Final Stretch: Which would you choose?

[Ayers]

Budget: $10k

I have narrowed down the field to 2 candidates.
1.34c Round GVS2
61.3% D / 56% T / 35^ 40.8^ HCA 1.5
Ex/Ex/Ex no fluoro
cloud on periphery, no comments, "eyeclean"
in store - wholesaler/cash


1.33c Round GVS2
60.6% D / 56% T / 34.5^ 40.6^ HCA 0.6
Ex/Ex/Ex no fluoro
grey crystal offcenter, comment: add clouds/surface/int graining no shown, "eyeclean"
online - $600 less

1) Is there any other information you would want to know to decide?
2) Do the comments make a difference? Havent seen examples of these additional things.
3) Any danger of paying cash for the total? (should I be asking for some sort of receipt, etc?)

I''m leaning towards going to the store and paying in person, but paying in cash kinda scares me. The guy was recommended to me and seems pretty reputable.

Online, might have to deal with the hassle of returning through mail, and possibly misrepresentation.

I would love to hear some advice from you guys!

Thanks!

 

[stone-cold11]

who is the online vendor?

 

[Ayers]

I''m not sure if I reserved it so hopefully it doesnt disappear.

exceldiamonds/superbcert

 

[stone-cold11]

I would go online then.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don''t think you need to worry about misrepresentation on a GIA certified stone. But I wouldn''t even consider paying cash to that "wholesaler". In fact, if his stone is more than Excel''s, it should tell you that he is not being truthful about giving you a whoelsale price.

At least with the Excel stone, you hopefully have a return period if for any reason you decided to return it. I wouldn''t buy the other stone even if it was the lower priced one.

 

[Ayers]

Does it matter what the comments are saying on the certificate?

How about the fact the HCA 0.6 1.33c online gem falls outside the AGS Ideal 0 category while the other one falls inside?

 

[stone-cold11]

At VS2, it shouldn''t matter and since it is verified eye-clean you won''t see it unless you have a loupe.

I would not worry about the gem falling outside the AGS0 category.

 

[Kelli]

I''d go with the online one as well. Lots of positive feedback and recommendations from pricescopers sounds like a safe purchase!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:21:57 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I don''t think you need to worry about misrepresentation on a GIA certified stone. But I wouldn''t even consider paying cash to that ''wholesaler''. In fact, if his stone is more than Excel''s, it should tell you that he is not being truthful about giving you a whoelsale price.

At least with the Excel stone, you hopefully have a return period if for any reason you decided to return it. I wouldn''t buy the other stone even if it was the lower priced one.

Ditto.

 

[Ayers]

Well I went back to the wholesaler, who of course had a number of things to say about the comments section of the Excel stone:

"Surface and internal graining! It can be visible to the naked eye and it won''t be as brilliant"

Anyhow, Barry at Excel was kind enough to send me some photos and I was hoping some experienced eyes could take a look at the gem and reassure my wallet and myself that I''m making the right choice.

http://www.exceldiamonds.com/Loose_Round_Diamond-143/Loose_Round_1.33_Carat_G_Color_VS2_Clarity_diamond-281713.html

1) Are there any symmetry problems around the periphery (like under the Brilliantscope)? The arrow points and lightning don''t seem even (like at 3:00 there''s 2 arrow points). Is it positioning?

2) Is there any truth to the graining comments? Can you see it and point it out on the photos?

Thanks again for the help guys!

 

[Judah Gutwein]

Ayers,

I won't address any other aspect of this thread (given that this is our diamond) and will instead leave it to the provided information to do the talking.
However, I'd be remiss if I didn't address the completely unfair, unfortunate and quite frankly inaccurate statements made by your jeweler ("wholesalers" do not sell directly - retail to the end consumer; this is contradictory in terms).

Your jeweler said: "Surface and internal graining! It can be visible to the naked eye and it won't be as brilliant"

I have no idea who your jeweler is and I don't wish to know. However, this statement is reckless and irresponsible even before addressing the inherent bias and obvious vested interest existing whenever a jeweler offers commentary on another jewelers diamond with whom he is in direct competition to make a sale!!

It is entirely convenient and indeed disengenuous for your jeweler to make such a statement. It is self understood where that statement is coming from.

However, the salient point here, is that there is absolutely NO WAY for this jeweler or any other to make such an assertion on a diamond he has never seen!
There isn't a self respecting jeweler (without a clear conflict of interest) who would make such a statement on a diamond he/she has never inspected personally.

