Discrepancy on WF Site?

[mathnerd88]

Hello guys,

I just bought a diamond from WF. I noticed on their site that they posted a diamond with the report saying that it is from November 29, 2017.

Upon running the check on AGS site, the report date says Jan 10, 2018.

Is there a reason for this? Was this diamond used that someone returned back to WF?

From WF site:


From AGS:

 

[whitewave]

You should call and ask them, but my guess is it was traded back in and they recertified it with the new date.

This isn’t a problem. All diamonds are old so to speak and once you verify nothing bad happened to it, it’s good to go.

This is just my guess.

If we like more liberal upgrade policies, we should appreciate that we might get a diamond someone else traded in as well.

Edit, on second thought since the dates are so close together, this could be a different thing than someone traded in a diamond. Call them.

 

[mathnerd88]

You should call and ask them, but my guess is it was traded back in and they recertified it with the new date.

This isn’t a problem. All diamonds are old so to speak and once you verify nothing bad happened to it, it’s good to go.

This is just my guess.

If we like more liberal upgrade policies, we should appreciate that we might get a diamond someone else traded in as well.

Edit, on second thought since the dates are so close together, this could be a different thing than someone traded in a diamond. Call them.

I've always thought traded in diamonds were recut into smaller stones to be reused. I never knew they resold diamonds that were traded in. In this case, shouldn't it be disclosed as secondhand, and not brand new?

I'm not saying that I'm against used diamonds. I'm just saying it sounds unethical to me if they're selling brand new diamonds alongside with secondhand diamonds and the pricing is the same. Of course I don't believe this, but I am curious...

EDIT:
I did contact them, and they said it looks like they sent it back for a regrade. They said they'll get back to me with more information.

 

[rockysalamander]

I've always thought traded in diamonds were recut into smaller stones to be reused. I never knew they resold diamonds that were traded in. In this case, shouldn't it be disclosed as secondhand, and not brand new?

Why on earth would someone waste a larger diamond to recut to smaller? Tiffany claims they do this, but I'll eat may hat if they can ever prove it. Some huge percentage of diamonds (40-60+%) are previously owned. That matters if you buy a diamond with an old grading report. Then, you don't know if there is any damage that makes the diamond no longer 'as graded.' Assuming the vendor receiving the stone does not see any damage (chips usually), reputable sellers send the diamond back to a grading lab to confirm that it does not have any flaws that change it grading. If the vendor receiving the diamond sees a chip or the like, and assuming they still take it in trade, they would send the stone to be repaired (small fix). A full recut is a major deal and you lose a lot of weight (=money).

Assuming this is the reason for the recert by AGS (preowed) and you have cultural/religious constraints, then talk with WF. I know this can be a concern in certain cultures. Tell them you have this concern and need the stone to not be preowned. They can ensure you buy a stone they trace from the rough. It just might take a bit of time to get what you want.

 

[cokitty]

I've always thought traded in diamonds were recut into smaller stones to be reused. I never knew they resold diamonds that were traded in. In this case, shouldn't it be disclosed as secondhand, and not brand new?

No, that is the purpose of recertifying the stone. They are ensuring that the stone is still in perfect condition, same cut score etc.

 

[whitewave]

I’m tagging people I think might know how to answer that. I really don’t know because to me, if it is in the same condition as sold the first time, that is all that matters to me. To me, used implies wear and tear and that doesn’t apply to diamonds in the same condition as when first purchased.

The only reason a diamond would be recut would be if someone traded in a poorly cut diamond that could be recut to an ideal or super ideal stone. (We have people here who have done that with heirloom diamonds.)


@diamondseeker2006 @rockysalamander @cflutist

 

[mathnerd88]

No, that is the purpose of recertifying the stone. They are ensuring that the stone is still in perfect condition, same cut score etc.

I see. In the world of electronics, this isn't the case. Even once the box has been opened and item never used, it cannot be sold as new. I just didn't know this doesn't apply to diamonds. Learn something new everyday, I guess.

 

[mathnerd88]

Also, does the diamond inscription number on the diamond/report stay the same with each regrading/resubmission?

 

[PintoBean]

I see. In the world of electronics, this isn't the case. Even once the box has been opened and item never used, it cannot be sold as new. I just didn't know this doesn't apply to diamonds. Learn something new everyday, I guess.

Diamonds are ancient stuff. Like really ancient. Today's super ideal could have been yesterday's old mine cut and before that a rough hanging out at in Egypt with Cleopatra.

 

[whitewave]

Also, does the diamond inscription number on the diamond/report stay the same with each regrading/resubmission?

I don’t know; my guess is yes.

I have traded in studs with Blue Nile for bigger ones, so I am ok with how trades work.

 

[KristinTech]

Folks in the trade have also posted that there are times when a stone may need to be repolished or a very small issue fixed (not necessarily a full recut). It may barely change the dimensions or the carat weight, but it is sent back to be documented.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, traded in diamonds are regraded by the vendor to show current condition. I'd say there is zero way to know the history of most diamonds. However, in the case of superideal cuts, we know they have been cut relatively recently. Yet some have been traded in since people do upgrade. As long as the diamond is in the condition on the current report, it is sold at current new pricing by the vendor who offers trade-in and sometimes buy back policies.

