Confused. Does this diamond have fluorescence?

[alirov]

Hi Everyone,

I just purchased two diamonds to compare before I decide on which one I will finally go with for an engagement ring. One is a GIA graded diamond and the other is an AGS. The GIA certificate says that the diamonds has No Fluorescence. The AGS certificate says that fluorescence is Neglible and the James Allen website (where I purchased the diamond from) says that the diamond has no fluorescence. I'm assuming Negligible is equivalent to None.

However, I'm shining a UV light onto the diamonds and they're reacting very differently. The AGS diamond looks pretty much like another diamond in my possession with strong fluorescence. Could this have been graded incorrectly? Or is there a chance the wrong diamond was shipped to me?

Here are the two diamonds in question:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.90-carat-g-color-si2-clarity-ideal-cut-sku-367939
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.90-carat-k-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-366734

I was assuming that black mark on the AGS diamond would be easy to see (but could be covered with a prong) but I can't see it at all! That's what made me think if there's a chance I received the wrong diamond.

Top view - no UV light:


Top view - UV light:


Angled view - no UV light:


Angles view - UV light:


GIA diamond next to AGS diamond - no UV light:


GIA diamond next to AGS diamond - UV light:

 

[kenny]

That does not look negligible to me.

Contact Jamesallen.
Show them the pic.

 

[Johannes89]

hehe yeah thats AT LEAST medium, if not even more

 

[treasurehunter]

strong or very strong

 

[alirov]

I went ahead and contacted James Allen so we'll see what they say. Are grading errors like this common or is it more likely I received a different diamond than expected?

 

[Cricketcat]

Wow. Does it have a laser inscription on the girdle with the AGS number?

 

[yssie]

I went ahead and contacted James Allen so we'll see what they say. Are grading errors like this common or is it more likely I received a different diamond than expected?

I don't know about AGS' reputation, but a fair number of tradepeople consider GIA's fluor assignments unreliable... so it is not difficult to believe that stones might be mis-graded. Can you post a close-up that clearly shows the faceting?

I've posted this on PS before; a vendor took it for me (presume 365nm).
One of the largest pair of sidestones has "faint" fluor by the GIA, the other has "none".
Both of the middle pair of sidestones from JA have "none" per their GIAs.


ETA: If fluor is important to you your vendor should be able to vet your options for you

 

[alirov]

I don't know about AGS' reputation, but a fair number of tradepeople consider GIA's fluor assignments unreliable... so it is not difficult to believe that stones might be mis-graded. Can you post a close-up that clearly shows the faceting?

I'll go ahead and take some more photos tonight. Could you post an example photo of what you mean by a close-up of the faceting?

 

[alirov]

Here are some more photos. I'm not sure if it shows the facets as requested. I can take more pics if it would be helpful.

 

[telephone89]

any word back? I'd say that's a tad more than 'none' or 'negligible' lol!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

That is pretty scary that that stone was misgraded that drastically. It matters because the price should be lower with fluorescence that strong, but I consider that a very good thing. They need to have it regraded and then sell it to you at a lower price. I love the fluorescence!

 

[alirov]

Other than the fluorescence issue (which I don't dislike...just the discrepancy with the certificate worries me), I'm pretty happy with the diamond. I'm going to send it back to James Allen for a gemologist to look at one more time and see if anything else is misgraded.

I asked about a lower price and was told it would have to be regraded with fluorescence showing to merit the lower price. So it has to say that on the certificate and not just be able to be seen visually. And they generally don't get stones regraded. If they find differences between the report and the diamond, they "reject" the diamond, send it back to their diamond partnered office and help the customer find a new diamond. I'm thinking it won't be possible to get it regraded by them then and I do like the diamond otherwise. Any ideas/advice?

 

[VRBeauty]

On the video the GIA-graded diamond looks much cleaner than the AGS-graded diamond. I take it this isn't the case in real life?

 

[alirov]

On the video the GIA-graded diamond looks much cleaner than the AGS-graded diamond. I take it this isn't the case in real life?

I agree, they look like they're in two different worlds in the videos. In real life, they look pretty similar (other than the color difference). I notice a white/clear inclusion in the AGS stone when looking through the pavilion (side view) but it looks completely eye clean from the top. No black inclusions and definitely no dark inclusion near the girdle as seen in the video.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My goodness, I just clicked the link on the G SI2 AGS diamond and I wouldn't buy it under any circumstances. It is a GREAT example of a stone that may fall into ideal cut territory based on angles, etc., but boy it is not a visually symmetrically cut diamond and the inclusions are awful (and may affect light return). The GIA K looks a little better cut-wise, but I would not drop to a K for an engagement ring, if that is what this diamond is for. Drop to the .80s and get an I or J cut with a little better clarity as well.

Absolutely do not buy that stone without regrading and a discount in price. You would be overpaying. You can find a better diamond.

Maybe get an idealscope image on this one. A lot of the SI1 stones have inclusions under the table which would bug me.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.91-carat-j-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-370421

 

[alirov]

May I ask what's so asymmetrical about that diamond? I'm new at this but the images on the AGS certificate look alright to me. And I have an idealscope for the diamond and that doesn't look bad either (I can post that up later).

I have to admit, I had your reaction too when I saw the inclusions. It was within my budget (it cost me $3100) though and I decided to go for it and be able to compare it in person with other diamonds (I've been through 5 diamonds so far to narrow down what I like). Like I said, I'm not sure if I have the right diamond at all but all of those inclusions in the video are not visible whatsoever with the naked eye (except for one by the girdle which will easily be covered up by a prong).

To my naked eye, the light performance is as good if not better than all of the other diamonds I've looked at as well (and I thought the idealscope image and the light performance map on the AGS certificate pointed to the same). I still have the thought that I may have a different diamond than expected (either that or I've been very pleasantly surprised).

 

[Ideal_Polish]

Hi there! I think it's very difficult to compare fluorescence in your images from home to how Labs and other Vendors might check for it. The distance and power of the light source matters greatly. When I view a diamond with no fluor. it appears almost invisible to my camera. That your diamond with none appears so clearly gives me an indication that the exposure may be too bright, the light source to close, or the light source too powerful. This same reason could be why your diamond which does show some fluor. appears so strong. AGS's category of Negligible includes diamonds with no fluor. and some that do. Negligible refers to if the fluor. is slight enough not to have a negative impact under normal viewing conditions. Others here can correct me if that's not quite right.