Another Help with Diamond Purchase Thread

[sp3]

I purchased this diamond as part of a pair of earrings and am interested in what experts here think about it:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...f-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3767377

I’m also wondering why there is Brian Gavin on the GIA laser inscription. If the above diamond is a keeper for earrings, any suggestion on what diamond to match it. Budget $5K or less.

Thanks!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I purchased this diamond as part of a pair of earrings and am interested in what experts here think about it:
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...f-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3767377

I’m also wondering why there is Brian Gavin on the GIA laser inscription. If the above diamond is a keeper for earrings, any suggestion on what diamond to match it. Budget $5K or less.

Thanks!

The first lab report was from AGS and then someone send the stone to GIA. IOW. This stone went through two grading labs.

 

[holeydonut]

Looks like the stone has an AGS from BGD as well.
104077286006

https://agslab-content.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/pdf/104077286006-PGR.PDF

 

[OoohShiny]

Looks like JA have taken it as a trade-in??

I have tried but can't pull up a historic diamond listing on the BGD site for the stone, but I am guessing at the URL...

Could be worth getting in touch with BGD to ask about it!

 

[sp3]

Thank you all for your quick responses.
I bought this diamond earlier this year from JA and hoped to find a match for it later on to make a pair of earrings. The stone looks really nice in real life. I didn’t realize that it has an AGS from BGD. Does it mean that I should get another stone from BGD or WF ACA to match it for earrings? That is probably higher than my initial budget of $5K for the second diamond. Also I have recently read some earrings thread on this board and it seems that people prefer 60/60 diamonds for earrings? Anyway I’m thinking about these options:
1. Keep the F stone for earrings and find a match from BGD or WF ACA
2. Keep the F stone for earrings and find a match from less expensive collections such as those at JA
3. Keep the F stone for another purpose like a ring or something where its excellent light performance is more appreciated and find a pair of diamonds (60/60 diamonds?) for earrings with probably lower color and clarity.
Any thoughts?

 

[sledge]

This is too weird. I had to go back and look to make sure this wasn't the same stone, but I was helping someone else with the same GIA/AGS/BGD situation in a different thread.

Reposted for entertainment. Also, notice how GIA graded the clarity differently -- VS2 on the GIA, and SI1 with AGS.

Very odd to see this happen twice, with different stones within a few days of each other.

Attached are PDF and PNG versions of both the GIA and AGS certificates.

Something I would like to point out. Many of us talk about the goofy ways that GIA reports values, why we encourage idealscope and/or ASET's, etc. This is a great time to point out why.

AGS reports are more accurate. Here is a great example:

• Table = 56% per GIA; 54.8% per AGS
• Crown Angle = 34.5 per GIA; 34.7 per AGS
• Pavilion Angle = 40.6 per GIA; 40.7 per AGS
• Lower Girdle Facets = 80 per GIA; 77 per AGS
• Star Facets = 50 per GIA; 52 per AGS
• Girdle = Medium per GIA; Thin to medium per AGS
• Crown Height = 15.5% per GIA & AGS
• Pavilion Depth = 43% per GIA; 42.9% per AGS
• Overall Depth = 61.8% per GIA & AGS

One method in which we can quickly verify angles reported on the GIA certs is to compare them to the AGS proportions chart to get a potential cut grade. While this doesn't ensure this is the cut grade we get, we can get a sense of how well cut the diamond will likely be. Also, we can run an HCA to verify a score of 2 or less. Finally we'd want to request idealscope, ASET and H&A images if they are available.

We have the luxury of knowing this particular stone is an ideal cut, and a true H&A stone as it was previously a BGD stone. Most the time we don't know this when shopping for GIA stones and/or the stone simply does not have such a pedigree.

In this case, using angles from AGS or GIA provide roughly the same analysis. The GIA values are a little less great (two boxes are in excellent, as opposed to all ideal but one excellent using AGS values). However, the AGS proportion charts are also limited in the crown values. We must choose in 0.5 increments so 34.5 or 35.0. I chose 34.5 as it was closest to 34.7.

That said, here are the proportion charts using each set of values:

GIA Proportions:


AGS Proportions (Silly to run this as we know the AGS cert uses advanced 3D modeling that supersedes these old AGS proportions charts -- but I am doing as a matter of practice only. Rarely are we so fortunate to have a cert from both labs to confirm awesomeness.):


Lastly, below are the certifications as I mentioned at the beginning of this post.

