Are These Two Reports For The Same Diamond?

[longwood50]

I purchased a stone that supposedly had a GIA cert. It sure appears to be the original GIA cert to me. It also came with a more recent EGL cert. I am wondering if these two certs really are for the same diamond. The rating is higher with the EGL which is no big deal since I know that is always the case. But the symmetry and polish grades are reversed on the two certs and the measurements are off slightly. What is the expert opinion out there. Are these reports for the same diamond?

http://abfmichigan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GIA-Cert.jpg


http://abfmichigan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/EGL-Cert.jpg

 

[rubybeth]

Eh, grading is in the eye of the beholder. The carat weight and angles/percentages are so close, I doubt they could be for different diamonds. Not an expert, but my $.02.

 

[Christina...]

no clarity plot for the EGL?

 

[longwood50]

no clarity plot for the EGL?

The only plot is the one just below the red hearts & arrows if you click on it to zoom in you can see the inclusions that they plotted.

 

[denverappraiser]

Seems pretty likely. Just out of curiosity, which one is cheaper?

 

[rubybeth]

Seems pretty likely. Just out of curiosity, which one is cheaper?

He is not comparing, he has both the old GIA cert and the newer EGL cert for the one stone he purchased.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Looks nice! Hopefully you paid based on the GIA report!

 

[longwood50]

Seems pretty likely. Just out of curiosity, which one is cheaper?

He is not comparing, he has both the old GIA cert and the newer EGL cert for the one stone he purchased.

That is correct, I got both certs with the diamond. It confuses me that the clarity plotting seems a bit different, the angles are off just a bit and lastly, why would someone get a recent EGL cert on a diamond that they already had a GIA cert on? I did not know of the EGL cert until I picked up the stone and was given both.

 

[denverappraiser]

Seems pretty likely. Just out of curiosity, which one is cheaper?

He is not comparing, he has both the old GIA cert and the newer EGL cert for the one stone he purchased.

That is correct, I got both certs with the diamond. It confuses me that the clarity plotting seems a bit different, the angles are off just a bit and lastly, why would someone get a recent EGL cert on a diamond that they already had a GIA cert on? I did not know of the EGL cert until I picked up the stone and was given both.

EGL –> H/VS2/medium blue
GIA –> J/SI1/strong blue

….. That’s why they or their supplier ordered a second grading.

Using Rap as a price guide, that’s close to a factor of 2 difference, and that’s not counting a ding for the ‘strong’ blue issue. Fluro doesn’t affect the beauty or even really the price all that much but SB makes a stone wickedly difficult to sell. Those 3 upticks in grading offset a lot of ‘discount’ for the EGL brand. Note the dates are about 6 months apart with GIA first and the EGL only a few weeks ago. Apparently they tried and failed to sell on GIA for a while, bought the EGL and moved it right away. It was possibly a coincidence since it sounds like you bought based on the GIA, but it’s the reason EGL is in business.

It’s a game that dealers play. The stone is whatever it is, and it sounds like it’s lovely in your case, but the pedigree is what sets the price and the purpose of the game is to sell for as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Some people buy for the facts, some buy for the fantasy. Whoever was selling this one was prepared to sell to either.

 

[longwood50]

Seems pretty likely. Just out of curiosity, which one is cheaper?

He is not comparing, he has both the old GIA cert and the newer EGL cert for the one stone he purchased.

That is correct, I got both certs with the diamond. It confuses me that the clarity plotting seems a bit different, the angles are off just a bit and lastly, why would someone get a recent EGL cert on a diamond that they already had a GIA cert on? I did not know of the EGL cert until I picked up the stone and was given both.

EGL –> H/VS2/medium blue
GIA –> J/SI1/strong blue

….. That’s why they or their supplier ordered a second grading.

Using Rap as a price guide, that’s close to a factor of 2 difference, and that’s not counting a ding for the ‘strong’ blue issue. Fluro doesn’t affect the beauty or even really the price all that much but SB makes a stone wickedly difficult to sell. Those 3 upticks in grading offset a lot of ‘discount’ for the EGL brand. Note the dates are about 6 months apart with GIA first and the EGL only a few weeks ago. Apparently they tried and failed to sell on GIA for a while, bought the EGL and moved it right away. It was possibly a coincidence since it sounds like you bought based on the GIA, but it’s the reason EGL is in business.

It’s a game that dealers play. The stone is whatever it is, and it sounds like it’s lovely in your case, but the pedigree is what sets the price and the purpose of the game is to sell for as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Some people buy for the facts, some buy for the fantasy. Whoever was selling this one was prepared to sell to either.

Here is the strange part. The stone was listed with the GIA and not EGL cert. It was my understanding that fluorescence in a I, J, or lower color stone was a positive. I read on GIA that the Fluorescence makes the lower grades appear whiter. I just noticed the slight difference in angles and the clarity plots seemed to be different. THE GIA cert shows more pronounced twining wisps, while the EGL does not, or am I reading it incorrectly. I can tell you I have viewed the stone under a microscope and can see very few inclusions.

