Issues with Good Old Gold's Policy

[jyeh74]

Has anyone ever purchased a diamond without seeing the GIA certificate until you actually buy it? I have been emailing with Sarah from Good old Gold who told me

"We do not give out the actual copy of the GIA certificate until the purchase is made. We are very picky about the dimensions so you can be confident we are looking for a particular table/depth/crown/pavilion combination. We have on our policy page that we do not give out the certificate info until the time of purchase. The reason we had no choice but to follow this is because people would use our knowledge and experience to locate the best available diamond for them and even pay to ship it in and have us run all the scans/video which would confirm it is an awesome diamond. Then they use the exact certificate info to find it on another website that provides zero services that is selling it for $50 less. You can imagine how unfair that is so we have to protect ourselves now no matter how much we feel we can trust someone."

I can't imagine people who buy without having this. Every online retailer, JA, BGD, WF, Brilliance, posts their GIA certs online. Has anyone had this problem with GOG? Does anyone buy diamonds this way (based on videos and pictures without seeing the GIA cert until purchase)?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

All their in-house stones are on their website. What she is saying is that people will ask them to call in stones from diamond suppliers which costs them time and money if they have to have it shipped in. Then they do all the evaluations. Apparently some people will take the GIA number and find the stone on other virtual lists and go buy the stone from a drop shipper who provided no service at all so they can get a lower price.

I actually did the opposite. I looked through virtual listings, found a diamond I was interested in seeing, and had Good Old Gold call it in and run their tests. It met my approval and yes, I paid them more than I would have paid if I had bought from a drop-shipper. I did it that way because they provided me a service and they deserved to be paid for that service. So I am going to say yes, I understand why they are doing it.

However, I think I would have to know the range of the numbers on the stone such as 34-35 for the crown angle, less than 62.3 for depth, table between 55-57 or whatever. I am assuming you have access to the diamondxray, magnified images of the stone, etc. Plus surely you know if it is GIA XXX or the overall grade. You are buying the diamond and not the paper. I can understand the frustration, but understand that they have to do it because of the people who take advantage of them which is totally wrong. You have a return policy in the event that the stone does not meet your expectations. I think as long as you tell them the parameters you are willing to accept, then you should be fine.

 

[madelise]

I just bought from GOG. And their extreme scrutiny, and services they provide really eased my mind in purchasing from the other side of the country.

However, my stone's GIA cert was actually posted on their site. That didn't really matter to me, too much, though, since I knew it was GIA certed and thus my stats of color and clarity were confirmed to be legitimate and not some EGL off-grading. I can definitely understand the concerns GOG would have.. as we have had quite a handful of posters on RT here that would consult about asking for a specific diamond at Vendor A, then wanting to purchase that exact diamond from Vendor B since it might be a tad cheaper. Vendor A really does get screwed over since they put all the effort into giving you a million details, possibly photos and videos.. to ease your mind of its purchase.. and once you confirm it's "the one", you buy it from someone else. That sucks for the vendor.

I don't know though. I loved the services from GOG. I'm a very nervous individual, and get a lot of anxiety when I spend a lot of money. All the tests and videos they did for me really put me at ease.

 

[madelise]

I did it that way because they provided me a service and they deserved to be paid for that service.

Ditto.

 

[marymm]

I do understand your position - but I also understand where GOG is coming from with their policy.

If it were me, and I requested GOG to seek out a diamond according to certain parameters which I had specified, and they did indeed find such a stone in virtual inventory and called it in for inspection and evaluation, and then provided their expert analysis and images to me - in such a situation I would ask, in lieu of receiving the diamond certificate information prior to purchase, that they assure me the GIA report stats would result in AGA cut class IA in all categories, and that the HCA total score was under 2 and inside the AGSO box (or whatever your particular AGA / HCA criteria might be). If GOG was able to reassure me in that way, and I was happy with the images and analysis of the stone, I'd go ahead with the purchase and know if necessary I could utilize their return policy. If I was interested in seeing specific numbers on the report, I would think I would have conveyed that information to GOG prior to their undertaking the stone search.

If what you are looking for is hard to find, it may be worthwhile to trust in GOG's excellent reputation, make the purchase, and inspect the stone (and certificate) yourself.

 

[ame]

Honestly, I had no problem with that policy in any of my dealings with them, and I think their policy is fair.