 

[sledge]

While some small variances (due to way GIA rounds/averages) exist, one of the major things I noticed different in the AGS and GIA grading reports of the stone you purchased is the reporting of fluorescence:

• AGS = noted as negligible in the notes section and has the Signature series BGD orange logo
• GIA = listed as medium blue on the cert

I bought my fiancee a BGD stone with medium fluorescence. They are marketed as BGD Blue and have a different logo and inscription.

Notice the difference? Below is a cert on the stone I purchased.

 

[TreeScientist]

Reposted for entertainment. Also, notice how GIA graded the clarity differently -- VS2 on the GIA, and SI1 with AGS.

Very odd to see this happen twice, with different stones within a few days of each other.

Um, both certificates show VS2 as the clarity grade...

Looks like JA have taken it as a trade-in??

I have tried but can't pull up a historic diamond listing on the BGD site for the stone, but I am guessing at the URL...

Could be worth getting in touch with BGD to ask about it!

That's what I was thinking. AGS certificate is from 2015, so maybe the original owner traded it in to JA for a bigger stone. I don't think it's too uncommon for stones to be sent for re-grading upon trade-in to make sure that the stone doesn't have any damage.

 

[TreeScientist]

While some small variances (due to way GIA rounds/averages) exist, one of the major things I noticed different in the AGS and GIA grading reports of the stone you purchased is the reporting of fluorescence:

• AGS = noted as negligible in the notes section and has the Signature series BGD orange logo
• GIA = listed as medium blue on the cert

I bought my fiancee a BGD stone with medium fluorescence. They are marketed as BGD Blue and have a different logo and inscription.

Notice the difference? Below is a cert on the stone I purchased.

AGS negligible does not mean that the diamond lacks fluorescence. AGS negligible is the umbrella for both GIA "none" and GIA "faint." It's entirely possible that this stone was borderline between AGS negligible (upper end of GIA "faint") and medium blue, so AGS graded it negligible and GIA graded it as medium blue. Just like color, fluorescence grading is a judgement call, and I imagine it's even more difficult to grade than color. Obviously, it's easy to tell if it's not there at all, but I'm sure that making a call on a stone that is borderline between faint and medium is incredibly difficult.

 

[sledge]

Um, both certificates show VS2 as the clarity grade...

I'm well aware. I was referring to the post I quoted of myself from the other thread -- look through it and you will notice what I said, GIA = VS2 and AGS = SI1.

AGS negligible does not mean that the diamond lacks fluorescence. AGS negligible is the umbrella for both GIA "none" and GIA "faint." It's entirely possible that this stone was borderline between AGS negligible (upper end of GIA "faint") and medium blue, so AGS graded it negligible and GIA graded it as medium blue. Just like color, fluorescence grading is a judgement call, and I imagine it's even more difficult to grade than color. Obviously, it's easy to tell if it's not there at all, but I'm sure that making a call on a stone that is borderline between faint and medium is incredibly difficult.

I'm aware, but I'm not as forgiving or understanding. The issue I have is the stone's value is affected by the variance. We know that stones with fluor trade less than those without (or faint/negligible). So tracking the history it seems logical we can conclude:

• When originally graded by AGS, BGD was able to offer the stone as a Signature series stone and demand a full premium for a stone of it's caliber.
• The original purchaser paid said price/premium established by BGD.
• When the stone was traded, JA likely assessed trade value/credit based on the AGS certification so it should have been higher than a stone marked as medium fluor.
• Or perhaps upon evaluation, JA saw the stone was borderline and considered it medium fluor in its trade assessment as a precaution and de-valued the the trade, making a trade loss even more considerable for the original purchaser.
• What is confusing is why JA would want to have the stone re-graded unless they saw an opportunity to upgrade a characteristic. In the previous example I posted, it made sense -- AGS grade was SI1 clarity and GIA grade was VS2. It made the stone more valuable. So if JA saw something on the OP's stone, it never came to fruition. Instead, it got marked as a medium blue fluor stone, decreasing value.
• So did JA market the stone with price deductions in-place for medium blue fluor, effectively eating the loss of the fluor grading difference? Or did they price & market the stone at the same price as a stone without medium fluor? If the latter, then JA passed over the loss to the OP by not offering a discount on a fluor stone.
• If the stone is re-sold by the OP under GIA certification then the stone will trade at a value less than of a stone with none/faint/negligible fluor.
• If the stone is re-sold by the OP under AGS certification then the stone will trade at a higher value because it has a better fluor grade. Maybe that requires a re-certification with AGS, or a seller that chooses to ignore the GIA cert and market the older AGS cert. Not implying the OP would do this -- just saying it would be possible.