That said, the stone reports in question have dates only around 6 weeks apart, so it is likely the stone was returned within the return period and wasn't really what I'd consider "used".

 

[Wewechew]

Yes, traded in diamonds are regraded by the vendor to show current condition. I'd say there is zero way to know the history of most diamonds. However, in the case of superideal cuts, we know they have been cut relatively recently. Yet some have been traded in since people do upgrade. As long as the diamond is in the condition on the current report, it is sold at current new pricing by the vendor who offers trade-in and sometimes buy back policies.

That said, the stone reports in question have dates only around 6 weeks apart, so it is likely the stone was returned within the return period and wasn't really what I'd consider "used".

Is it common to recertify after a return?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Is it common to recertify after a return?

I have no first hand knowledge about that, but vendors want to be certain a diamond is in the same condition as they sold it, so I would think it is possible that they may sometimes do it.

 

[KristinTech]

I have no first hand knowledge about that, but vendors want to be certain a diamond is in the same condition as they sold it, so I would think it is possible that they may sometimes do it.

This actually just happened, I believe, with a CBI diamond. I’m trying to locate the post, but I believe someone bought a CBI, but very quickly traded up due to finding “the one.” The poster (John Pollard?) referred to it as “an additional layer of security” or something to that effect—having it sent back to be regraded as an extreme measure of caution. But he didn’t say exactly that, because then the post would have shown up in my search just now! There were two certificates with dates close together.

 

[kindred]

^ I believe that John said they sent it back for regarding even though the diamond never left the store! But it had been marked as sold in their system.

 

[KristinTech]

^ I believe that John said they sent it back for regarding even though the diamond never left the store! But it had been marked as sold in their system.

Then I’m not crazy! I’ve been reading a lot of upgrade threads recently, and that particular post caught my attention.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hello guys,

I just bought a diamond from WF. I noticed on their site that they posted a diamond with the report saying that it is from November 29, 2017.

Upon running the check on AGS site, the report date says Jan 10, 2018.

Is there a reason for this? Was this diamond used that someone returned back to WF?

From WF site:


From AGS:

Hi Mather,
I apologize fore any concern this has caused you. There are a few reasons why a diamond might go back to the lab for an certificate update. I am not in the office at the present time to get the specific information on this diamond, but we will gladly supply you with that info as soon as possible.

All diamonds that are traded up are sent back to the lab to verify they are in original condition and in so doing the date of the new evaluation is used when the report is reprinted. In this way we can have total confidence that we are representing the diamond accurately.

Whenever any diamond is re-cut or repaired it is sent in for a brand new report (not just the update described above), and it gets a new number and of course new date.

In this case it appears the update did not get reflected on our site. That should get fixed.

Because of the extreme durability of diamonds, our industry has protocols that may be different from other industries in terms of labeling of re-certified, open box etc. A stereo that has gone out to a customer may have been exposed to conditions that would degrade the product in some subtle ways that a re-inspection might not be able to detect. With a diamond, it is in the condition on the lab report as of the date of the report.

There is really no way to be certain when a diamond actually came out of the ground or what its ownership history has been. And on a basic level, it is irrelevant (again, because diamonds don't degrade simply with time the way other products do). But on a more personal level, because of the emotional aspects of diamonds it DOES matter to some buyers if a diamond is pre-owned. We are always happy to share whatever history of the diamond we have specific knowledge of.

 

[WinkHPD]

If the vendor receiving the diamond sees a chip or the like, and assuming they still take it in trade, they would send the stone to be repaired (small fix). A full recut is a major deal and you lose a lot of weight (=money).

While this may be true for many dealers, those of us here who are working with super ideal cut diamonds would never even consider a "small fix." The only proper way to fix a super ideal cut diamond is to polish each and every facet to preserve the precise faceting that results in the larger flashes of both white and colored light that come from the larger internal virtual facets created as a result of that precise faceting.

Also, does the diamond inscription number on the diamond/report stay the same with each regrading/resubmission?

If no damage is discovered that would require a recut I would say yes. There would be no reason to polish out the inscription and do a new one.

Is it common to recertify after a return?

I can not speak for other cutters, but I know that it is completely standard operating procedure for Crafted by Infinity, White Flash and Brian Gavin Diamonds. When HPD takes back a diamond, I personally inspect it under the microscope and then unmount it and inspect it again. Once that is completed, I send it to John Pollard the US Executive Director of Crafted by Infinity Diamonds, who also inspects it and then orchestrates the return to AGSL for a new proprietary diamond grading report. Though even the tiniest of "new blemishes" would never make it past the eagle eye of both myself and John, neither HPD or CBI would never consider our eyes to be sufficient protection for our clientele. HPD, as a client of CBI deserves to know with 100% certainty that what HPD is representing to its clients is 100% true, HPD's clients deserve the protection of a completely new AGSL Proprietary Light Performance Diamond Grading Report. This report allows our clients to get full protection for their insurance, so that a lost or damaged diamond is covered without any equivocation by the insurance company, as the insurance company will have in writing exactly what it is that they are covering in their policy.

