Diamond from the right rough??

[rodmichael]

I have been searching for a diamond (for an e-ring) for the past couple months. I have heard just about everything from jewelers and diamond brokers. The pushy, the friendly, the suggestive, the rude, you name it. Each had their own somewhat subjective, somewhat objective, value to add. So I thought I had it all figured out, I did my homework and then viewed 20 or so diamonds, did my homework again and, repeated the process until I bought the diamond described below....

So I needed to confirm and compare the diamond which I purchased online. I felt comfortable enough to buy what looked good on paper, the diamond scored well and looked great in person. So I took it to a few locals who seemed objective and trustworthy. The first jeweler graded the diamond one color grade lower, from an E to an F, and from an SI1 to an S12. He first did this with a loop at my request, and then used an electronic machine in the back room (I witnessed) to grade the color.

Ok, no big deal. I wasn''t concerned about the marginal color or clarity. The stone is eyeclean and the color is still magnificent. The jeweler, of course, tells me he can find a bigger stone with better specs for less money. I have been told that by the other 3 jewelers two weeks ago. Still waiting......

I was close to getting the stone set when I decided to visit a diamond broker here in Chicago. To make a long story (visit) short, I put my diamond next to his and the difference was noticeable even to the naked eye. My E* colored (.8 hca) H&A stone didn''t compared to any of his G, H, or I colored GIA excellent cut stones. 61, 58''s and 2-4 HCA scored, VS1-VS2''s. (btw, he was at least several hundred cheaper)

What about the rough? Are all roughs the same? Could my diamond be from an inferior rough?

Why does my diamond look great on paper, even in comparison to the other EGL''s or GIA''s excellent cuts I viewed, but doesn''t compare with this jeweler''s stones? (he explained, now can you


thanks in advance,

Michael (with 14 days left, the clock is ticking

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi Michael,

I wonder what the jeweler explained. Since I cannot.

Anything to do with the rough? No. Diamonds react to light, and there is no such thing as inferior rough, that reacts differently.

So, let me get this straight. You have compared a lot of stones on paper, and chose this one. Then, you compared the stone in person, even with other GIA-excellents, and your stone still was the best.

Then, this diamond broker suddenly introduces a number of stones that all score markedly lower on the HCA, and they all outshine your stone.

That sounds weird: you have compared your stone in various places, and it is the best, and at this one place, it suddenly is the worst.

On the other hand, you did not give any info on your stone. Which lab? Who says it is H&A? Pics?

Live long,

 

[Upgradable]

Is your stone clean? Might it have fingerprints all over it by now?

 

[rodmichael]

Thanks for your reply.

here are the specs for my stone:

Round
Carat weight: 1.17
Cut: Hearts & Arrows Ideal
Color: E
Clarity: SI1
Certificate: AGS

Depth: 61.2%
Table: 55.3%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.77*6.80*4.16

Crown Angle: 34.1°
Crown %: 15.20
pavilion Angle: 40.7°
pavilion %: 42.80

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/2/2009 12:30:54 PM
Author: Upgradable
Is your stone clean? Might it have fingerprints all over it by now?

Ditto.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/2/2009 11:48:33 AM
Author:rodmichael
I have been searching for a diamond (for an e-ring) for the past couple months. I have heard just about everything from jewelers and diamond brokers. The pushy, the friendly, the suggestive, the rude, you name it. Each had their own somewhat subjective, somewhat objective, value to add. So I thought I had it all figured out, I did my homework and then viewed 20 or so diamonds, did my homework again and, repeated the process until I bought the diamond described below....

So I needed to confirm and compare the diamond which I purchased online. I felt comfortable enough to buy what looked good on paper, the diamond scored well and looked great in person. So I took it to a few locals who seemed objective and trustworthy. The first jeweler graded the diamond one color grade lower, from an E to an F, and from an SI1 to an S12. He first did this with a loop at my request, and then used an electronic machine in the back room (I witnessed) to grade the color.

Ok, no big deal. I wasn''t concerned about the marginal color or clarity. The stone is eyeclean and the color is still magnificent. The jeweler, of course, tells me he can find a bigger stone with better specs for less money. I have been told that by the other 3 jewelers two weeks ago. Still waiting......

