help! a conundrum: GIA cert doesn''t seem to match

[theark]

here''s my situation: i recently purchased a 2.00 carat diamond princess cut, G, SI2 with a GIA certificate in a 4 prong platinum setting.
the GIA cert says that it is laser inscribed.

i took it to an appraiser and after checking it out, there were some strange findings:

1. using a microscope, the appraiser could not find the laser inscribed GIA number (it seems unlikely that it would be inscribed at the corner and obscured by the tiny prong).
2. the measurements are close but not quite exact (smaller by about .04 mm). it is set so he could not measure depth.
3. the inclusions seem to be a little different that what is shown on the GIA cert. (they are some feathers but the locations don''t seem to match what is shown on the GIA cert diagram).

bottom line: the appraiser thought that the stone i got was probably an SI1. he initially thought color might be F but then showed it to an associate and he thought it could be an H so i figure it is a safe G.

maybe the stone was polished so the laser incription came off and hence the smaller size? but this would not explain the inclusions...

any advice? should i keep mum? or return it?

 

[neatfreak]

Was this an independent appraiser? Or do they also sell jewelry?

And where did you buy the stone? From a reputable vendor?

Those numbers are often really hard to find...but it is also possible that you got duped, depending on where you bought the ring.

 

[theark]

it was both a reputable dealer and appraiser.

my dilemma is that the appraiser believes i may have gotten a better stone than the one on the GIA cert.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/5/2008 7:11:53 PM
Author: theark
it was both a reputable dealer and appraiser.


my dilemma is that the appraiser believes i may have gotten a better stone than the one on the GIA cert.

Diamond grading is fairly subjective, and even at GIA it's done by a person, so unless the plot doesn't match the stone, I wouldn't worry about someone's opinion of a clarity or color grade as much.

You could certainly call the vendor and inform them. But it's unlikely it's a different stone...but it happens occasionally.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 11/5/2008 6:55:28 PM
Author:theark
here''s my situation: i recently purchased a 2.00 carat diamond princess cut, G, SI2 with a GIA certificate in a 4 prong platinum setting.
the GIA cert says that it is laser inscribed.

i took it to an appraiser and after checking it out, there were some strange findings:

1. using a microscope, the appraiser could not find the laser inscribed GIA number (it seems unlikely that it would be inscribed at the corner and obscured by the tiny prong).
2. the measurements are close but not quite exact (smaller by about .04 mm). it is set so he could not measure depth.
3. the inclusions seem to be a little different that what is shown on the GIA cert. (they are some feathers but the locations don''t seem to match what is shown on the GIA cert diagram).

bottom line: the appraiser thought that the stone i got was probably an SI1. he initially thought color might be F but then showed it to an associate and he thought it could be an H so i figure it is a safe G.

maybe the stone was polished so the laser incription came off and hence the smaller size? but this would not explain the inclusions...

any advice? should i keep mum? or return it?

Once in a while, the diamond setter will cover all or part of the laser inscription with a prong. The setter usually needs
to be alerted to the fact that the diamond is laser inscribed and should not be covered, if possible.
Measurements can and will vary ever so slightly depending on the accuracy and type of gauge being used.
An older model leveridge gauge will not be as accurate as a newer digital millimeter gauge. Calibration is also a factor.
The plot of the inclusions might also vary from lab to appraiser but should be close.
100% accuracy is difficult to achieve when a diamond is mounted...especially color grading.
You also can''t always see an inclusion under or near a prong and might grade it slightly higher.
Showing the ring to an associate for a second opinion might not be the most technically accurate way of color grading a mounted diamond.

Consult with the seller...voice your concerns..and please keep us informed.


www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[arjunajane]

Hi there,
don''t know if it helps you, but my stone is definately inscribed, it is definately the correct one in my ring and matches the cert and reflector images etc 100%.
But my appraiser couldn''t find the inscription either - we searched low and high under the microscope, but no dice.
She didn''t seem that concerned by it, and at end of day neither am I, as I know its the right stone. Most likely its under a prong.
Just wanted to let you know this is possible.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is common that the black vapourised carbon is washed out during the setting resizing etc and the laser inscription becomes next to impossibe to see.
Also the lab may have gone for lunch and missed the inscription. Labs are moving to cheaper labour centers for those type of reasons

 

[denverappraiser]

Start by pinning down the appraiser. It’s important to decide if they are disagreeing with the GIA grading or if they think the stone supplied doesn’t match the GIA report. The difference is important. They are the expert who can actually see and inspect the stone and it’s part of what you’re paying them for. There are a variety of ‘little’ clues on the report as well as the biggies. Look for fluorescence, girdle details (faceted, thickness, etc.), table size, star length etc. in addition to things like the plotting diagram and girdle inscription. Extra facets are often a good clue if they’re present for example as these are almost always plotted. Girdle inscriptions are good as far as it goes but, as mentioned above, they’re often hard to find because they’re low relief and since the stone is mounted now they can be completely concealed behind prongs.

If the answer to the above is that they think GIA was overly conservative than it’s your gain. If the answer is that they think it’s the wrong stone for the report, have them put it in writing and immediately contact the seller.

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

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 11/6/2008 5:34:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is common that the black vapourised carbon is washed out during the setting resizing etc and the laser inscription becomes next to impossibe to see.

Also the lab may have gone for lunch and missed the inscription. Labs are moving to cheaper labour centers for those type of reasons

Why? Because they can''t afford lunch?

Labs are moving to cheaper labor centers because it''s cheaper. I notice the price of lab services don''t seem to be coming down and as long as this can be maintained there''s some serious profits (or non-profits in GIA''s case) available thanks to those hungry workers.

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

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/6/2008 7:34:39 AM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 11/6/2008 5:34:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is common that the black vapourised carbon is washed out during the setting resizing etc and the laser inscription becomes next to impossibe to see.

Also the lab may have gone for lunch and missed the inscription. Labs are moving to cheaper labour centers for those type of reasons

Why? Because they can''t afford lunch?

Labs are moving to cheaper labor centers because it''s cheaper. I notice the price of lab services don''t seem to be coming down and as long as this can be maintained there''s some serious profits (or non-profits in GIA''s case) available thanks to those hungry workers.

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

Actually Neil the issue is that labs can employ people who do a better job. For example IGI in Aisa has a very good reputation - they are in my opinion very consistent.

A friend who sells call center service services for a big blue company was asked by an Aussie contractor if he could do a deal to provide local Aussie call center people for low level services in exchange for access to an Indian call center for elite services like engineers for process control services etc.