to have it appraised as loose, which I did. The purpose of this post was to get an in sight into the appraisal descrepancy, what I saw, give a synopsis of it and to let you know of my experience. From the posts I am comfortable that AGS and WFs'' coincide with what the diamond is.

I plan to get a hold of you sometime tomorrow Rich.


thanks

scott

 

[diamondstud]

i would also state this appraiser has been helpful from the beginning and acted professional and objective. He gave me my hour, answered my questions and what I have written is what he said ( I can''t remember everything). He told me what he thought, and it isn''t what I was expecting to hear. However, I am not going to judge a his integrity based on one appraisal.

scott

 

[fire&ice]

A red flag immediately went up w/ the 5 stones from WF. For clarification from the poster, did the appraiser specifically say he saw 5 a week from WF or 5 *ideal* or AGS stones a week?

 

[diamondstud]

I asked: " how many WF diamonds do you see" He replied he had seen a lot, and about 5 a week. I dont know if they were ideal or not.

scott

 

[Jelly]

Perhaps he thought you meant, "how many diamonds do you see a week?" not necessarily Whiteflash diamonds. Unless he lives in Houston, I can''t imagine that many WF diamonds being in circulation in one area.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 2/5/2006 7:22:06 PM
Author: diamondstud
I asked: '' how many WF diamonds do you see'' He replied he had seen a lot, and about 5 a week. I dont know if they were ideal or not.

scott

5 a week, that''s what struck me as odd. Perhaps he see''s 5 ideal ( or near ideal ) diamonds a week but certainly not all from WF. I''m just glad you are taking Rich up on his very kind and generous offer. Then you will know without a doubt what is the true grading of your lovely stone.

 

[strmrdr]

Iv been reading this thread but didnt have much to add.
Sorry to hear your having some hassles with what should be a happy purchase.
If it was me id take Richard or rockdoc up on his offer and have him do a full insurance appraisal if the color checks out, which I think it will, and your keeping it.
They both provide enough paperwork that your insurance company has no wiggle room with a replacement which is always a great thing to have.

 

[solange]

After reading a few disturbing stories here about appraisers, I am wondering just how knowledgeable and accurate some of them are.
Now, with the grading changes, it makes things even more confusing. Many appraisers do not have the proper equipmentor training and are either using zircons or possibly inferior stones for comparison.
There are several appraisers who post here frequently and who appear to be very scholarly and scientifically oriented. Perhaps those, such as RockDoc, Richard Sherwood, David Atlas, Denver Appraisers and a few others are the only ones you can really trust to do an accurate appraisal.
I was not satisfied with the Pricescope listed appraiser who did my appraisal. It probably is as important to shop for an appraiser as it is to shop for a diamond because you can really be misled, as may have occurredin this case.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

If the appraiser is the one on Pricescope''s list for Minnesota, he does not list a master diamond set among his equipment.

Instead he lists "Gemoro Master Comparison Registered CZ Color Grading".

Perhaps he has a diamond set but has not yet added it to his equipment list.

If he is using cz masters, then as I suggested before, that could be part of the problem. As RockDoc points out, it''s more difficult color grading with cz''s. They are better than nothing, but do not offer as precise grading as diamond masters do.

I''m looking forward to checking the diamond''s color grade.

 

[Jelly]

I checked over this appraiser''s website. He mentions Pricescope on there...perhaps he''d like to come on this thread and comment.

He can clarify his stance on GIA vs. AGS, seeing 5 ACA stones per week, using 1 carat diamonds as masters, etc.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 2/6/2006 2:56:58 AM
Author: Richard Sherwood
If the appraiser is the one on Pricescope''s list for Minnesota, he does not list a master diamond set among his equipment.

Instead he lists ''Gemoro Master Comparison Registered CZ Color Grading''.

Perhaps he has a diamond set but has not yet added it to his equipment list.

If he is using cz masters, then as I suggested before, that could be part of the problem. As RockDoc points out, it''s more difficult color grading with cz''s. They are better than nothing, but do not offer as precise grading as diamond masters do.

I''m looking forward to checking the diamond''s color grade.

I am thinking about the issue of using CZs as Masters.....

In that normal CZ''s have yellow fluoresence, stronger in Short Wave UV, I wonder if in some sets if the yellow fluoresence in them would have some visual affect in lighting with some UV influence.

I think an interesting experiment might be to grade one of the GemOro CZ sets using Butthead, and the Gran seeing what the results are. Of course even better would be if the appraiser would submit his set for you and I to review and see what the results ended up being.

AGS of course had the presence of thought to mandate that all AGS members doing color grading of diamond had actual diamonds to use as masters and that they were graded to both GIA and AGS standards.

Did AGA make that requirement as well? Think they did, but not sure.

Perhaps Leonid could add to the appraiser''s resources the information on the appraiser''s color master sets, but it would need to be verified by having the appraiser submit copies of the stone grading papers from the set. That would certainly be an important advantage for consumers that review the resource section in Appraising the Appraiser.

