F AGS vs G GIA

[Luv-a-Good-Diamond]

Hello, I am looking at two stones, and while they both look great, I want to make sure I'm making the best decision. They are:

AGS - 000
1.04 Carat
Cut: Ideal
Color/Clarity: F-SI2
Symmetry/Polish: Ideal

GIA
1.01 Carat
Cut: Very Good
Color/Clarity: G-VS2
Symmetry/Polish: Very Good/Very Good

The AGS stone is $1500 less than the GIA stone. Does that answer my question already? However, in my beginner's research, I've read that AGS has a strict grading system before it determines a stone is ideal, and GIA has a strict color grading system. Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill. HELP!

 

[minmin001]

need more info on the stones. do you have the report #?
is the SI2 stone eye clean to you?

 

[Amys Bling]

Do you links to the full reports?

 

[Luv-a-Good-Diamond]

GIA: 1102901556

AGS: 0010272004

I am not very computer savvy and do not how to link. (I'm sorry)

The SI2 appears to be eye clean. When I look at it one time, it looks perfect. Then when I look a few minutes later, not so good. This goes back/forth. Then when I think - OK this can work - I get all psychological; thus back to this post's questions.

Thank you so much for your help -- and patience.

 

[minmin001]

GIA: 1102901556

AGS: 0010272004

I am not very computer savvy and do not how to link. (I'm sorry)

The SI2 appears to be eye clean. When I look at it one time, it looks perfect. Then when I look a few minutes later, not so good. This goes back/forth. Then when I think - OK this can work - I get all psychological; thus back to this post's questions.

Thank you so much for your help -- and patience.

Well, this is a big purchase and for me I'd like it to be perfect, not 50% times perfect. What's your budget btw? Maybe we can help you find something

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, one thing is for certain, we can easily find you some excellent stones at 1 ct. Tell us your budget. I definitely wouldn't go for an SI2 that you aren't sure you like or that is not totally eyeclean, and I also wouldn't go for a GIA very good cut.

 

[Gypsy]

You aren't comparing like items.

On the one hand you have a diamond with higher clarity and lower cut.

And on the other hand you have a diamond with great cut that might not even be eyeclean.

I wouldn't compromise on eyeclean OR on cut, so unless that SI2 is eyeclean neither of those is one I would chose.

 

[Amys Bling]

GIA: 1102901556

AGS: 0010272004

I am not very computer savvy and do not how to link. (I'm sorry)

The SI2 appears to be eye clean. When I look at it one time, it looks perfect. Then when I look a few minutes later, not so good. This goes back/forth. Then when I think - OK this can work - I get all psychological; thus back to this post's questions.

Thank you so much for your help -- and patience.

If you are questioning whether or not it's eyeclean, I would NOT Get it. It is going to be worn an engagement ring this is something that will be stared at all the time.

Also- I would not buy the very good GIA stone, I would want a top notch cut stone.

 

[ChrisES]

I wrote a post and deleted it, because I got confused as to which stone was which.

But I will say that if a stone bothers you, do not buy it. This issue is what some on this forum very appropriately refer to as "mindclean." Most people are not knowledgeable about diamonds and will think that even a very bleh stone looks great. The person who will see that stone every day, and who will actually know what's wrong with it, is you! (And whoever wears the diamond, if you're buying it for someone else.) YOU are the person who needs to be happy with your diamond.

So I'll say it right now, do not buy the AGS SI2. I know SI2s can be fine (and I happen to think GIA VGs can be fine), but this one isn't. I think you can actually see that this might be the case just from the listings; the AGS stone is better color, better cut, bigger, and only two clarity grades lower, as well as in a clarity grade that often can be eyeclean. Yet it is $1500 cheaper? Smells fishy.

