- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 6,307
Was randomly perusing BN for nothing in particular ... I just like randomly browsing and stumbling across interesting diamonds. And FTR, I’m not interested in buying this diamond, so if someone else wants it, by all means, have at it.
Something about it just looked interesting, so I clicked on it, then viewed the GIA report and noted the Ikuma inscription, then decided to see what it was all about since I’ve never heard of this ‘brand’/cut before. Appears to be a Canadian-mined diamond, and from what I gather, Ikuma had/has their own ‘ideal’ cut princess, which in this diamond’s case, the GIA classified as a cut-cornered square modified brilliant. Also appears the ‘Ikuma’ branded cut is offered exclusively by a dealer - Ben Bridge - since all the ‘Ikuma’ website pages I found lead back/link to ‘Ben Bridge’. Nevertheless ...
Here’s the diamond (link to BN):
I noted the branding on the GIA report, went digging for information, and found this on the Ikuma website: (have to click on ‘Expertly Cut & Graded’ link about half way down to find this)
A buyer can also apparently track their diamond’s history; for the one above that I found on BN, using the Ikuma # inscribed on the diamond & noted on the GIA report, it reveals the following about this particular diamond ... kind of interesting I suppose if someone values these details, but the diamond details they note are what I found interesting:
The website to track the diamond also noted “To be worthy of becoming a part of your unique story, every lkuma diamond is independently verified by the American Gem Society Laboratory for its exceptional quality.”
I checked AGS via their ‘report check’ function using the Ikuma#/certificate number noted, and found their lab report for the diamond, which corresponds with the above from Ikuma’s website.
Note there is no ‘ideal’ (or otherwise) cut grade reflected, which leads me to think the Ikuma/Ben Bridge brand itself considers it an ‘ideal’ cut vs. an independent lab analysis finding such, though I suppose it’s also possible either AGS didn’t have ‘ideal’ standards for princess cuts in 2005 and/or they felt this wasn’t a true ‘princess’ cut, given the cut corners to earn ‘ideal princess’ cut grading.
Anyway ...
The more recently-issued GIA report:
TLDR/Interesting: This diamond appears to have been graded by AGS as an H SI1; however, the GIA report on BN for the diamond graded it as a G VS2. I found this interesting/noteworthy, considering it’s usually the other way around ... that some PSers suggest AGS is ‘softer’ on color grading than GIA. In this case, AGS has both color & clarity one grade lower than GIA. For those who subscribe to the GIA=strict vs. AGS=soft grading debate, I suppose it’s possible that - in the timeframe this diamond was cut/graded (2005-ish by AGS and 2019 by GIA) - perhaps AGS was actually more strict on color/clarity than GIA. It’s not like diamonds became whiter and clearer with age, unless that is the magic of Canadian-mined diamonds.
That’s all ... just wanted to share an interesting rabbit hole I went down this morning from an informational perspective given the conflicting GIA & AGS findings, as well as the fact I don’t recall reading about these diamonds on PS, though I see them mentioned a couple times 10+ years back.
Something about it just looked interesting, so I clicked on it, then viewed the GIA report and noted the Ikuma inscription, then decided to see what it was all about since I’ve never heard of this ‘brand’/cut before. Appears to be a Canadian-mined diamond, and from what I gather, Ikuma had/has their own ‘ideal’ cut princess, which in this diamond’s case, the GIA classified as a cut-cornered square modified brilliant. Also appears the ‘Ikuma’ branded cut is offered exclusively by a dealer - Ben Bridge - since all the ‘Ikuma’ website pages I found lead back/link to ‘Ben Bridge’. Nevertheless ...
Here’s the diamond (link to BN):
I noted the branding on the GIA report, went digging for information, and found this on the Ikuma website: (have to click on ‘Expertly Cut & Graded’ link about half way down to find this)
A buyer can also apparently track their diamond’s history; for the one above that I found on BN, using the Ikuma # inscribed on the diamond & noted on the GIA report, it reveals the following about this particular diamond ... kind of interesting I suppose if someone values these details, but the diamond details they note are what I found interesting:
The website to track the diamond also noted “To be worthy of becoming a part of your unique story, every lkuma diamond is independently verified by the American Gem Society Laboratory for its exceptional quality.”
I checked AGS via their ‘report check’ function using the Ikuma#/certificate number noted, and found their lab report for the diamond, which corresponds with the above from Ikuma’s website.
Note there is no ‘ideal’ (or otherwise) cut grade reflected, which leads me to think the Ikuma/Ben Bridge brand itself considers it an ‘ideal’ cut vs. an independent lab analysis finding such, though I suppose it’s also possible either AGS didn’t have ‘ideal’ standards for princess cuts in 2005 and/or they felt this wasn’t a true ‘princess’ cut, given the cut corners to earn ‘ideal princess’ cut grading.
Anyway ...
The more recently-issued GIA report:
TLDR/Interesting: This diamond appears to have been graded by AGS as an H SI1; however, the GIA report on BN for the diamond graded it as a G VS2. I found this interesting/noteworthy, considering it’s usually the other way around ... that some PSers suggest AGS is ‘softer’ on color grading than GIA. In this case, AGS has both color & clarity one grade lower than GIA. For those who subscribe to the GIA=strict vs. AGS=soft grading debate, I suppose it’s possible that - in the timeframe this diamond was cut/graded (2005-ish by AGS and 2019 by GIA) - perhaps AGS was actually more strict on color/clarity than GIA. It’s not like diamonds became whiter and clearer with age, unless that is the magic of Canadian-mined diamonds.
That’s all ... just wanted to share an interesting rabbit hole I went down this morning from an informational perspective given the conflicting GIA & AGS findings, as well as the fact I don’t recall reading about these diamonds on PS, though I see them mentioned a couple times 10+ years back.
Last edited:
300x240.png)