It would also be an advantage to list details of the appraiser''s Color Vision testing as well. A scan of the certificate issued.

Solange certainly raised a good point in this thread above.

Rockdoc

 

[solange]

Thank you for commenting on my statement above about appraisers, RockDoc. Frankly, after my own experience with a Pricescope listed appraiser and reading some about others, I find the matter very upsetting.

Now, after reading of the topic, way above my head, about the new cut evaluation changes and all the details involved, I do not think I would be as eager to purchase a stone because, although my stone was sold as Ideal cut and I am certain it met those requirements when I bought it from Whiteflash almost two years ago, it may now be downgraded, as I understand, since the girdle is medium to thick, although this does not seem to affect the spread.

My GIA report is dated January,2004 so if I wanted the additional information now provided, I would have to resubmit the stone, unmounted, I presume, which I am not about to do. It was difficult enough to make what I thought was an informed decision at the time and I implicitly trust Brian at Whiteflash as to all the information he gave me about the stone which the appraiser confirmed.

However, I was dissatisfied with the way the appraisal was done and now question it further. I never was shown test stones nor do I know whether he used zircons or properly selected diamonds. His price was high and it was money thrown out.

I do not know enough about the difference between brilliance, fire,scintillation.etc. nor can I understand much about lighting and tilt. I thought i knew enough to make this costly purchase based on all information available at the time. Now I am wondering whether I still have a stone that would be rated Ideal cut by any of the new standards with additional information coming out constantly and even experts disagreeing.

I wonder how all this new information will be incorporated and how it will affect the value of stones graded in the past and possibly over-rated or improperly graded by appraisers who do not possess the proper equipment or have the necessary training to perform these services.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 2/6/2006 1:03:30 PM
Author: solange
Thank you for commenting on my statement above about appraisers, RockDoc. Frankly, after my own experience with a Pricescope listed appraiser and reading some about others, I find the matter very upsetting.

Now, after reading of the topic, way above my head, about the new cut evaluation changes and all the details involved, I do not think I would be as eager to purchase a stone because, although my stone was sold as Ideal cut and I am certain it met those requirements when I bought it from Whiteflash almost two years ago, it may now be downgraded, as I understand, since the girdle is medium to thick, although this does not seem to affect the spread.

My GIA report is dated January,2004 so if I wanted the additional information now provided, I would have to resubmit the stone, unmounted, I presume, which I am not about to do. It was difficult enough to make what I thought was an informed decision at the time and I implicitly trust Brian at Whiteflash as to all the information he gave me about the stone which the appraiser confirmed.

However, I was dissatisfied with the way the appraisal was done and now question it further. I never was shown test stones nor do I know whether he used zircons or properly selected diamonds. His price was high and it was money thrown out.

I do not know enough about the difference between brilliance, fire,scintillation.etc. nor can I understand much about lighting and tilt. I thought i knew enough to make this costly purchase based on all information available at the time. Now I am wondering whether I still have a stone that would be rated Ideal cut by any of the new standards with additional information coming out constantly and even experts disagreeing.

I wonder how all this new information will be incorporated and how it will affect the value of stones graded in the past and possibly over-rated or improperly graded by appraisers who do not possess the proper equipment or have the necessary training to perform these services.

Well Solange....

What''s the best way to make you understand more and feel better about your purchase and the dissatisfaction you justifiably experienced with your appraisal?


Hopefully, in May the new AGS software will be distributed and your stone can be analyzed to the newer standards.

In the hopes and interest of having you feel a lot better about your purchase and appraisal, if you hop a plane and come down to Boca ( should be cheap to do that) after we have the software, I''ll go over everything from soup to nuts about you stone with you here, and I''ll do it in the interest of letting you see the differences and learning lots more, as a "gift".
No charge.

From reading the prior posts you''ve made, you sound like you have a very interesting pet rock, and would be a lot of fun, showing you in person all the procedures and methods in analyzing things for you thoroughly.

Probably you''d be here for at least one or two days. The only expense would be for the master setter that I have remove and reset the stone after we analyzed it. If it''s in prongs it wouldn''t cost much to do that.

So if you''d like to come once the software is here, I''d be happy to have you.


Rockdoc

 

[solange]

What a fabulous offer, RockDoc. Of course i would not expect you to do this at no cost. In fact it would be worth paying for such an experience. I have several pieces of jewelry to be reappraised and I love Boca.

As to my stone, I still feel I got a fabulous buy on it and I trust Brian at at Whiteflash implicitly He said it was hard to find an eye clean SI2 in this size and cut. I have no question in my mind that I got a great price and the stone looks beautiful to me which is all that is important. However, it would be so interesting to see how all these new gadgets work and to better understand the grading process and see if my stone still fits into the Ideal cut range. Even if it doesn't i feel a did well.

I will certainly come down some time after you have implimented your new system.
Thanks again for the offer.