 

[yialanliu]

I wouldn't bother with either stones as mentioned even if the AGS SI2 is eye clean.
The definition of eye clean for most people is you can't see it from a short look or a long glance I think. As an engagement stone, you stare at it. Even supposed eye lean SI1 can be seen if you stare enough. Others might not know, but you will. I would go with a VS2 or higher for clarity. G is fine, and definitely ideal cut. If this bumps you to 0.9 then so be it, it's much better than what you are seeing.

 

[Gypsy]

I wouldn't bother with either stones as mentioned even if the AGS SI2 is eye clean.
The definition of eye clean for most people is you can't see it from a short look or a long glance I think. As an engagement stone, you stare at it. Even supposed eye lean SI1 can be seen if you stare enough. Others might not know, but you will. I would go with a VS2 or higher for clarity. G is fine, and definitely ideal cut. If this bumps you to 0.9 then so be it, it's much better than what you are seeing.

This blanket statement is simply not true.

It depends GREATLY on the type, location, and size of the inclusions. Some inclusions in SI stones are just NOT EVER going to be seen with the naked eye. You cannot oversimplify like that.

I've had quite a few SI stones that are just completely eyeclean, period. And I know others who have the same.

It is also inaccurate that if you want guaranteed eyeclean VS2 stones also can be not eyeclean. VS1 and higher is what you want if you are inclusion obsessed. It's a stone by stone, inclusion by inclusion determination below VS1.

Please be careful when you state things that you are imparting correct information.

 

[yialanliu]

I wouldn't bother with either stones as mentioned even if the AGS SI2 is eye clean.
The definition of eye clean for most people is you can't see it from a short look or a long glance I think. As an engagement stone, you stare at it. Even supposed eye lean SI1 can be seen if you stare enough. Others might not know, but you will. I would go with a VS2 or higher for clarity. G is fine, and definitely ideal cut. If this bumps you to 0.9 then so be it, it's much better than what you are seeing.

This blanket statement is simply not true.

It depends GREATLY on the type, location, and size of the inclusions. Some inclusions in SI stones are just NOT EVER going to be seen with the naked eye. You cannot oversimplify like that.

I've had quite a few SI stones that are just completely eyeclean, period. And I know others who have the same.

It is also inaccurate that if you want guaranteed eyeclean VS2 stones also can be not eyeclean. VS1 and higher is what you want if you are inclusion obsessed. It's a stone by stone, inclusion by inclusion determination below VS1.

Please be careful when you state things that you are imparting correct information.

Let me rephrase then, from the top, supposed eyeclean without staring is possible at SI1. You might get lucky and find one that is completely eye clean. However, from the sides(so typically the person wearing it might be more inclined to look that way) being able to easily see the inclusion is fairly normal even if eyeclean from the top. What I was trying to say was not being eye clearn form the sides is not a requirement and in reality very likely when viewed from any angle other than the top.

Likewise, I still stand by the fact that an eyeclean diamond isn't at the same standard as one would expect for an eye clean perspective from the wearer. I think it is correct for a jewler to tell you it's eye clean and for you to still see it and I would't fault the jewler if he's using a different standard of looking.

While VS1 is definitely better, I think most will agree VS2 is enough to past muster which is why I said VS2 and not VS1.

Lastly, you don't have to flame the POSTER about a disagreement. I think healthy discussion is good and let's keep it on topic about what is posted rather than say things about the poster.

 

[Luv-a-Good-Diamond]

Thank you all for your comments. They are very helpful. Relative to a "good diamond", per the researching I've done, the majority sites have recommended a good diamond to purchase is a G-VS2, very good cut--with strong recommendation as well to be graded by GIA. I understand the 4 c's aspect; however, am I interpreting your comments correctly: that you feel this particular stone is not a good stone, even with the GIA ratings? If so, then I'm really nervous about purchasing a stone, as I'm relying a lot on the GIA report/info more so than individual/jeweler. In my search for a stone, if I can't rely on the GIA report, then what should I know?