Finally, the statement itself is inaccurate.

Best of luck on whatever you decide.

 

[glitterata]

Yeah, that''s a transparently self-serving sales tactic, badmouthing the other guy''s stone like that. I would definitely pick the Excel diamond and run away from the creepy "wholesaler."

Additional clouds and surface graining not shown on a VS diamond won''t be a problem. But if you don''t like it when you see it, Excel has a good return policy.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Judah,

Regarding issues of graining ... Not disagreeing but at the same time when I see those comments on a Lab Report it does throw up a flag of "proceed with caution". In my professional experience there have been instances where noting of graining did indeed compromise the transparency of a diamond and only in certain limited types of lighting environments. I agree that no jeweler or person should lay judgement to what they''ve never seen though. Those statements were unfair and obviously biased.

Regards,

 

[John P]

In this case the report says "internal graining and surface graining are not shown."

By definition when a report indicates ''not shown'' it means they are non-issues. The grader only noted them for sake of thoroughness. Clarity characteristics are listed in order of their importance to the grade so graining of any substance would have been itemized and plotted. Good VS2.

 

[John P]

Date: 1/29/2009 6:51:27 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Judah,

Regarding issues of graining ... Not disagreeing but at the same time when I see those comments on a Lab Report it does throw up a flag of ''proceed with caution''. In my professional experience there have been instances where noting of graining did indeed compromise the transparency of a diamond and only in certain limited types of lighting environments. I agree that no jeweler or person should lay judgement to what they''ve never seen though. Those statements were unfair and obviously biased.

Regards,

I''d imagine these are instances in which they were plotted Rhino? Otherwise someone at the lab is in trubble...

 

[ejv207]

The online diamond wins on price and using the HCA. (It may also win on sales tax?) I had the option to buy a stone for cash from a jeweler recommended by family, but in the end I purchased online. I felt reassured purchasing the diamond on a credit card, knowing that if a dispute arose, I had the support of the CC company. The diamond exceeded my expectations and an independent appraisal confirmed that I found the right one (something you should get regardless of which one you choose). Though I did not purchase from Excel, Judah has been extremely helpful and offered me some of the best advice I received after making my purchase. A quick search of the PS forums and its easy to see that Excel is a reputable company with an abundance of satisfied customers. Their policies are in writing on their website. If you have a fear of ''misrepresentation''; then it should extend to your local jeweler as well.

 

[Ayers]

Thanks very much for the replies. I do understand that many of the comments made by other sales folks may be self-serving, but wanted to learn a little more about graining and what that means for a diamond. I think looking at the pictures, I'm satisfied with the way everything looks preliminarily, and will of course get it appraised and test it under sunlight and UV light conditions just for the heck of it!

-Thanks Judah for the reply and I agree that many things I heard were inaccurate and self-serving.

-Also thanks Rhino for the headsup on possible graining issues. I did a forum search and ran across some old posts about an E-VS1 you had seen that had strangely had problems in different lighting situations.

-John, I thought I read that usually the graining is a non-issue as they can be seen in IF grade diamonds. Good to know how GIA values the comment section - if they were enough to lower the grade, has anyone seen graining listed/mapped?

-And thanks ejv207, for your personal experience as it sounds similar to the one I encountered, and my hesitance in laying cash on the table (no receipt!)


EDIT:
As an aside, how do you appraise a gem that's already been mounted?

 

[John P]

Date: 1/30/2009 7:39:58 PM
Author: Ayers

-John, I thought I read that usually the graining is a non-issue as they can be seen in IF grade diamonds. Good to know how GIA values the comment section - if they were enough to lower the grade, has anyone seen graining listed/mapped?

When graining is plotted it's indicated as a dashed red line (internal) or dashed green line (surface). When it's an issue it will be plotted. Most inclusions and blemishes bears examination, whether a feather, crystal, knot, cavity, chip, natural, SI cloud, twinning wisp...get the idea?

I saw a twinning wisp with such distortion it looked like cotton candy was suspended inside an entire half of the diamond. This was not a GIA or AGS-graded stone though. Diamonds with dodgy stuff inside typically get called out & penalized at the reputable labs (see this thread for a GIA I3). You have an extra level of protection when you work with a seller who is a gemologist or has one on staff to screen every diamond. If there's any doubt a reputable independent appraiser can add a third layer of protection.

