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

[TRIALnERROR]

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.

I was under the impression that JA had more control over the diamonds posted on their site. The issue is not the difference between the veracity of the grading labs. The issues are twofold, shopping labs in order to maximize profits and full disclosure. To claim that GIA is the best lab in the land, yet back a vendor that chooses to utilize an inferior lab in order to maximize profits (when a GIA report is also available), is a conflict of interests. I have no dogs in this fight, but if it is common practice to shop labs in order to maximize profits, I will never consider an AGS report in the future.

With regard to training the CSR's, this is a prime example that GIA and AGS are not consistent, nor equal in standard. The difference in price is also considerable when comparing GIA VS2 K vs. AGS SI1 I. A quick search on your site shows a difference of almost $3,000 between the two.

 

[webdiva]

I was under the impression that JA had more control over the diamonds posted on their site. The issue is not the difference between the veracity of the grading labs. The issues are twofold, shopping labs in order to maximize profits and full disclosure. To claim that GIA is the best lab in the land, yet back a vendor that chooses to utilize an inferior lab in order to maximize profits (when a GIA report is also available), is a conflict of interests. I have no dogs in this fight, but if it is common practice to shop labs in order to maximize profits, I will never consider an AGS report in the future.

I don't think anyone ever made that claim on PS or on JA. We all understand that they are not in-house diamonds but that JA offers to have their gemologists evaluate three stones for each customer once they get them from the wholesaler. Everyone always advises anyone buying from JA to get the gemologist to view it, get an idealscope/ASET and that the return policy allows the buyer to see the stone in person before making a final decision to keep it.

 

[TRIALnERROR]

I was under the impression that JA had more control over the diamonds posted on their site. The issue is not the difference between the veracity of the grading labs. The issues are twofold, shopping labs in order to maximize profits and full disclosure. To claim that GIA is the best lab in the land, yet back a vendor that chooses to utilize an inferior lab in order to maximize profits (when a GIA report is also available), is a conflict of interests. I have no dogs in this fight, but if it is common practice to shop labs in order to maximize profits, I will never consider an AGS report in the future.

I don't think anyone ever made that claim on PS or on JA. We all understand that they are not in-house diamonds but that JA offers to have their gemologists evaluate three stones for each customer once they get them from the wholesaler. Everyone always advises anyone buying from JA to get the gemologist to view it, get an idealscope/ASET and that the return policy allows the buyer to see the stone in person before making a final decision to keep it.

I never stated that anyone made that claim. I was simply under the impression that one has ultimate control over what is displayed on their website. If your company policy is that GIA is THE best lab, then the company should stand by the GIA report when one is available. This is especially true when you have a disclaimer on every page that states "Every item on JamesAllen.com is inspected to meet the highest quality standards." In the instant case, the highest quality standard is the GIA report.

To reiterate... The issue is not the fact that there are differences between GIA and AGS or that one should have the diamond independently inspected (which I wholeheartedly agree with), but rather, vendors shopping labs for the sole purpose of maximizing profits and the lack of full disclosure.

James stated that they offer "in-house GIA gemologist inspections." Can someone explain this to me? It is my understanding that the only GIA endorsed gemologist are those that work directly for GIA, not simply receive a diploma or certificate from GIA.

 

[tdstl123]

So after this experience I went back to a B&M store with a dealer who I am familiar with. I spoke with him on the phone for awhile (he is in a different city) and he sent me the attached GIA report. He is asking $6500.00.

It is J color (rather than I or H) and SI2 rather than SI1. But he assures me that the diamond faces up very bright and white.


So what do you think? Is this a good deal?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

So after this experience I went back to a B&M store with a dealer who I am familiar with. I spoke with him on the phone for awhile (he is in a different city) and he sent me the attached GIA report. He is asking $6500.00.

It is J color (rather than I or H) and SI2 rather than SI1. But he assures me that the diamond faces up very bright and white.


So what do you think? Is this a good deal?

I have been on vacation and am sorry no one replied to this. I can't pull up the report now. Did you buy it?

I found this because the thread was brought up because of the two color grade difference in a diamond linked above (which blows my mind).

 

[TRIALnERROR]

So after this experience I went back to a B&M store with a dealer who I am familiar with. I spoke with him on the phone for awhile (he is in a different city) and he sent me the attached GIA report. He is asking $6500.00.

It is J color (rather than I or H) and SI2 rather than SI1. But he assures me that the diamond faces up very bright and white.


So what do you think? Is this a good deal?

I have been on vacation and am sorry no one replied to this. I can't pull up the report now. Did you buy it?

I found this because the thread was brought up because of the two color grade difference in a diamond linked above (which blows my mind).

DS, you can pull up both reports to compare:

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

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

It's apparent that the GIA report was inadvertently posted on JA's site. The vendor shopped grading labs in order to maximize profits ($3,000 difference between both reports). This seems to be common practice as evidenced by James Allen's comments earlier in this thread "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."

I have a problem with that. If vendors are shopping labs in order to maximize profits, the consumer will surely be on the losing end of that transaction. Additionally, it has prompted me to lose faith in AGS reports.