 

[Gypsy]

I wouldn't bother with either stones as mentioned even if the AGS SI2 is eye clean.
The definition of eye clean for most people is you can't see it from a short look or a long glance I think. As an engagement stone, you stare at it. Even supposed eye lean SI1 can be seen if you stare enough. Others might not know, but you will. I would go with a VS2 or higher for clarity. G is fine, and definitely ideal cut. If this bumps you to 0.9 then so be it, it's much better than what you are seeing.

This blanket statement is simply not true.

It depends GREATLY on the type, location, and size of the inclusions. Some inclusions in SI stones are just NOT EVER going to be seen with the naked eye. You cannot oversimplify like that.

I've had quite a few SI stones that are just completely eyeclean, period. And I know others who have the same.

It is also inaccurate that if you want guaranteed eyeclean VS2 stones also can be not eyeclean. VS1 and higher is what you want if you are inclusion obsessed. It's a stone by stone, inclusion by inclusion determination below VS1.

Please be careful when you state things that you are imparting correct information.

Let me rephrase then, from the top, supposed eyeclean without staring is possible at SI1. You might get lucky and find one that is completely eye clean. However, from the sides(so typically the person wearing it might be more inclined to look that way) being able to easily see the inclusion is fairly normal even if eyeclean from the top. What I was trying to say was not being eye clearn form the sides is not a requirement and in reality very likely when viewed from any angle other than the top.

Likewise, I still stand by the fact that an eyeclean diamond isn't at the same standard as one would expect for an eye clean perspective from the wearer. I think it is correct for a jewler to tell you it's eye clean and for you to still see it and I would't fault the jewler if he's using a different standard of looking.

While VS1 is definitely better, I think most will agree VS2 is enough to past muster which is why I said VS2 and not VS1.

Lastly, you don't have to flame the POSTER about a disagreement. I think healthy discussion is good and let's keep it on topic about what is posted rather than say things about the poster.

This doesn't even make sense. Who is this "most" you are talking about? Cause it ain't any majority I know of. Most in the trade wouldn't agree, and most of this board wouldn't agree. MOST would agree that VS1 is where you need to be if you want eyeclean from all angles and are inclusion obsessed. There have been quite a few VS2 stones on these boards that aren't eyeclean from the table up, let alone from all angles. And there have been some SI2's with twinning wisps that have been completely eyeclean from all sides.

There is a reason we tell people to make sure their definition of eyeclean matches that of the vendor, because frequently the definitions do not match up and communication is the key.

Maybe you should go and do some homework and come back when you know what you are talking about.

 

[Gypsy]

Thank you all for your comments. They are very helpful. Relative to a "good diamond", per the researching I've done, the majority sites have recommended a good diamond to purchase is a G-VS2, very good cut--with strong recommendation as well to be graded by GIA. I understand the 4 c's aspect; however, am I interpreting your comments correctly: that you feel this particular stone is not a good stone, even with the GIA ratings? If so, then I'm really nervous about purchasing a stone, as I'm relying a lot on the GIA report/info more so than individual/jeweler. In my search for a stone, if I can't rely on the GIA report, then what should I know?

You should stick to AGS 0 lab reports if you want easy.

Alternately, GIA Ex/Ex stones that score under 2.0 on the HCA tool https://www.pricescope.com/tools/hca and then follow that up with an ASET or an Idealscope image (you can do a google search for both if you don't know what they are already).

G color is very safe, but many people can go to H with very little issue at all, especially in a round brilliant. Just because you see color doesn't mean that it will bother you. And it's unlikely that with a stone with ideal light return you would see color in an H stone when set, from the table up position. Color is graded table down for a reason.

As for clarity. Just make sure that it is eyeclean, and also make sure that your definition of eyeclean is the same as the vendor you are talking to and make sure you understand how clarity is rated (table up only, not from the bottom or sides). Also stick to vendors that have stones in house or that can call stones in for you to examine before you buy, as the only way to make sure you are getting an eyeclean stone is to have someone look at it for you, to understand what your definition of eyeclean is... and even then if your have super good eyesight, then you might find that your eyes don't agree with the vendors.

