is girdle too fragile? (report included)

[free-user]

https://cdn.livechat-files.com/api/file/lc/att/1819462/d9dde5d4a456697dbf1c73bc2ada5d59/1.64-AGS-Round.pdf

this diamond was manufactured in 2005. does this have anything to do with this being so thin in the middle? i want to put this on a ring. please advise.

 

[flyingpig]

I do not fully know how AGS assigned the cut grade back in 2005. But I am sure they considered durability and girdle thickness. It is on the thin side, but should be ok.
The bigger concern is the report being from 2005. Would you buy a house based on an inspection report from 15 yrs ago? There could have been damages, chips and/or micro abrasions over the last 15 yrs that can affect the clarity, cut, and polish grades if re-graded now. I would not buy unless you get some serious discount and the vendor is reputable with unconditional return policy.

 

[free-user]

I do not fully know how AGS assigned the cut grade back in 2005. But I am sure they considered durability and girdle thickness. It is on the thin side, but should be ok.
The bigger concern is the report being from 2005. Would you buy a house based on an inspection report from 15 yrs ago? There could have been damages, chips and/or micro abrasions over the last 15 yrs that can affect the clarity, cut, and polish grades if re-graded now. I would not buy unless you get some serious discount and the vendor is reputable with unconditional return policy.

great point. that is something im sure that often gets lost in the process as so many of us are looking just for the specs! i wish this would be talked about more.

I am curious however how can all those factors be "re-evaluated"...this would include possible damages/depreciation?

 

[flyingpig]

great point. that is something im sure that often gets lost in the process as so many of us are looking just for the specs! i wish this would be talked about more.

I am curious however how can all those factors be "re-evaluated"...this would include possible damages/depreciation?

One way is to send the stony to GIA and get a new grade report.
If you can find a reputable appraiser specialized in diamond/gemology, that is an option.

The most accurate assessment can be made by GIA.

 

[monipod]

@flyingpig said it all but if it has a thin girdle (which in itself isn't an issue), it's worth making sure a new report doesn't find some new chip in girdle or elsewhere. You can then make up your mind if it's worth getting still.

 

[jasper]

The dimensions on the certificate are consistent with a "medium girdle", as that term was used during the early 2000s. The "0.9% - 1.1%" refers to the thin parts of the girdle; the thick parts of the girdle are probably 2.6% - 2.8%.

@flyingpig, @monipod -- No, the GIA does not provide the most accurate dimensions and cut grading for stones cut as well as this stone is. The GIA provides less precise dimensions than are shown on the existing AGSL certificate. The GIA also no longer uses its old definition for "medium girdle". If the jeweller did want an updated grading report, an updated AGSL certificate would be more informative.

 

[flyingpig]

The dimensions on the certificate are consistent with a "medium girdle", as that term was consistently used during the early 2000s. The "0.9% - 1.1%" refers to the thin parts of the girdle; the thick parts of the girdle are probably 2.6% - 2.8%.

@flyingpig -- No, the GIA does not provide the most accurate dimensions and cut grading for stones cut as well as this stone is. The GIA provides less precise dimensions than are shown on the existing AGSL certificate. The GIA also no longer uses its old definition for "medium girdle". If the jeweller did want an updated grading report, an updated AGSL certificate would be more informative.

When did I say GIA provides the most accurate dimensions amd cut grading?

 

[jasper]

@flyingpig -- In post #4 of this thread, you said "The most accurate assessment can be made by GIA." In post #6, I pointed out ways in which the GIA's assessment is not "the most accurate".

 

[yssie]

The dimensions on the certificate are consistent with a "medium girdle", as that term was used during the early 2000s. The "0.9% - 1.1%" refers to the thin parts of the girdle; the thick parts of the girdle are probably 2.6% - 2.8%.

@flyingpig, @monipod -- No, the GIA does not provide the most accurate dimensions and cut grading for stones cut as well as this stone is. The GIA provides less precise dimensions than are shown on the existing AGSL certificate. The GIA also no longer uses its old definition for "medium girdle". If the jeweller did want an updated grading report, an updated AGSL certificate would be more informative.

Did you mean 0.9-1.3 here? I’m not seeing the reference to 1.1 - I may be missing something.

If you did mean 0.9-1.3 - the OP posted an old AGS DQD. As far as I’m aware the 2005+ AGS DQD has always measured girdle at both hills and valleys... But older AGS reports reported valleys only... GIA still measures in valleys only, so the GIA girdle range reported for a particular stone is expected to be smaller than what AGS would now report for that same stone...

Edit - When in 2005 did AGS switch to the new grading scheme? Is it safe to assume that any report called “DQD” uses the “new” (hills + valleys) girdle assessment? I’m finding very little in the way of documentation on AGS’ site...

 

[yssie]

Calling some pros -
@Karl_K @Wink @John P @Garry H (Cut Nut)

 

[jasper]

@yssie -- Thank you. I misread the "Faceted 0.9% to 1.3%" as "Faceted 0.9% to 1.1%". Either way, this must be the thickness at the thin parts (valleys), because the thick parts (mains) should be about 1.7 percentage points thicker than the valleys.

So the thickness at the thick parts (mains) is probably about 2.6% to 3.0%. This was still a "medium girdle", but verging on "slightly thick".

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Based on 60.6% depth I think parts of this girdle are very thin.
I think the average would be about 2.3% at the thick part.
But given that the diamond a fair size - the % measurment system AGS used then, and GIA uses now - it would have been thin to medium on GIA's not as effective but cheaper to grade current system relying only on a digital non contact scan.
I think it would be fine but getting an appraisal might be worth it.

 

[jasper]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) -- I agree that the numbers do not quite add up. My suspicion is that the pavillion depth is overstated.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) -- I agree that the numbers do not quite add up. My suspicion is that the pavillion depth is overstated.

Yes, something is NQR Jasper. 42.9% = 40.63

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The report appears to be the old 2D proportion-based DQD as opposed to the 3D light performance based reports that were introduced that same year.

Even after release of the LP system, vendors could choose the older report formats and methods.

With regard to the girdle, it would have been assessed in accordance with AGSL proportions criteria for Ideal, so it should not present any durability concern.

But I agree with @flyingpig that it should be examined carefully for wear and tear by an independent expert, or send it to the lab for a report update.

 

[Karl_K]

Either a GIA report or an AGS update would be fine with me.
For a stone with a 15 year old report unless its selling at a steep discount I would insist on a new report. If your paying new prices it should be as new which includes in my opinion a fresh report.

 

[Karl_K]

The most accurate assessment can be made by GIA.

Most accurate is debatable.
What it really is: an opinion with the most world wide recognition and acceptance.
A very old opinion may not match the condition of the stone now which is why I would insist on a new AGSL or GIA report.

 

[free-user]

Either a GIA report or an AGS update would be fine with me.
For a stone with a 15 year old report unless its selling at a steep discount I would insist on a new report. If your paying new prices it should be as new which includes in my opinion a fresh report.

Big box vendor said they won't which is not surprising. Im not willing to pay for a new evaluation if it surpasses my return date. They were asking 11k for it so I passed as its not a steep discount IMO

 

[Karl_K]

Big box vendor said they won't which is not surprising. Im not willing to pay for a new evaluation if it surpasses my return date. They were asking 11k for it so I passed as its not a steep discount IMO

It is what I would have done.
To much money for taking unnecessary risk.