EDIT:
As an aside, how do you appraise a gem that's already been mounted?

Less thoroughly. Measurements will be limited, color estimates aren't as decisive and clarity can only be plotted around prongs. Bezel settings mute these things even more. There are ways to get an ideal-scope or ASET impression of mounted goods (for appraisers in the this-century club who use those tools) but mounted is not as thorough or revealing as loose. Verification that the diamond matches the report, details of setting, etc., are totally doable of course.

By the way, I just caught the comment about 56/40.6/34.5 falling 'outside' the AGS Ideal category on the HCA box. Don't worry. The cut guidelines and Garry's (intelligent) interp of them on his HCA results are conservative. That combination is often AGS0 in light performance and the ASET image is quite good.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:12:48 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 1/29/2009 6:51:27 PM

Author: Rhino

Hi Judah,


Regarding issues of graining ... Not disagreeing but at the same time when I see those comments on a Lab Report it does throw up a flag of ''proceed with caution''. In my professional experience there have been instances where noting of graining did indeed compromise the transparency of a diamond and only in certain limited types of lighting environments. I agree that no jeweler or person should lay judgement to what they''ve never seen though. Those statements were unfair and obviously biased.


Regards,

I''d imagine these are instances in which they were plotted Rhino? Otherwise someone at the lab is in trubble...

One that Jon showed me a picture of had surface graining on the bezels(EX polish) and it indeed compromised the stone at some angles and was just noted in the comments.
Don''t buy from drop shippers and buy from vendors who actually see the diamonds and care about quality then you don''t have to worry about it.

 

[John P]

Date: 1/30/2009 8:58:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/29/2009 8:12:48 PM
Author: John Pollard

I'd imagine these are instances in which they were plotted Rhino? Otherwise someone at the lab is in trubble...

One that Jon showed me a picture of had surface graining on the bezels(EX polish) and it indeed compromised the stone at some angles and was just noted in the comments.
Don't buy from drop shippers and buy from vendors who actually see the diamonds and care about quality then you don't have to worry about it.

It should have been caught. If not in clarity grading the polish eval should have revealed it: 4+ directions at 10X darkfield under the microscope, 4+ directions with 10X loupe face-up and girdle-to-girdle - orienting it differently to be thorough. Even if the graining was mistaken for polish lines moderate transparency means a penalty to VG polish - and on a close look it should have been corrected to SG.

Trubble.

 

[Ayers]

Date: 1/30/2009 8:24:41 PM
Author: John Pollard
Less thoroughly. Measurements will be limited, color estimates aren''t as decisive and clarity can only be plotted around prongs. Bezel settings mute these things even more. There are ways to get an ideal-scope or ASET impression of mounted goods (for appraisers in the this-century club who use those tools) but mounted is not as thorough or revealing as loose. Verification that the diamond matches the report, details of setting, etc., are totally doable of course.


By the way, I just caught the comment about 56/40.6/34.5 falling ''outside'' the AGS Ideal category on the HCA box. Don''t worry. The cut guidelines and Garry''s (intelligent) interp of them on his HCA results are conservative. That combination is often AGS0 in light performance and the ASET image is quite good.

Thanks a ton for the advice, teaching, and answers! Helps make this process thousands of times easier!! I''ll be sure to post pics when everythings done.

 

[Lorelei]

Congrats Ayers and thanks to all for the very useful info which resulted from this thread!

 

[John P]

Date: 1/30/2009 9:40:47 PM
Author: Ayers

Date: 1/30/2009 8:24:41 PM
Author: John Pollard
Less thoroughly. Measurements will be limited, color estimates aren''t as decisive and clarity can only be plotted around prongs. Bezel settings mute these things even more. There are ways to get an ideal-scope or ASET impression of mounted goods (for appraisers in the this-century club who use those tools) but mounted is not as thorough or revealing as loose. Verification that the diamond matches the report, details of setting, etc., are totally doable of course.


By the way, I just caught the comment about 56/40.6/34.5 falling ''outside'' the AGS Ideal category on the HCA box. Don''t worry. The cut guidelines and Garry''s (intelligent) interp of them on his HCA results are conservative. That combination is often AGS0 in light performance and the ASET image is quite good.

Thanks a ton for the advice, teaching, and answers! Helps make this process thousands of times easier!! I''ll be sure to post pics when everythings done.

Our pleasure! Looking forward to the pics.