 

[denverappraiser]

I’m not picking on your stone, and I’m not picking on your dealer. Someone owned that stone for a while and has been trying to sell it as a GIA. It’s pretty common to list it with a separate sales company since most dealers don’t want to own a lot of 3 caraters in inventory anyway so there’s almost certainly a 3rd party involved here. That’s who sent it to EGL. When you bought it, they sent the dealer everything they had and the dealer passed them along to you. They could have shredded the unused report and usually do in order to avoid exactly this confusion but your guys thought you might like it.

You’re seeing the tip of an iceberg that gets discussed quite a bit here. Actually, your case is a pretty good example and there aren’t that many solidly documented examples like this. Make a T chart. On the plus side the supposed ‘wholesale’ on a 3.14/H/VS2 vs. a J/SI1 goes up by something like $25,000. That’s not chump change. The fluro is better, and the twinning wisps are gone. On the downside you’ve got a less regarded brand. Polish and symmetry flipped so that's basically a wash. The fees to get that report were a few hundred dollars and it took a week or so. OK. Frankly, I’m surprised it took them 6 months to do it. The salespeople don’t have to use it if they don’t want because the GIA still exists, they can sell it however they want. Yours chose GIA. Others may have chosen EGL. We don’t know, but that’s what it was for.

I don't have a problem with the look of fluro, especially in that color range, but 'strong' makes stones hard to sell. That's a marketing problem, not a gemological one. You weren't the client here. Some dealer was the client. Their objectives are clear ... they want to sell things, and they want to sell them as quickly, as easily, and for as much money as possible. That's not a criticism, it's what dealers do for a living. From that perspective, 'strong blue' is decidedly a negative.

 

[longwood50]

I’m not picking on your stone, and I’m not picking on your dealer. Someone owned that stone for a while and has been trying to sell it as a GIA. It’s pretty common to list it with a separate sales company since most dealers don’t want to own a lot of 3 caraters in inventory anyway so there’s almost certainly a 3rd party involved here. That’s who sent it to EGL. When you bought it, they sent the dealer everything they had and the dealer passed them along to you. They could have shredded the unused report and usually do in order to avoid exactly this confusion but your guys thought you might like it.

You’re seeing the tip of an iceberg that gets discussed quite a bit here. Actually, your case is a pretty good example and there aren’t that many solidly documented examples like this. Make a T chart. On the plus side the supposed ‘wholesale’ on a 3.14/H/VS2 vs. a J/SI1 goes up by something like $25,000. That’s not chump change. The fluro is better, and the twinning wisps are gone and the polish and symmetry grades flipped. On the downside you’ve got a less regarded brand. The fees to get that report were a few hundred dollars and it took a week or so. OK. Frankly, I’m surprised it took them 6 months to do it. The salespeople don’t have to use it if they don’t want because the GIA still exists, they can sell it however they want. Yours chose GIA. Others may have chosen EGL. We don’t know, but that’s what it was for.

I don't have a problem with the look of fluro, especially in that color range, but 'strong' makes stones hard to sell. That's a marketing problem, not a gemological one. You weren't the client here. Some dealer was the client. Their objectives are clear ... they want to sell things, and they want to sell them as quickly, as easily, and for as much money as possible. That's not a criticism, it's what dealers do for a living. From that perspective, 'strong blue' is decidedly a negative.

Thanks, I take it from your observation that the two reports are for the same stone. I can tell you that under the microscope I had a difficult time seeing any inclusions at all. I purchased the stone from a dealer out of state. The local jeweler who examined the stone and took possession of it until the payment was made had the comment that the GIA was a bit exuberant on the plotting scope with the twining wisps. I know I could see with a microscope some very minor inclusions but I honestly could not see the number of twining wisps or the length that were shown on the GIA report. I could see some but not very many truly microscopic almost like dust particles more representative of what is shown on the EGL report.

 

[denverappraiser]

I haven't seen the stone at all but it does seem pretty likely, particularly given the context.

EGL tends to use a lot less red ink on their papers. I think it's a concession to people who went to US public schools where they learned that the teacher writing in red ink is BAD rather than just a color.

Plotting is an element of the exam that's done entirely by humans, and humans vary from one to the next in how they do it. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

In addition to Neil's words of wisdom - many retailers will stock and sell stones with the EGL paper - so often dealers will list a stone with the GIA paper because its more web fungible, and send the email of EGL certs to clients who they know like to sell that.

I think GIA is going a bit nuts with their twinning wisp plots - Neil, have they got tougher plotting these?

 

[denverappraiser]

I think GIA is going a bit nuts with their twinning wisp plots - Neil, have they got tougher plotting these?

Most people can't see twinning wisps even when pointed out to them under the microscope and they are among the least offensive inclusions available. The problem is that there isn't a line thickness or red-saturation variable in the plotting diagrams. They're all the same color of ink and they're all the same line weight. Given that it's a map, not an illustration, this makes sense and it shouldn't make a bit of difference but customers are funny about this sort of thing and red ink is seen as bad. I suspect if they were inventing the system now instead of 80 years ago we would be using a different color. Are they worse now than they used to be? I don't think so but I haven't really done a study either. I suppose it's possible. It's just a total non-issue.