What interests me more is that with the difficulties in grading fluor, we are forgetting that color can be equally as hard by the labs. Some argue the UV lights used in grading increases the color grade as the UV light activates the fluor and gives a "false positive" of sorts. Yet, on this particular cert, we see no color variation between the two -- yet, they did detect a difference in fluor.

More good reading on this subject matter here:
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence

In particular here are some items I extracted that I thought was relevant to this conversation:

Blue fluorescence can also mask some yellow color in a diamond making it appear visually whiter. This is commonly thought to be a benefit for diamonds of lower color. However, in most indoor lighting environments the UV component is not strong enough to activate the fluorescent effect.

The masking effect can be activated during color grading in the lab, leading to concerns among the trade of over-grading of color. Modern color grading is done in lighting environments where the diamonds are analyzed very close to fluorescent tubes containing a UV component. This can result in the diamond being given a higher color grade than that of its true body color.

At different times throughout history blue fluorescence has been treated differently by the market. Today the characteristic generally lowers diamond values, usually in proportion to the strength of fluorescence. Diamonds of high color and clarity are penalized more severely than those in the lower ranges. In lower color and clarity combinations fluorescence has little effect on values, and some diamonds may even trade a little higher with this property.

 

[TreeScientist]

I'm well aware. I was referring to the post I quoted of myself from the other thread -- look through it and you will notice what I said, GIA = VS2 and AGS = SI1.




I'm aware, but I'm not as forgiving or understanding. The issue I have is the stone's value is affected by the variance. We know that stones with fluor trade less than those without (or faint/negligible). So tracking the history it seems logical we can conclude:

• When originally graded by AGS, BGD was able to offer the stone as a Signature series stone and demand a full premium for a stone of it's caliber.
• The original purchaser paid said price/premium established by BGD.
• When the stone was traded, JA likely assessed trade value/credit based on the AGS certification so it should have been higher than a stone marked as medium fluor.
• Or perhaps upon evaluation, JA saw the stone was borderline and considered it medium fluor in its trade assessment as a precaution and de-valued the the trade, making a trade loss even more considerable for the original purchaser.
• What is confusing is why JA would want to have the stone re-graded unless they saw an opportunity to upgrade a characteristic. In the previous example I posted, it made sense -- AGS grade was SI1 clarity and GIA grade was VS2. It made the stone more valuable. So if JA saw something on the OP's stone, it never came to fruition. Instead, it got marked as a medium blue fluor stone, decreasing value.
• So did JA market the stone with price deductions in-place for medium blue fluor, effectively eating the loss of the fluor grading difference? Or did they price & market the stone at the same price as a stone without medium fluor? If the latter, then JA passed over the loss to the OP by not offering a discount on a fluor stone.
• If the stone is re-sold by the OP under GIA certification then the stone will trade at a value less than of a stone with none/faint/negligible fluor.
• If the stone is re-sold by the OP under AGS certification then the stone will trade at a higher value because it has a better fluor grade. Maybe that requires a re-certification with AGS, or a seller that chooses to ignore the GIA cert and market the older AGS cert. Not implying the OP would do this -- just saying it would be possible.

What interests me more is that with the difficulties in grading fluor, we are forgetting that color can be equally as hard by the labs. Some argue the UV lights used in grading increases the color grade as the UV light activates the fluor and gives a "false positive" of sorts. Yet, on this particular cert, we see no color variation between the two -- yet, they did detect a difference in fluor.

More good reading on this subject matter here:
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence

In particular here are some items I extracted that I thought was relevant to this conversation:

Oh, don't get me wrong, I would be upset if my own stone was graded as negligible and came back as medium blue from another lab. That's one of the reasons I don't like that AGS did away with the faint grade and lumped none and faint together as negligible. At least when you're buying a GIA "none" you know you're getting a stone with no (or very, very minimal) fluorescence 99.9% of the time.* I kinda get where AGS was coming from when they did it, as a large portion of the market is so opposed to fluorescence that they dock stones with "faint" grades even though faint fluor has no visible impact on the diamonds appearance. But still, from a "mind clean" perspective of wanting to "Know what I got," I would much prefer the none and faint grades be separated.

