Found the setting.. now I need help finding the diamond

[tdstl123]

Hey everyone,

So I found the setting that I want to get
http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/platinum-2mm-knife-edge-solitaire-diamond-ring-17001.html


and now I need help finding the diamond.

I am looking to buy a diamond with the following qualities:

cut: excellent
size: 1.22-1.3
color: I-G
clarity: eye-clean
budget: $8,000

I would prefer to buy through JamesAllen since it would be easiest to have them set the diamond with their ring rather than having to do it separately (unless someone knows other places that have the same setting for a similar price)... I also really like Brian Gavin diamonds but they seem to be a bit more expensive.

If my qualifications aren't possible with the above budget, I would be willing to (very) slightly stretch my budget and compromise on color or size.

You guys seem to know best, so I will defer to your judgement if you think I am being overly picky about any one quality (cut, color, size etc.)

Thanks so much!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'll be glad to look and I am sure we can find something at JA, but that is a stock setting that any jeweler can get for you, just FYI.

Be right back.

 

[tdstl123]

That is good to know! I am very glad I found this website!

No longer limited to JA then! Thanks

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Basically that is a knife edge shank with a V head, and almost any jeweler can order that. It is simpler when they stock it on the site, but you aren't totally limited to one place. That said, your budget works well with JA.

Here is my top pick so far but it is $600 over budget...I am still looking though!

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1458715.asp

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1499677.asp

 

[E B]

How about this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1445793.asp

 

[diamondseeker2006]

How about this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1445793.asp

Yes, very good one to add to the others!

 

[tdstl123]

I really really like this one. Getting close to pulling the trigger. Thanks so much!

 

[move1986]

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/1.208-j-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104047809030#!prettyPhoto[gallery2]/2/

actually they are 3 diamonds are BGD inventory that match your requirement. and within budget too
the price that u can see there isn't the final price anyway so discountable. suit fit into your budget perfectly if you still got your heart on BGD

 

[tdstl123]

How about this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1445793.asp

Should I be concerned that the AGS color grade and GIA color grade on that diamond varies significantly... AGS calls it an I but GIA calls it a "K"

 

[E B]

Should I be concerned that the AGS color grade and GIA color grade on that diamond varies significantly... AGS calls it an I but GIA calls it a "K"

I'm not seeing where GIA calls it a K.

 

[0-0-0]

How about this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1445793.asp

Should I be concerned that the AGS color grade and GIA color grade on that diamond varies significantly... AGS calls it an I but GIA calls it a "K"

Oh wow that's fascinating. Both AGS and GIA reports linked on the same page, and it actually looks likely that they are reports for the same stone based on the numbers and inclusion plot. I can accept a slip of one grade, but probably not two. Perhaps ask JA about it and the gemologist's opinion?

AGS report linked on page
http://www.jamesallen.com/AGS-Diamond-Certificate/1445793/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-1.27-Carat-Round-Diamond.JPG

GIA report linked on page
http://www.jamesallen.com/diam/400C/RO80742cer.jpg
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2141120652&weight=1.27

 

[TRIALnERROR]

How about this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1445793.asp

Should I be concerned that the AGS color grade and GIA color grade on that diamond varies significantly... AGS calls it an I but GIA calls it a "K"

Yes, I think that is reason for concern. IMO, JA should be listing that stone as a K, not an I. GIA is the authority on color and it's poor judgment to selectively highlight the AGS report in this particular case.

 

[E B]

How about this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1445793.asp

Should I be concerned that the AGS color grade and GIA color grade on that diamond varies significantly... AGS calls it an I but GIA calls it a "K"

Oh wow that's fascinating. Both AGS and GIA reports linked on the same page, and it actually looks likely that they are reports for the same stone based on the numbers and inclusion plot. I can accept a one grade slip, but probably not two.

AGS report linked on page
http://www.jamesallen.com/AGS-Diamond-Certificate/1445793/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-1.27-Carat-Round-Diamond.JPG

GIA report linked on page
http://www.jamesallen.com/diam/400C/RO80742cer.jpg
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2141120652&weight=1.27

Huh. The GIA report has slightly different numbers than the AGS report, but maybe they're rounded?

 

[TRIALnERROR]

How about this one?

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1445793.asp

Should I be concerned that the AGS color grade and GIA color grade on that diamond varies significantly... AGS calls it an I but GIA calls it a "K"

Oh wow that's fascinating. Both AGS and GIA reports linked on the same page, and it actually looks likely that they are reports for the same stone based on the numbers and inclusion plot. I can accept a one grade slip, but probably not two.

AGS report linked on page
http://www.jamesallen.com/AGS-Diamond-Certificate/1445793/I-SI1-Ideal-Cut-1.27-Carat-Round-Diamond.JPG

GIA report linked on page
http://www.jamesallen.com/diam/400C/RO80742cer.jpg
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2141120652&weight=1.27

Huh. The GIA report has slightly different numbers than the AGS report, but maybe they're rounded?