I was close to getting the stone set when I decided to visit a diamond broker here in Chicago. To make a long story (visit) short, I put my diamond next to his and the difference was noticeable even to the naked eye. My E* colored (.8 hca) H&A stone didn''t compared to any of his G, H, or I colored GIA excellent cut stones. 61, 58''s and 2-4 HCA scored, VS1-VS2''s. (btw, he was at least several hundred cheaper)

What about the rough? Are all roughs the same? Could my diamond be from an inferior rough?

Why does my diamond look great on paper, even in comparison to the other EGL''s or GIA''s excellent cuts I viewed, but doesn''t compare with this jeweler''s stones? (he explained, now can you


thanks in advance,

Michael (with 14 days left, the clock is ticking

Most Diamonds are accompanied with a story....

, this jeweler might have had a great (brilliant) story to go with the GIA, EGL..., etc....

 

[rodmichael]

from the jeweler:

1.16
H color
VS1
excellent cut grade
depth: 61.5
table: 58
crown angle: 33.5
pav angle: 41.4
no culet

ex polish, sym, and no fluor.

(price aside) $7300ish, versus around $7500 for my aforementioned stone

 

[rodmichael]

Date: 1/2/2009 12:34:21 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/2/2009 12:30:54 PM
Author: Upgradable
Is your stone clean? Might it have fingerprints all over it by now?

Ditto.

Eye clean for both. And yes, both stones were cleaned on spot

 

[prettyarmor]

Well regardless of the "reasons" this jeweler''s stone looks better, perhaps you should go with it because you don''t want to have this tug in the back of your mind whenever you think about it or look at it.

 

[rodmichael]

Date: 1/2/2009 12:26:35 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hi Michael,

I wonder what the jeweler explained. Since I cannot.

Anything to do with the rough? No. Diamonds react to light, and there is no such thing as inferior rough, that reacts differently.

So, let me get this straight. You have compared a lot of stones on paper, and chose this one. Then, you compared the stone in person, even with other GIA-excellents, and your stone still was the best.

Then, this diamond broker suddenly introduces a number of stones that all score markedly lower on the HCA, and they all outshine your stone.

That sounds weird: you have compared your stone in various places, and it is the best, and at this one place, it suddenly is the worst.

On the other hand, you did not give any info on your stone. Which lab? Who says it is H&A? Pics?

Live long,

see attached for the idealscope

So it doesn''t matter where the rough came from?

Why would a 61.5, 58 table, 33.5 crwn, 41.4 show so well?

 

[rodmichael]

Date: 1/2/2009 1:01:17 PM
Author: prettyarmor
Well regardless of the ''reasons'' this jeweler''s stone looks better, perhaps you should go with it because you don''t want to have this tug in the back of your mind whenever you think about it or look at it.

I am not concerned about having the psychological baggage, having regret or buyers remorse. I am virgo and frugal, so my nature begs me to spend countless hours analyzing to find the right diamond.

My soon-to-be fiance deserves it too

 

[partgypsy]

My answer: your stone was dirty while his were not?

While you are at it, you should be comparing apples to apples. You are comparing an SI1-SI2 diamond to VS1-VS2 diamonds. Some SI inclusions are more visible than others, including what people call "clouds". You may be clarity sensitive.

 

[partgypsy]

Oops I see others have addressed this, and yours was graded as VS, same as his. Have no idea, unless you prefer non-ideal cuts over ideal cuts?

 

[prettyarmor]

I''m so in love with my diamond I haven''t even considered all of this. I have the reports and stuff on it--I just haven''t paid much attention to it.

I think I got a good one though: G VS2 H&A 1.15ct. I don''t know about all those measurements. I have it in the paperwork just not really paid any attention to it.

Best of luck to you in finding just the right stone. I know you will with that tenacity

 

[John P]

Date: 1/2/2009 1:02:50 PM
Author: rodmichael

Why would a 61.5, 58 table, 33.5 crwn, 41.4 show so well?

In a static comparison it should have less robust light performance than the ideal-scope you posted.

Here is a simluation of those broad numbers (58, 41.4, 33.5). Note that it is for general comparison only; minor facets, deviations in average angles, cut precision and brillianteering are unaccounted for. This is a "best case" wireframe scenario and doesn't represent the specific diamond.