I do think the color grading may be an issue in some instances. Since GIA and AGS use standard mid-latitude daylight lighting conditions in their color grading cabinets, which of course contains the same intensity of UV light as sunlight, then I'm sure there has to be some variability in color grade designation introduced by fluorescence. I don't buy the new HRD "study's" claim that any intensity of fluor, even strong fluor, has absolutely now impact on color grading whatsoever. I'm calling bull.

*I know there's been a few cases where the wavelengths used in GIA/AGS UV bulbs do not cause excitation in a particular stone, resulting in a "none" or "negligible" grade, but the stone reacts strongly under a different type of UV bulb. This seems extremely rare though, so I put a guesstimate of 99.9% of the time.

 

[sp3]

I'm well aware. I was referring to the post I quoted of myself from the other thread -- look through it and you will notice what I said, GIA = VS2 and AGS = SI1.




I'm aware, but I'm not as forgiving or understanding. The issue I have is the stone's value is affected by the variance. We know that stones with fluor trade less than those without (or faint/negligible). So tracking the history it seems logical we can conclude:

• When originally graded by AGS, BGD was able to offer the stone as a Signature series stone and demand a full premium for a stone of it's caliber.
• The original purchaser paid said price/premium established by BGD.
• When the stone was traded, JA likely assessed trade value/credit based on the AGS certification so it should have been higher than a stone marked as medium fluor.
• Or perhaps upon evaluation, JA saw the stone was borderline and considered it medium fluor in its trade assessment as a precaution and de-valued the the trade, making a trade loss even more considerable for the original purchaser.
• What is confusing is why JA would want to have the stone re-graded unless they saw an opportunity to upgrade a characteristic. In the previous example I posted, it made sense -- AGS grade was SI1 clarity and GIA grade was VS2. It made the stone more valuable. So if JA saw something on the OP's stone, it never came to fruition. Instead, it got marked as a medium blue fluor stone, decreasing value.
• So did JA market the stone with price deductions in-place for medium blue fluor, effectively eating the loss of the fluor grading difference? Or did they price & market the stone at the same price as a stone without medium fluor? If the latter, then JA passed over the loss to the OP by not offering a discount on a fluor stone.
• If the stone is re-sold by the OP under GIA certification then the stone will trade at a value less than of a stone with none/faint/negligible fluor.
• If the stone is re-sold by the OP under AGS certification then the stone will trade at a higher value because it has a better fluor grade. Maybe that requires a re-certification with AGS, or a seller that chooses to ignore the GIA cert and market the older AGS cert. Not implying the OP would do this -- just saying it would be possible.

What interests me more is that with the difficulties in grading fluor, we are forgetting that color can be equally as hard by the labs. Some argue the UV lights used in grading increases the color grade as the UV light activates the fluor and gives a "false positive" of sorts. Yet, on this particular cert, we see no color variation between the two -- yet, they did detect a difference in fluor.

More good reading on this subject matter here:
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence

In particular here are some items I extracted that I thought was relevant to this conversation:

To make this less confusing and answer some of your questions, I purchased the stone from JA as a GIA graded diamond with F color, VS2 clarity and medium fluorescence, not knowing its history as an AGS graded BGD. I paid around $4700 for this stone but really don’t know whether I got a discount for it having medium fluorescence.

The stone has a small black crystal on the table which I cannot see with naked eyes but can identify with a 10X loupe after a bit of searching. As for your theory of JA probably seeing some upgrade opportunities in this diamond’s characteristics, clarity is probably not one of them and VS2 is quite appropriate in my opinion. But then I’m just a consumer, not a pro. Perhaps JA just wanted the diamond regraded upon trade-in as TreeScientist mentioned.

I am keeping this diamond and looking for another one to pair with it.

 

[yssie]

To make this less confusing and answer some of your questions, I purchased the stone from JA as a GIA graded diamond with F color, VS2 clarity and medium fluorescence, not knowing its history as an AGS graded BGD. I paid around $4700 for this stone but really don’t know whether I got a discount for it having medium fluorescence.

The stone has a small black crystal on the table which I cannot see with naked eyes but can identify with a 10X loupe after a bit of searching. As for your theory of JA probably seeing some upgrade opportunities in this diamond’s characteristics, clarity is probably not one of them and VS2 is quite appropriate in my opinion. But then I’m just a consumer, not a pro. Perhaps JA just wanted the diamond regraded upon trade-in as TreeScientist mentioned.