In my opinion, it would be ethically indefensible to do less. It is but one of the reasons that I chose Crafted by Infinity to be my supplier of choice, and also just another reason why I respect WF and BGD as worthy competitors as well as friends.

Wink

 

[Wewechew]

While this may be true for many dealers, those of us here who are working with super ideal cut diamonds would never even consider a "small fix." The only proper way to fix a super ideal cut diamond is to polish each and every facet to preserve the precise faceting that results in the larger flashes of both white and colored light that come from the larger internal virtual facets created as a result of that precise faceting.



If no damage is discovered that would require a recut I would say yes. There would be no reason to polish out the inscription and do a new one.



I can not speak for other cutters, but I know that it is completely standard operating procedure for Crafted by Infinity, White Flash and Brian Gavin Diamonds. When HPD takes back a diamond, I personally inspect it under the microscope and then unmount it and inspect it again. Once that is completed, I send it to John Pollard the US Executive Director of Crafted by Infinity Diamonds, who also inspects it and then orchestrates the return to AGSL for a new proprietary diamond grading report. Though even the tiniest of "new blemishes" would never make it past the eagle eye of both myself and John, neither HPD or CBI would never consider our eyes to be sufficient protection for our clientele. HPD, as a client of CBI deserves to know with 100% certainty that what HPD is representing to its clients is 100% true, HPD's clients deserve the protection of a completely new AGSL Proprietary Light Performance Diamond Grading Report. This report allows our clients to get full protection for their insurance, so that a lost or damaged diamond is covered without any equivocation by the insurance company, as the insurance company will have in writing exactly what it is that they are covering in their policy.

In my opinion, it would be ethically indefensible to do less. It is but one of the reasons that I chose Crafted by Infinity to be my supplier of choice, and also just another reason why I respect WF and BGD as worthy competitors as well as friends.

Wink

That it wonderful information. I never was sure if a diamond listed on WF, BGD, or your site that had an older cert was because it was a trade in, or because it had been sitting in inventory a while. You just answered my question

 

[mathnerd88]

Hi Mather,
I apologize fore any concern this has caused you. There are a few reasons why a diamond might go back to the lab for an certificate update. I am not in the office at the present time to get the specific information on this diamond, but we will gladly supply you with that info as soon as possible.

All diamonds that are traded up are sent back to the lab to verify they are in original condition and in so doing the date of the new evaluation is used when the report is reprinted. In this way we can have total confidence that we are representing the diamond accurately.

Whenever any diamond is re-cut or repaired it is sent in for a brand new report (not just the update described above), and it gets a new number and of course new date.

In this case it appears the update did not get reflected on our site. That should get fixed.

Because of the extreme durability of diamonds, our industry has protocols that may be different from other industries in terms of labeling of re-certified, open box etc. A stereo that has gone out to a customer may have been exposed to conditions that would degrade the product in some subtle ways that a re-inspection might not be able to detect. With a diamond, it is in the condition on the lab report as of the date of the report.

There is really no way to be certain when a diamond actually came out of the ground or what its ownership history has been. And on a basic level, it is irrelevant (again, because diamonds don't degrade simply with time the way other products do). But on a more personal level, because of the emotional aspects of diamonds it DOES matter to some buyers if a diamond is pre-owned. We are always happy to share whatever history of the diamond we have specific knowledge of.

Thank you for the update! I took a look at both reports and the one listed from the earlier date did not have the "A Cut Above" while the new report does. I was wondering if the diamond was considered "non-ACA" before but then became ACA later?

The one I traded in did have "ACA" on the report from over 2 years ago.

 

[mathnerd88]

Old Report:


New Report:

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi Mathnerd,
We have reviewed our history of this diamond. It is not a trade up.

As many people here know, Whiteflash has standing production agreements with a sight holder manufacturer who has been cutting the bulk of our inventory for about 18 years. However, even the biggest sight holders do not have the rough to cut enough of every size and color/clarity combinations they might have customers for. In order to have the deepest and broadest assortment for our clientele, we do some fill-in buying from other factories that do high level precision cutting. We typically prefer them to submit any diamonds they feel will be interesting to us to the AGS Lab first so that we have a baseline to understand if a diamond has potential to meet either our A CUT ABOVE or our Expert Selection category. Upon determining that a diamond is interesting, we have it shipped in so that it can be imaged and evaluated by the Whiteflash review team. If it is a stone that we decide to buy for our stock, we send it back to the lab for verification and updated report. If the stone passes all qualifications and specifications for A CUT ABOVE (as in this case), a proprietary report is ordered. Normally, only the latest report should appear on our site or on the AGS report check site. Because these things involve technology, sometimes the wires get crossed.

I am sorry for the confusion this has caused and I hope this clears up any concerns you might have about the diamond you purchased. If you have further questions do not hesitate to contact me.

 

[mathnerd88]

Thank you for the update!