 

[John P]

Here is the ideal-scope you posted previously.

Tastes vary of course. There are some people who prefer the look of a dynamite 60/60 to a Near-Tolkowsky, and of course others don''t like round brilliants so much at all. However in my experience with the round shape people do tend to prefer those with the angles most condusive to best overall light return and balance of performance qualities.

 

[DiamanteBlu]

From what you posted I noticed that you are comparing an E/F stone to G, H and I''s and that you seem to prefer the latter group. Is it possible that you just find lower colors more pleasing to your eye?

 

[strmrdr]

What is the lgf% of your diamond?
It is the number on the V shaped facet on the bottom part of the diagram.
What is the lgf% of the other stone?

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 1/2/2009 12:26:35 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hi Michael,

I wonder what the jeweler explained. Since I cannot.

Anything to do with the rough? No. Diamonds react to light, and there is no such thing as inferior rough, that reacts differently.

So, let me get this straight. You have compared a lot of stones on paper, and chose this one. Then, you compared the stone in person, even with other GIA-excellents, and your stone still was the best.

Then, this diamond broker suddenly introduces a number of stones that all score markedly lower on the HCA, and they all outshine your stone.

That sounds weird: you have compared your stone in various places, and it is the best, and at this one place, it suddenly is the worst.

On the other hand, you did not give any info on your stone. Which lab? Who says it is H&A? Pics?

Live long,

Paul - if I read it correctly, Michael did not compare any stones "live" until the moment he went to the broker. He viewed stones separately at the beginning of his search; the rest of his homework was done on paper/online. Which I believe may explain something:

1. The HCA is not particularly predictive of performance. It''s a sieve. Whether it''s a flawed one or not, discussion for another thread.
2. Personal preferences enter the game. Even assuming that Michael''s stone is excellently cut, it may be that he prefers more fire into the equation, whereas his stone is more of a high brightness one...

Michael - BTW it''s not surprising that your E (or F???) stone is a few hundreds more expensive than a G or an H...

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/2/2009 4:06:01 PM
Author: oldmancoyote
Paul - if I read it correctly, Michael did not compare any stones ''live'' until the moment he went to the broker. He viewed stones separately at the beginning of his search; the rest of his homework was done on paper/online. Which I believe may explain something:

1. The HCA is not particularly predictive of performance. It''s a sieve. Whether it''s a flawed one or not, discussion for another thread.
2. Personal preferences enter the game. Even assuming that Michael''s stone is excellently cut, it may be that he prefers more fire into the equation, whereas his stone is more of a high brightness one...

Michael - BTW it''s not surprising that your E (or F???) stone is a few hundreds more expensive than a G or an H...

Hi Coyote,

I had the impression that he did ''live'' comparisons, but I could be wrong.

As for his homework, the quality of his choice logically depends on the quality of his homework. But I do not agree with your explanation.

1. The HCA is predictive of performance, in the sense that it is a best-case-scenario. Indeed, many details not caught by the HCA might still make the stone less performant, but if that idealscope is indeed of that stone, it is an extra indicator that the stone is good. And definitely not so that it might be beaten by the other stones described.

2. Personal preference of course is a factor, but Michael clearly did his homework, and acted upon what he prefers. The jeweler''s stone does not have potential for extra fire, brightness or anything.

For now, I am curious about the story of the jeweler. He could apparently explain why his choices are so much better. Maybe, we can learn something.

 

[rodmichael]

Date: 1/2/2009 4:37:16 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 1/2/2009 4:06:01 PM
Author: oldmancoyote
Paul - if I read it correctly, Michael did not compare any stones ''live'' until the moment he went to the broker. He viewed stones separately at the beginning of his search; the rest of his homework was done on paper/online. Which I believe may explain something:

1. The HCA is not particularly predictive of performance. It''s a sieve. Whether it''s a flawed one or not, discussion for another thread.
2. Personal preferences enter the game. Even assuming that Michael''s stone is excellently cut, it may be that he prefers more fire into the equation, whereas his stone is more of a high brightness one...

Michael - BTW it''s not surprising that your E (or F???) stone is a few hundreds more expensive than a G or an H...