GIA rounds...

 

[E B]

That they do! I'm just surprised at the substantial difference in color grades, especially with AGS calling the higher. But yes, efred, I'd pass on it too. I didn't even notice the GIA cert.

 

[0-0-0]

Yes GIA rounds the proportions. The numbers are also close enough that any difference may be due to slight measurement or averaging differences for all we know. I would definitely ask JA about it.

IMO, JA should be listing that stone as a K, not an I. GIA is the authority on color and it's poor judgment to selectively highlight the AGS report in this particular case.

At least JA linked to both reports on the page. If JA didn't link to the GIA report we wouldn't know any better.

 

[TRIALnERROR]

Yes GIA rounds the proportions. The numbers are also close enough that any difference may be due to slight measurement or averaging differences for all we know. I would definitely ask JA about it.

IMO, JA should be listing that stone as a K, not an I. GIA is the authority on color and it's poor judgment to selectively highlight the AGS report in this particular case.

At least JA linked to both reports on the page. If JA didn't link to the GIA report we wouldn't know any better.

Linking to the report is not the issue. Selectively choosing AGS's I over GIA K is the issue. JA currently has 16,421 GIA stones and only 793 AGS stones, yet they opt to identify the stone by the AGS report?

Directly from JA's website: "GIA is the number one, most respected laboratory in the world." Why identify a stone by an inferior lab if you have one from the most respected lab in the world? IMO, this is poor judgement.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond-education/diamond-certification.html

 

[0-0-0]

Linking to the report is not the issue. Selectively choosing AGS's I over GIA K is the issue. JA currently has 16,421 GIA stones and only 793 AGS stones, yet they opt to show the AGS report in the instant case?

OK so in this case you would rather JA list it as a GIA EX K VS2 vs AGS 0 I SI1?

My point is simply that JA is being as transparent as possible already by linking to both reports in this case (if they are indeed for the same stone). How do you know if JA or its suppliers aren't playing any favorites with the other stones? What if it's a GIA EX K VS2 vs AGS 1 K SI1 instead? Would you rather JA list it as GIA EX K VS2 as well?

 

[TRIALnERROR]

Linking to the report is not the issue. Selectively choosing AGS's I over GIA K is the issue. JA currently has 16,421 GIA stones and only 793 AGS stones, yet they opt to show the AGS report in the instant case?

OK so in this case you would rather JA list it as a GIA EX K VS2 vs AGS 0 I SI1?

My point is simply that JA is being as transparent as possible already by linking to both reports in this case (if they are indeed for the same stone). How do you know if JA or its suppliers aren't playing any favorites with the other stones? What if it's a GIA EX K VS2 vs AGS 1 K SI1 instead? Would you rather JA list it as GIA EX K VS2 as well?

I'm not following your logic... Transparency and full disclosure are separate issues. GIA is the authority and most respected lab in the world according to JA. Yet, they chose to represent this particular stone by an inferior AGS report? What is the rationale, other than to mislead?

 

[0-0-0]

Why identify a stone by an inferior lab if you have one from the most respected lab in the world? IMO, this is poor judgement.

My understanding is that this happens all the time in the business, whether it is poor judgement or not. The less favorable report is simply "lost".

I'm not following your logic... Transparency and full disclosure are different animals. GIA is the authority and most respected lab in the world according to JA. Yet, they chose to represent this particular stone by an inferior AGS report? What is the rationale, other than to mislead?

My point is that if JA's intent is to mislead, they wouldn't bother linking to both reports. JA would only link to the AGS report, and simply say a GIA is not available, even if you ask. But again, this is assuming that the reports are in fact for the same stone.

 

[TRIALnERROR]

Why identify a stone by an inferior lab if you have one from the most respected lab in the world? IMO, this is poor judgement.

My understanding is that this happens all the time in the business, whether it is poor judgement or not. The less favorable report is simply "lost".

I'm not following your logic... Transparency and full disclosure are different animals. GIA is the authority and most respected lab in the world according to JA. Yet, they chose to represent this particular stone by an inferior AGS report? What is the rationale, other than to mislead?

My point is that if JA's intent is to mislead, they wouldn't bother linking to both reports. JA would only link to the AGS report, and simply say a GIA is not available, even if you ask. But again, this is assuming that the reports are in fact for the same stone.

I don't think it was intentional. It appears someone inadvertently posted the GIA report in the thumbnail image as opposed to the AGS report. There is no link to the GIA report and you can't make out any details from the image as posted. The only way would be to download the image and then zoom in for the details. I agree with your first point that the less favorable report often gets "lost". I'd expect it from others, but have to say that I am disappointed to see it is practiced by trusted vendors alike.

ETA: I also don't find it a coincidence that the GIA report was done on Nov. 18 and then sent to AGS immediately thereafter (completed on Dec. 8th). If vendors are shopping labs to get the best reports and maximize profits, the consumer will surely suffer the consequences...