They are a business trying to make sales to consumers they're hoping they can also help educate and build a relationship for the long term. They have to protect themselves from losing money and time from people who are less than honest and would go to any lengths to save a buck at anyone else's expense. So instead of repeatedly losing money from people who just wanted the stone vetted before they bought it elsewhere, they had to enact such a policy.

 

[jyeh74]

All their in-house stones are on their website. What she is saying is that people will ask them to call in stones from diamond suppliers which costs them time and money if they have to have it shipped in. Then they do all the evaluations. Apparently some people will take the GIA number and find the stone on other virtual lists and go buy the stone from a drop shipper who provided no service at all so they can get a lower price.

I actually did the opposite. I looked through virtual listings, found a diamond I was interested in seeing, and had Good Old Gold call it in and run their tests. It met my approval and yes, I paid them more than I would have paid if I had bought from a drop-shipper. I did it that way because they provided me a service and they deserved to be paid for that service. So I am going to say yes, I understand why they are doing it.

However, I think I would have to know the range of the numbers on the stone such as 34-35 for the crown angle, less than 62.3 for depth, table between 55-57 or whatever. I am assuming you have access to the diamondxray, magnified images of the stone, etc. Plus surely you know if it is GIA XXX or the overall grade. You are buying the diamond and not the paper. I can understand the frustration, but understand that they have to do it because of the people who take advantage of them which is totally wrong. You have a return policy in the event that the stone does not meet your expectations. I think as long as you tell them the parameters you are willing to accept, then you should be fine.

I have read that the table should be between 54-57. The crown angle should be between 33.7-35.0 and the pavilion angle be between 40.6-40.9 (told me anything above 41% will leak light)

I have not heard about the depth needing to be less than 62.3 That is new to me. Anything bigger than 62.3 means what?

 

[yssie]

I read your response on your other thread but I'll post here since it's specific to the topic.

I understand their concerns, I really honestly do... but I personally just would not be comfortable going through with such a pricey transaction on those terms. Seeing a scan of the report prior to purchase would be a requirement for me, to verify that the independent authority states that it is whatever carat/colour/clarity, in much the same way as having a return policy in writing - it's not a question of trusting my vendor. I completely agree that you can't choose a super duper stone by just the report - for that sort of decision having a professional review and workup is critical, for all the reasons Sarah brought up - proportions diagram on the report not telling the whole picture, real-world visibility of inclusions, potential durability issues...
But, with a Sarin, one can figure out what the proportions diagram on the report would look like in a couple of minutes - the rounding rules are explicitly stated on the labs' sites. I would ask about comments, fluor, and girdle inscriptions so I would have that info from the report as well, and I think all of that info plus GOG's very detailed photos and descriptions of inclusions would be sufficient to find a given stone elsewhere, if someone is determined to look, so... it doesn't seem that showing me a copy of the report (with report number and plot diagram blanked out, if necessary, the plot diagrams usually show up so poorly on scans anyway!) gives me any ammunition I wouldn't have anyway. But it does give me (if I was a new customer who wasn't familiar w/ GOG or with buying online) comfort that the report *exists*, and that it's not eight years old...

I, like DS and others, think that vendors deserves to be paid for their services, so I honestly wouldn't think about trying to save a buck by buying elsewhere once they've done the reviews. In fact I had WF pull virtuals and inspect them first for exactly that reason - I *wanted* their opinion specifically, and it was worth paying extra for. But I guess if you've been screwed over enough it's once bitten twice shy, which will unfortunately also drive legitimate interest away - I can't be the only one who wouldn't be comfortable with the setup

ETA: Well, I'm thinking about it more and I suppose in that situation you'd pay, get a scan of the report, and verify then? And if it's not exactly what you expect you just ask for refund immediately, so... if that's how it works I might be okay with it, I guess? Since I would've had every intention of paying them anyway. If that makes sense.

 

[jyeh74]

I've actually had James Allen run Idealscopes for me, free of charge. Their policy is much more lax. They post GIA certs online, and run pictures and Idealscopes. I guess GOG is just more stringent, which I dont like. Yes, these are not posted online, so they have to get it from their private vendors.

I've looked at JA, WF, BGD and GOG. Anything else I should try?