Hi Coyote,

I had the impression that he did ''live'' comparisons, but I could be wrong.

As for his homework, the quality of his choice logically depends on the quality of his homework. But I do not agree with your explanation.

1. The HCA is predictive of performance, in the sense that it is a best-case-scenario. Indeed, many details not caught by the HCA might still make the stone less performant, but if that idealscope is indeed of that stone, it is an extra indicator that the stone is good. And definitely not so that it might be beaten by the other stones described.

2. Personal preference of course is a factor, but Michael clearly did his homework, and acted upon what he prefers. The jeweler''s stone does not have potential for extra fire, brightness or anything.

For now, I am curious about the story of the jeweler. He could apparently explain why his choices are so much better. Maybe, we can learn something.

Thanks again to all of you who took the time to reply.

I will respond shortly.

 

[rodmichael]

Date: 1/2/2009 4:37:16 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 1/2/2009 4:06:01 PM
Author: oldmancoyote
Paul - if I read it correctly, Michael did not compare any stones ''live'' until the moment he went to the broker. He viewed stones separately at the beginning of his search; the rest of his homework was done on paper/online. Which I believe may explain something:

1. The HCA is not particularly predictive of performance. It''s a sieve. Whether it''s a flawed one or not, discussion for another thread.
2. Personal preferences enter the game. Even assuming that Michael''s stone is excellently cut, it may be that he prefers more fire into the equation, whereas his stone is more of a high brightness one...

Michael - BTW it''s not surprising that your E (or F???) stone is a few hundreds more expensive than a G or an H...

Hi Coyote,

I had the impression that he did ''live'' comparisons, but I could be wrong.

As for his homework, the quality of his choice logically depends on the quality of his homework. But I do not agree with your explanation.

1. The HCA is predictive of performance, in the sense that it is a best-case-scenario. Indeed, many details not caught by the HCA might still make the stone less performant, but if that idealscope is indeed of that stone, it is an extra indicator that the stone is good. And definitely not so that it might be beaten by the other stones described.

2. Personal preference of course is a factor, but Michael clearly did his homework, and acted upon what he prefers. The jeweler''s stone does not have potential for extra fire, brightness or anything.

For now, I am curious about the story of the jeweler. He could apparently explain why his choices are so much better. Maybe, we can learn something.

From the right rough to begin with. Any thoughts on the different types of rough or are they all the same?

Is a Canadian diamond the same as an Australian diamond, or one from South Africa?

My eyes must have deceived me, an HCA of 4, versus .08. An H versus and E? The numbers don''t add up!!

what about the rough

 

[beach]

The stones were viewed in a jewelry store and he liked the ones presented to him in that specific lighting... That is not predictive of performance in other everyday situations and lighting... That is one data point and not representative of the diamonds true/global light performance. I have seen some very poor stones perform relatively well in spot lighting and in jewelry stores... As others have said, personal preference is always a factor as well. In the first post alot of jargon was used as well like my stone did not compare...how so? Fire, dispersion, brilliance, scintilation?? Alot of stuff is not very clear to even make an interpretation at this point. How about some more information

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/2/2009 11:41:49 PM
Author: rodmichael
From the right rough to begin with. Any thoughts on the different types of rough or are they all the same?

Is a Canadian diamond the same as an Australian diamond, or one from South Africa?

My eyes must have deceived me, an HCA of 4, versus .08. An H versus and E? The numbers don''t add up!!

what about the rough

We cut our production from various sources of rough, Canadian, Australian, Russian, South-African, ...

The source of a parcel of rough is identifiable for us. In a single rough stone, we cannot identify the source. In a polished stone, we see absolutely no difference because of the source.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

With insufficient data we must speculate.

Did you examine the stones in tweezers so light can get in the back - if so repeat with stones resting in the gap between you fingers so no light can enter tha back.

An oily finger wiped over the table makes a huge difference.

Your stone can be painted or dug out.

 

[denverappraiser]

I have two theories, both of which have been mentioned above. The first is cleaning. With this kind of test it makes a huge difference that all subject stones be sqeaky clean or you’re giving an unfair advantage to one over the other. I’ll take your word for it that this was addressed but there’s still a nagging question in my mind because it’s such an important issue.