 

[Gypsy]

I also highly suggest that you study ALL sections of this tutorial carefully Luv, as it will greatly help you: https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/

 

[yialanliu]

I wouldn't bother with either stones as mentioned even if the AGS SI2 is eye clean.
The definition of eye clean for most people is you can't see it from a short look or a long glance I think. As an engagement stone, you stare at it. Even supposed eye lean SI1 can be seen if you stare enough. Others might not know, but you will. I would go with a VS2 or higher for clarity. G is fine, and definitely ideal cut. If this bumps you to 0.9 then so be it, it's much better than what you are seeing.

This blanket statement is simply not true.

It depends GREATLY on the type, location, and size of the inclusions. Some inclusions in SI stones are just NOT EVER going to be seen with the naked eye. You cannot oversimplify like that.

I've had quite a few SI stones that are just completely eyeclean, period. And I know others who have the same.

It is also inaccurate that if you want guaranteed eyeclean VS2 stones also can be not eyeclean. VS1 and higher is what you want if you are inclusion obsessed. It's a stone by stone, inclusion by inclusion determination below VS1.

Please be careful when you state things that you are imparting correct information.

Let me rephrase then, from the top, supposed eyeclean without staring is possible at SI1. You might get lucky and find one that is completely eye clean. However, from the sides(so typically the person wearing it might be more inclined to look that way) being able to easily see the inclusion is fairly normal even if eyeclean from the top. What I was trying to say was not being eye clearn form the sides is not a requirement and in reality very likely when viewed from any angle other than the top.

Likewise, I still stand by the fact that an eyeclean diamond isn't at the same standard as one would expect for an eye clean perspective from the wearer. I think it is correct for a jewler to tell you it's eye clean and for you to still see it and I would't fault the jewler if he's using a different standard of looking.

While VS1 is definitely better, I think most will agree VS2 is enough to past muster which is why I said VS2 and not VS1.

Lastly, you don't have to flame the POSTER about a disagreement. I think healthy discussion is good and let's keep it on topic about what is posted rather than say things about the poster.

This doesn't even make sense. Who is this "most" you are talking about? Cause it ain't any majority I know of. Most in the trade wouldn't agree, and most of this board wouldn't agree. MOST would agree that VS1 is where you need to be if you want eyeclean from all angles and are inclusion obsessed. There have been quite a few VS2 stones on these boards that aren't eyeclean from the table up, let alone from all angles. And there have been some SI2's with twinning wisps that have been completely eyeclean from all sides.

There is a reason we tell people to make sure their definition of eyeclean matches that of the vendor, because frequently the definitions do not match up and communication is the key.

Maybe you should go and do some homework and come back when you know what you are talking about.

Thanks for the continuation of flames.

I do however see that other agree when Luv himself posted that people are recommending VS2 as a good choice. And I unlike you, am willing agree with you that H is a good color. At the same time, I won't tell people that they are stupid, ignorant, or that they don't know anything for people who disagree. So the person who said G-VS2, that's completely fine with me as well to give as a recommendation.

Like everything finding what's best is based on opinion, nothing is a fact and I hope someday you will appreciate that others may have different ideas and opinions rather than telling them to read someone else's opinion. Last tiem I checked, opinions are not set in stone. I like to make my own opinion especially. At the end of the day, we come to the same conclusion and you flamed someone with the same conclusion.

To Luv, best of luck and take every opinion as just an opinion. Mine was about making sure you don't regret getting a semi eye clean SI2. If you don't mind, it's not a big deal. I know people who have went to I2 to save money for a bigger stone because that's what they cared about. It all comes down to what you want but since you mentioned it, I wanted to post what I thought about eye clean from another perspective which is a possible perspective from the wearer.