Is an inclusion near girdle sign of damage from setting?

[user_jason]

First of all, thanks to all contributors. I've been stalking this site for months and have learned a TON.

A diamond I'm targeting has an inclusion (or blemish?) very near the girdle. Since it's got a 2008 GIA grade date, my guess is it could be from damage during a previous setting.

Is this a concern that the diamond was previously mishandled? If I get it re-graded, any damage since 2008 should be uncovered, correct? I've asked the diamond dealer to re-grade and she's going to send it to GIA today.

Here are the stats:

Round, 1.7, FVS1, very good cut/polish/symmetry, no flour
Clarity Characteristics: Cloud, Feather, Natural
Comments: Surface graining is not shown.
~18k

Any red flags?

Thanks in advance!

 

[John P]

A diamond I'm targeting has an inclusion (or blemish?) very near the girdle. Since it's got a 2008 GIA grade date, my guess is it could be from damage during a previous setting.

On the 2008 GIA report: Is the inclusion you're seeing already plotted (it would be a feather or the natural), or are you saying this characteristic is something you're seeing near the girdle that is not noted on the 2008 report? If it's already plotted, no worries: A VS1 characteristic is not an issue.

I've asked the diamond dealer to re-grade and she's going to send it to GIA today.

Sounds good. That will clear up any confusion, either way.

Here are the stats:
Round, 1.7, FVS1, very good cut/polish/symmetry, no flour
Clarity Characteristics: Cloud, Feather, Natural
Comments: Surface graining is not shown.
~18k

Any red flags?

The VG cut begs more questions from me, but they depend on how cut-focused you are. And it isn't the reason you posted.

In terms of clarity the cloud is the grade-setter with all else under the VS1 umbrella, so if it's pre-existing no worries. If the report comes back with a new characteristic noted that lowers the clarity grade that should be considered in valuation.

 

[ame]

My old stone had an indented natural right at the girdle that was not damage from setting. It was probably cut to fall that way on purpose, as it was completely prongable (ie could be hidden under a prong to be non visible).

 

[user_jason]

John & ame, thank you for the helpful information.

John, in regards to your concern about the VG cut. After reading your concern for the cut, I did a bit of research and it seems like many feel GIA's "excellent" range is too large, so the fact that it doesn't fall in at least that large range is concerning.

I don't know what dimensions are considered the better part of GIA's excellent, but it looks like the MED-THK girdle is what knocks it in the VG range instead of excellent. This suggests to me that it's probably on the lower end of excellent. Here's the facetware for the actual dimensions (top) and with girdle changed from MED-THK to MED-STHK (bottom)

.

The VG cut begs more questions from me, but they depend on how cut-focused you are. And it isn't the reason you posted.

I'm only cut-focused in as much as it would impact brilliance (which I'm not able to judge adequately) and to a lesser extent re-sale value. If you have any further insight on the cut based on the pics above, definitely let me know.

Thanks!

 

[JulieN]

dimensions and price? pavilion angle is deep.

 

[user_jason]

Just discovered HCA and it rates a 4.1. Not terribly impressive, so maybe 18k is a bit steep?

Would a vs2 with a higher HCA be preferable to anyone here?

 

[John P]

I don't know what dimensions are considered the better part of GIA's excellent, but it looks like the MED-THK girdle is what knocks it in the VG range instead of excellent. This suggests to me that it's probably on the lower end of excellent. Here's the facetware for the actual dimensions (top) and with girdle changed from MED-THK to MED-STHK (bottom)

You made great use of Facetware to arrive at some concrete conclusions. 58/41.4/33.5 is indeed within GIA's EX window. But you're also correct that GIA EX is somewhat wide. Depending on specifics the basic proportions would arrive somewhere between AGS2 and AGS4 in light performance, and the girdle would also be penalized.

I'm only cut-focused in as much as it would impact brilliance (which I'm not able to judge adequately) and to a lesser extent re-sale value. If you have any further insight on the cut based on the pics above, definitely let me know.

RE Brilliance: It's likely to be quite bright in general. At this PA a phenomenon called table reflection has some influence: In diffused light, and low-indirect light, an internal under-table area undergoes secondary reflection which dampens basic light return and refraction to some degree. It's why AGS would reduce it from their top performance marks.

RE Spread: Julie asked for the dimensions. I'm going to guess average girdle diameter is around 7.60mm. That's somewhat reduced from the 7.7Xmm people 'round these parts might expect. If there is a trade-off (like higher crown for increased dispersion) I have no issue with some reduction...but there is no such trade-off here.

RE Re-Sale Value: Listen to the "whoosh" as that can of worms is opened! Okay, just kidding. But I am interested in what you mean. To that end there is an article I had the pleasure of editing recently in which you may be interested:
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/how-to-sell-your-diamonds

 

[user_jason]

John, thanks for the detailed responses! They are very helpful.

The re-grade came back identical so it looks like I'll be going with this one barring any last minute change of heart.

Julie, I posted dimensions on the Facetware screenshots I posted. Are there other stats that would be helpful to you? The price is 18k.

Thanks!