The second is the issue of preference. It’s not that hard to tell the difference between an E and an H in the circumstances you describe but it’s not valid to say that E is ‘better’.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 1/2/2009 11:41:49 PM
Author: rodmichael

From the right rough to begin with. Any thoughts on the different types of rough or are they all the same?

Is a Canadian diamond the same as an Australian diamond, or one from South Africa?

My eyes must have deceived me, an HCA of 4, versus .08. An H versus and E? The numbers don't add up!!

what about the rough

I think you are looking in the wrong direction. The only relevant difference in natural diamond crystals (rough type, if you wish) is the amount of nitrogen and/or boron interspersed in the carbon lattice and whether the lattice itself is highly distorted. Oversimplifying, lots of nitrogen (Ia/Ib) = yellow; lots of boron (IIb) = blue; lots of distorion (IIa) = red. Here you are looking at largely colourless diamonds, so without significant crystalline impurities or distortions.

While rough from certain mines will be predominantly of one type (e.g. Argyle diamonds are predominantly IIa - hence the relative abundance of pink/brown/red), the only visible optical property that is affected is colour.

ETA: Whoops - missed Paul's reply before I hit the quote button. Here is one example where practice and theory all match beautifully...

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/2/2009 12:26:35 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hi Michael,

I wonder what the jeweler explained. Since I cannot.

Anything to do with the rough? No. Diamonds react to light, and there is no such thing as inferior rough, that reacts differently.

So, let me get this straight. You have compared a lot of stones on paper, and chose this one. Then, you compared the stone in person, even with other GIA-excellents, and your stone still was the best.

Then, this diamond broker suddenly introduces a number of stones that all score markedly lower on the HCA, and they all outshine your stone.

That sounds weird: you have compared your stone in various places, and it is the best, and at this one place, it suddenly is the worst.

On the other hand, you did not give any info on your stone. Which lab? Who says it is H&A? Pics?

Live long,

Paul, I have an idea as something similar to this happened to me when I sent one of your diamonds to lady who took it to an "independant" appraiser in her area.

She called to tell me that the appraiser told her my diamond was too expensive and recommended that she speak to his friend the diamond vendor. He magically had a couple of diamonds that looked better than yours and she was very disappointed with our stone compared to anothers. (How magically "independant" of her "independant" appraisor, who I would guess received a commission for his "independantness" as well as his charge to her.)

When I got the diamond back I quickly opened the paper thinking that perhaps he had switched them or something, as what she said just did not seem possilbe.

It turned out to be an "or something". Your diamond was covered in grease, probably borrowed from the side of the nose as it also looked like it had makeup powder on it. Thus dirtied it looked tawdry beside any clean diamond.

I should have thought of this when she was telling me what I knew to be impossible, but once I saw the diamond I knew completey how she was snookered.

Michael, is it possilbe the diamond you had in was handled with fingers before being looked at in comparrison to the stones your jeweler showed you?

Of course it is also possible that he has special lighting that affect the better cut stones, did you look at all of the stones in several types of lighting?

It would be interesting to hear his explaination.

Wink

 

[rodmichael]

Thanks, all of you, for taking the time to reply.

Armed with more knowledge, I am going to take a second look at the aforementioned jeweler''s diamonds. I will provide feedback soon thereafter.

kind regards,

Michael

 

[rodmichael]

Thanks for your reply.

Once again, here are the specs for "my" stone:

Round
Carat weight: 1.17
Cut: Hearts & Arrows Ideal
Color: E
Clarity: SI1
Certificate: AGS

Depth: 61.2%
Table: 55.3%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to medium
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.77*6.80*4.16

Crown Angle: 34.1°
Crown %: 15.20
pavilion Angle: 40.7°
pavilion %: 42.80

And the two stones I am considering:

Carat wgt. 1.16
H color
VS1
excellent cut grade
depth: 61.5
table: 58
crown angle: 33.5
pav angle: 41.4
no culet
ex polish, sym, and no fluor.

and

1.20 ct wgt
H color
VS2
excellent cut grade
depth: 61.7
table: 56
crown angle: 35
pav angle: 40.6
no culet
6.78-6.85 x 4.20

$7300-7500 range for each