Here's the rub:
Currently the cheapest 1.25 GIA VS2 K at JA = $5,340
The cheapest 1.25 AGS SI1 I at JA = $8,160

 

[0-0-0]

Trust, but verify ... with an independent appraiser!

OP, if you are the one who put the stone on hold and asking questions, please come back with JA's responses. I'm really curious as to what JA has to say.

 

[TRIALnERROR]

Trust, but verify ... with an independent appraiser!

+1 and I couldn't agree more!

Yes OP, please keep us posted as I am also curious to hear JA's response.

 

[tdstl123]

I am on the phone right now and they are claiming they are two separate diamonds.. but they are acting very suspicious and dodging all my questions.

I dunno....

 

[TRIALnERROR]

I am on the phone right now and they are claiming they are two separate diamonds.. but they are acting very suspicious and dodging all my questions.

I dunno....

Thanks for the update. Sounds fishy...

 

[tdstl123]

So the woman I spoke with was very nice. And I want very badly to trust her, but I can't shake the feeling that something is wrong.

She was trying to locate the diamond that she claims is the GIA one but she was unable to locate it and said it must not be in their inventory anymore, but she assures me they are two separate diamonds.


I told her that it seems like way too much of a coincidence that all the measurements and angles/percentages are within .1 of eachother if not exactly the same... she didn't really have a response to that except to say that they are two different diamonds again.


What do you think?

 

[YoungPapa]

I don't think it was intentional. It appears someone inadvertently posted the GIA report in the thumbnail image as opposed to the AGS report.

Hi TrialInError,

I would bet you are correct. I'll call the supplier on Monday and let them know about the two reports and I'm sure the GIA link will disappear shortly thereafter.

As is often discussed here on Pricescope, we rely on a small network of suppliers to provide us with the majority of diamonds listed on the website. They provide us with electronic listings, along with the supplemental lab reports and images needed for the website. This diamond is being offered as an AGS I-SI1 because it is an AGS I-SI1. As to whether it has been accurately graded and all of the other nuance of lab variations, I think I'll leave that for the other thread. If efredman is interested in purchasing the diamond, however, we offer inhouse GIA gemologist inspections and would be more than happy to lend our opinion on the color.

Finally, to efredman, I don't think anyone is being intentionally "dodgy" - they just don't have all the facts or the benefit of this discussion and have assumed (just as most of us would) that GIA and AGS would not be two grades apart in their color grading.

All the best,

 

[TRIALnERROR]

So the woman I spoke with was very nice. And I want very badly to trust her, but I can't shake the feeling that something is wrong.

She was trying to locate the diamond that she claims is the GIA one but she was unable to locate it and said it must not be in their inventory anymore, but she assures me they are two separate diamonds.


I told her that it seems like way too much of a coincidence that all the measurements and angles/percentages are within .1 of eachother if not exactly the same... she didn't really have a response to that except to say that they are two different diamonds again.


What do you think?

The dimensions are exactly the same (GIA rounds), the dates are sucpicous, and they posted the GIA report in the first place...
After looking at the plotted inclusions on both reports, there is no doubt in my mind they are in fact the same stone.

 

[TRIALnERROR]

I don't think it was intentional. It appears someone inadvertently posted the GIA report in the thumbnail image as opposed to the AGS report.

Hi TrialInError,

I would bet you are correct. I'll call the supplier on Monday and let them know about the two reports and I'm sure the GIA link will disappear shortly thereafter.

Hi James,

I have no doubt the GIA report will disappear, that is part of the problem. My concerns are: 1) JA chose to identify this stone by the more profitable AGS report as opposed to the GIA report (the most respected lab in the business according to JA); and 2) JA's attempt to tell a potential buyer these are two different stones. I don't see how the benefit of this discussion has any bearing on the response efredman received. I've recommended JA's stones to potential buyers in the past, but I have to say this leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

 

[YoungPapa]

Hi Trial,

Thanks for recommending our stones - I hope you continue to do so in the future.

I want to point out that we never "chose" the AGS report over the GIA. Diamonds are uploaded onto the website via electronic inventory systems and we were unaware of the presence of a GIA report for this diamond until it was picked up by someone on PS. The vendor is the one who chose how to sell his diamond, and given it's his stone and he paid for the report I can't see how he's doing anything wrong. If there is any issue here to discuss it's the veracity of the grading reports and labs - not a vendors right to maximize his profits.

As to the response from the CSR, we teach our reps that GIA and AGS are consistent and equal in standard, so I don't think it's improper for her to have assumed the report must have been for a different diamond. It is only after consideration (and more careful analysis such as taken place in this thread) does it become obvious that the diamond is one in the same.

Finally, I can only cite the same mantra that we hear on Pricescope time and time again: Get your diamond checked. Whether that be by our own gemological staff (who are very forthright on their opinions regarding color/clarity/cut/etc) or by a local independent appraiser, it is always a good idea to confirm the accuracy of the reports, even when issued by "gold standard" labs like GIA and AGS.