EGL specs different than apprisal

[metro]

My EGL Mini Report:

Shape: RB
Color: E
Carat: .52
Clarity: SI1 (eye clean)
Measurements: 5.14 – 5.11 x 3.26mm

My Appraisal:

Shape: RB
Color: E
Carat: .67 (estimated)
Clarity:SI1
Measurements: 5.20 x 5.15 x 4.00mm (approximate)
Table: 53.7%
Depth: 77.29%
Girdle: Med
Culet: Closed
Polish: Good
Symmerty: Good
Flor: None (lw) **What does "lw" mean?

Why do they differ in measurements and size?

 

[Ellen]

Did an independant appraisor do this?

I don''t know why there is the discrepancy, or why it says approximate and estimated, but unless it''s a typo (must be), the depth is a way bigger problem...

Can you recheck your numbers please?

 

[Lorelei]

Yikes, ditto Ellen, please recheck that depth! Also we need crown and pavillion angles to help you, normally EGL uses percents which give some idea, but not as accurate as angles.

 

[belle]

is the original mini report for the loose stone and the second report with the stone mounted? if this is the case, the measurements won''t be as accurate once the stone is mounted.

 

[Ellen]

It''s facing up like a .50, could it really be that deep?

And belle, I thought about it being mounted, but that shouldn''t really affect diameter, right?

 

[metro]

All I got with my stone was a mini-EGL report. Looks like the attached example. It doesn''t give too much information.

Shortly after getting my e-ring, I ran off to BB&B and had the ring appraised.

Those numbers are taken from the diamond report appraisal. The ring was appraised in the mounting.

 

[metro]

Pic1

 

[metro]

Pic 2.

 

[belle]

Date: 2/28/2007 12:12:22 PM
Author: Ellen
It''s facing up like a .50, could it really be that deep?

And belle, I thought about it being mounted, but that shouldn''t really affect diameter, right?

it would depend on the mounting.

really, if you look at it, the largest diameter is only .06mm off and the smallest is .04 off. that isn''t that much!

 

[Ellen]

Metro, to me, there are too many discrepancies, and, it appears to be way too deep. Now, maybe whoever did the appraisal mistyped. If it were me, and I really loved the stone, I would take it to an independant appraisor to get the truer stats on it.

 

[JulieN]

longwave

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/28/2007 12:44:53 PM
Author: JulieN
longwave

?

 

[denverappraiser]

The big difference is the depth measurement. Since they listed it as approximate, I’m going to guess that the mounting wouldn’t allow for direct measurement and they had to estimate. This led to the error in the weight calculation, which is also estimated. Ring up the appraiser and discuss the discrepancy with them. Did you show your EGL document to the appraiser? Did they agree that it’s the same stone?

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

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/28/2007 1:07:40 PM
Author: denverappraiser

The big difference is the depth measurement. Since they listed it as approximate, I’m going to guess that the mounting wouldn’t allow for direct measurement and they had to estimate. This led to the error in the weight calculation, which is also estimated. Ring up the appraiser and discuss the discrepancy with them. Did you show your EGL document to the appraiser? Did they agree that it’s the same stone?

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

Do you feel it would get an adequate appraisal at what I''m assuming is Bailey, Banks & Biddle vs. an independant? I''m just wondering.

 

[denverappraiser]

BBB is an entirely reasonable store. How good a job they do at appraisals depends on who they are contracting with to do their appraisal service. For items that they don’t sell, this is done by brokering services from a local appraisal firm. Hopefully this selection was done carefully by the BBB store management but it will be different from store to store. It’s not at all unusual for the appraisers in this business to also promote themselves as independent when they aren’t working within the confines of a particular store.

I must admit that the piece of the report that’s scanned here looks like an error. A 77% depth would be a fairly distinctive stone so I’m going to guess that they just filled out a template and didn’t go back at the end to see if the results seemed reasonable. A call to the appraiser is likely to result in a swift apology and a correction.

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

 

[Miranda]

If you go to the EGL USA web page you can type in your cert. # and it will (should) give you more information. Here's the link http://www.eglusa.com/

ETA: I know it doesn't help with your original question, but, it will be interesting to see what EGL says. And, if your stone sparkles, I doubt it has a 77% depth.

 

[Ellen]

Thanks Neil!

 

[metro]

Date: 2/28/2007 1:07:40 PM
Author: denverappraiser

The big difference is the depth measurement. Since they listed it as approximate, I’m going to guess that the mounting wouldn’t allow for direct measurement and they had to estimate. This led to the error in the weight calculation, which is also estimated. Ring up the appraiser and discuss the discrepancy with them. Did you show your EGL document to the appraiser? Did they agree that it’s the same stone?

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

My original mounting was a cathedral mounting. However, the head that held my center stone on my original mounting was, from what I''ve been told, not the proper head to be used a ring. It was a tubal head – the kind you see on pendants. (Will try to find a pic) Indeed, maybe the mounting didn''t allow for exact measurements.

Considering I had this appraisal done back in 2002, I don''t think I can now call her up and request corrections

Here''s the best pic I can find of my ering in the orginal mounting.

Really, it doesn''t matter much. My diamond has been reset in a different mounting and I LOVE my stone! It’s got lots of fire and though it’s not perfectly cut, it’s really beautiful.

Oh, and I''ll look-up the info. when I get home and can get the EGL # of the mini-report. I''ll post my findings

 

[metro]

Here it is!

 

[Ellen]

Beautiful set Metro!!

 

[metro]

Thank you, Ellen! Here''s my updated ering (took of tubal head, added halo)

 

[Ellen]

It grew!

Very nice!

 

[metro]

Okay - so I lookeded up the EGL Report # (Thanks Miranda!):

Certificate UG040336110
Weight 0.52 ct.
Shape ROUND BRILLIANT
Color E
Clarity SI1
Measurements 5.14 - 5.11 x 3.26 mm
Depth 63.6
Table 56.0
Crown 15.8
Pavilion 44.0
Girdle THIN TO MEDIUM
Polish GOOD
Symmetry GOOD
Fluorescence NONE
Culet NONE
Cut Grade
Lot
Comments
How is this? Still too deep?

 

[belle]

pretty ring metro.
it''s deepish...but what does it matter really? you love it!
wear it in good health.

 

[metro]

I do love it. It''s very sentimental to me.

But - outta curiousity - what''s the ideal depth for a .52 carat?

 

[belle]

Date: 3/1/2007 9:48:59 AM
Author: metro
I do love it. It''s very sentimental to me.

But - outta curiousity - what''s the ideal depth for a .52 carat?

the ideal depth is one that makes the most out of the diamond. you can''t just look at one aspect, since everything works together (depth, table, crown, pavilion angles) BUT most would consider an ''ideal'' depth to be in the 60-62% range.

 

[metro]

Date: 3/1/2007 9:57:24 AM
Author: belle

Date: 3/1/2007 9:48:59 AM
Author: metro
I do love it. It's very sentimental to me.

But - outta curiousity - what's the ideal depth for a .52 carat?

the ideal depth is one that makes the most out of the diamond. you can't just look at one aspect, since everything works together (depth, table, crown, pavilion angles) BUT most would consider an 'ideal' depth to be in the 60-62% range.

Thank you, Belle! You sure do know you "stuff"

 

[belle]

you're welcome metro.