2.3-2.45 F color, si1 (eye clean) no flourescence, GIA xxx Round Brilliant.....preferably under $38k

 

[diamondseeker2006]

For their in-house stones, no one posts more information than GOG. I wouldn't begin to compare a JA idealscope image with the analysis GOG does on a stone. And if I were searching for a virtual stone, GOG does the level of analysis I would want.

I was just giving you examples of parameters. Mine are 54-58 for table, 60-62.0 (or 62.3 if necessary) depth, 34-35.0 for crown angle, and 40.6-41.0 pav. angle. When shopping for stones over 2 cts, you don't have as many to choose from, so often you have to expand the criteria. It is fairly easy to find stones under 2 cts with the measurements that will fall into both AGS Ideal and GIA excellent. But that does not mean there aren't beautiful diamonds that fall outside of the AGS ideal range, because there are.

GOG, WF, BG, and JA are the vendors I use to search for stones since they all provide some information on the stones and 3 of them really specialize in ideal cut stones.

 

[Laila619]

Honestly, I had no problem with that policy in any of my dealings with them, and I think their policy is fair.

They are a business trying to make sales to consumers they're hoping they can also help educate and build a relationship for the long term. They have to protect themselves from losing money and time from people who are less than honest and would go to any lengths to save a buck at anyone else's expense. So instead of repeatedly losing money from people who just wanted the stone vetted before they bought it elsewhere, they had to enact such a policy.

Agree. The policy seems completely reasonable to me.

I think it's a shame that people would feign interest in purchasing from GOG so GOG would run all their tests on a diamond, only to then buy said diamond elsewhere.

 

[TC1987]

I have not heard about the depth needing to be less than 62.3 That is new to me. Anything bigger than 62.3 means what

For RB, depth greater than 62.3 usually means just that the diamond will face up smaller than "typical" diamonds of the same caret weight. If it's less than "ideal" cut, then maybe the light reflection properties can suffer a little, too. Mostly, it's just that you get a diamond that looks small for its weight.

 

[GMUAlum08]

i had GoG call in a Solasfera for me and they personally took all the pictures and posted the GIA and Sarin reports for me on their website.

as a matter of fact, they sent me the GIA report before they even had the stone shipped to them. they do great business over there and have excellent return, buyback, and trade up policies.

i wouldn't hesitate to do business with them again.

speak with matt if you can't get what you need from sarah.

oh yeah, not all tables have to land under 57 to get optimal light performance. my solasfera has a table of 57.9 and depth of 60.4 and it pegs the GemEx report better than nearly every other cut. the 58 table gives it a larger appearance as well. most people say the stone looks larger than 1 carat. i think table size can boil down to preference as well as performance

 

[jyeh74]

Where do you get Sarin reports? What are they? (sorry if dumb question)

 

[yssie]

Where do you get Sarin reports? What are they? (sorry if dumb question)

Sarin - scanner lots of vendors use, GIA and AGSL use for regular grading jobs but I believe AGSL research uses Helium, someone correct if I am wrong
http://www.sarin.com/

 

[snoopkat]

I understand their concerns, I really honestly do... but I personally just would not be comfortable going through with such a pricey transaction on those terms. Seeing a scan of the report prior to purchase would be a requirement for me, to verify that the independent authority states that it is whatever carat/colour/clarity, in much the same way as having a return policy in writing - it's not a question of trusting my vendor.

Ditto. I was looking at WF, GOG and JA when searching for my diamond. WF (and eventually GOG) both told me that the stones I was looking at were not in house and I would have to provide them with mr snoopkat's credit card details if I wanted them to pull the stones and provide reports. WF even went one step further and explained that this was in case I had a change of mind and decided not to purchase the stone after they've verified that the stone is a good purchase. That didn't sit well with me. As a consumer, it is ultimately my decision who to purchase a diamond from. I shouldn't have to feel obligated to buy from them just because they provided a report for me. JA was able and willing to provide ASET images of up to 3 stones and that's why I decided to go with them.