I am keeping this diamond and looking for another one to pair with it.

JA is a large operation. I highly doubt they’re analyzing individual sub-1ct trade-ins as opportunities - the answer to “why the regrade” is most likely exactly what OP stated here: just part of JA’s process.

Three thoughts:
1. It doesn’t look like the stone was sold as a JA TrueHearts, though it would certainly qualify. @sp3?
2. The stone could likely be insured as a BG CBB Signature stone... Which, judging from current BG inventory, both increases value and restricts “replacement with like kind and quality” to your benefit.
3. This stone is an excellent example of why it’s important to at least get imagery/video prior to purchase and not simply trust that certain grades will be eyeclean at certain sizes.

 

[sp3]

It was not sold as a JA TrueHearts. I imagine it would have been more expensive had it been advertised as such. I normally don’t look for their TrueHearts because the heart pattern for most of them is not up to the standard of super ideal cut that people here often talk about. Thanks to the education that I got from this board! Why pay more for JA TrueHearts when they do not quite meet the standard of the premium cut. JA is good for my ideal cut search, but if one really wants to get super ideal, look somewhere else.

 

[yssie]

Thank you all for your quick responses.
I bought this diamond earlier this year from JA and hoped to find a match for it later on to make a pair of earrings. The stone looks really nice in real life. I didn’t realize that it has an AGS from BGD. Does it mean that I should get another stone from BGD or WF ACA to match it for earrings? That is probably higher than my initial budget of $5K for the second diamond. Also I have recently read some earrings thread on this board and it seems that people prefer 60/60 diamonds for earrings? Anyway I’m thinking about these options:
1. Keep the F stone for earrings and find a match from BGD or WF ACA
2. Keep the F stone for earrings and find a match from less expensive collections such as those at JA
3. Keep the F stone for another purpose like a ring or something where its excellent light performance is more appreciated and find a pair of diamonds (60/60 diamonds?) for earrings with probably lower color and clarity.
Any thoughts?

(1) or (2) - I wouldn’t sink money into two new lower-value stones when you’ve got one stone available “for free”. That is - dissection of advantages of nuances of light return across various RB proportions types pales in comparison to having the opportunity to use a top-of-the-line stone you've already got!

Looks like both WF and BG in-house mates would run you ~6k, which is considerably more than what you're looking to spend. You could certainly find well-matched unbranded options from JA or other vendors within budget, and when you're wearing them - with your face separating them - there is zero possibility of anyone noting differences in light return flavour, style, or quantity.

So my question would be... How much is the "mind clean" aspect of knowing you've got two precision-cut H&A stones worth to you?

 

[sp3]

Thanks, yssie. I’ll stay within budget and explore unbranded options. Haha... I’m not going to wear them. I’m buying these for my mom as a gift.

 

[HappyNewLife]

AGS negligible does not mean that the diamond lacks fluorescence. AGS negligible is the umbrella for both GIA "none" and GIA "faint." It's entirely possible that this stone was borderline between AGS negligible (upper end of GIA "faint") and medium blue, so AGS graded it negligible and GIA graded it as medium blue. Just like color, fluorescence grading is a judgement call, and I imagine it's even more difficult to grade than color. Obviously, it's easy to tell if it's not there at all, but I'm sure that making a call on a stone that is borderline between faint and medium is incredibly difficult.

This is my AGS negligible Fluor stone

 

[WinkHPD]

Also I have recently read some earrings thread on this board and it seems that people prefer 60/60 diamonds for earrings?

I would alter the above statement to read, "Some people prefer..."

My experience is that people who prefer the incredible beauty, sparkle and dispersion of an ideal cut diamond on their fingers, prefer it in their ears too.

Wink

 

[gm89uk]

https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/.../0.903-f-vs2-round-diamond-ags-c-104077286006

The original stone on BG

 

[sp3]

Thank you all. I stayed within budget and paired this stone with a 0.91 ct xxx E/VS2 57% table, 61.8% depth and 35.0/40.8 combo from BN ($4300). I cannot distinguish the color difference between the two stones. They both look bright and very white. The F appears to have slightly more sparkles when they are next to each other. But as yssie mentioned, I cannot recognize any difference when my mom wear them.