I know GOG is very reputable here and I've seen alot of gorgeous stones on this site. But for someone who has never purchased from them before, the fact that I had to put down mr snoopkat's credit card details for a stone that I may not like isn't a risk I am willing to take.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, I would say there is zero percent risk that either Good Old Gold or WhiteFlash would do anything with someone's credit card without express permission. The thing is, they really should charge for calling in a stone, taking the images, running the tests, sometimes doing a video, etc. But they don't. They include that as part of the sale. But when people know they can get a diamond for $1000+ less at a drop shipper, some people are just inconsiderate enough to let the good vendors do the work, then they tell them they don't want the stone, and promptly go call up another vendor and have them call it in and save money. They may be saving money, but what they did was to have a service done which they didn't pay for.

I say they need to start charging for the call-ins and diamond analysis and credit that toward the stone purchase for the people who require seeing the GIA report in addition to the tests and images. That way the jewelers aren't wasting time and the consumer pays for a service they asked for regardless of whether they buy or not.

 

[Rhea]

I think it makes sense to do a charge for call-ins and then credit that against your purchase should you decide to purchase from them. The shipping back and forth between dealers and the inspection isn't free to them. It's an enormous amount of time, organisation, and cost to co-ordinate that especially for a client. I get that it's not a small purchase on the customer's part either, but that doesn't mean it should be free.

Even to call in bicycles, I had to put money down, £50, for each bike I had called in. The £150 I put down was then a credit against my purchase from the shop, who was able to get in all my requested bikes in the exact size and colour that I wanted at the store I wanted. Should I have decided to purchase elsewhere they would refund all but £50 of my fees for their troubles.

Retailers should charge for these services. It ties up their money and time and they need to know that the customer is serious and committed.

 

[snoopkat]

Perhaps I should clarify my earlier post. I did not mean to imply that the consumer should allow the vendor to run the various tests, do all the legwork and then subsequently buy the same stone from somewhere else for a fraction of the price. Though why not run those tests anyway and the build the cost into the sale price of the diamond? The consumer will be none the wiser and the vendor will be able to produce the reports and test results as and when it's needed.

But I digress. My point is the consumer shouldn't be financially obligated to purchase a particular stone just because tests have been run on it. For the average person, a diamond is a significant purchase financially. And then you take into consideration why most men buy diamonds (engagement, anniversary presents etc etc) and not only does it become a financial purchase, it becomes an emotional one too. With all that in mind and if I were the one buying the diamond, I would want to have all the information on hand and compare different stones between vendors before making my final decision. I shouldn't have to be limited to what I can buy based on the money I've already paid on tests.

I understand for long time PSers, they may not have an issue with GOG's policy because they're regular customers and so they know with certainty that they will not be disappointed. But for a newbie like myself, it's a whole different ballgame. Will I trust your judgement and approach reputable vendors like WF/GOG about the possibility of buying a diamond from them? Absolutely. Am I willing to spend money on something that I subsequently decide not to go ahead with, not because I found the same stone for cheaper somewhere else, but because I found a different and better stone from another vendor? No.

To put this into context, vendors A and B are both reputable and sell amazing stock. Only difference is vendor A is able and willing to provide information requested by the customer at no cost while vendor B will not only charge you for it, but you will subsequently not be able to get that cost back if you choose to purchase from vendor A. Why then, would I want to give my business to vendor B when vendor A is just as good?

 

[Christina...]

Perhaps I should clarify my earlier post. I did not mean to imply that the consumer should allow the vendor to run the various tests, do all the legwork and then subsequently buy the same stone from somewhere else for a fraction of the price. Though why not run those tests anyway and the build the cost into the sale price of the diamond? The consumer will be none the wiser and the vendor will be able to produce the reports and test results as and when it's needed.

But I digress. My point is the consumer shouldn't be financially obligated to purchase a particular stone just because tests have been run on it. For the average person, a diamond is a significant purchase financially. And then you take into consideration why most men buy diamonds (engagement, anniversary presents etc etc) and not only does it become a financial purchase, it becomes an emotional one too. With all that in mind and if I were the one buying the diamond, I would want to have all the information on hand and compare different stones between vendors before making my final decision. I shouldn't have to be limited to what I can buy based on the money I've already paid on tests.

I understand for long time PSers, they may not have an issue with GOG's policy because they're regular customers and so they know with certainty that they will not be disappointed. But for a newbie like myself, it's a whole different ballgame. Will I trust your judgement and approach reputable vendors like WF/GOG about the possibility of buying a diamond from them? Absolutely. Am I willing to spend money on something that I subsequently decide not to go ahead with, not because I found the same stone for cheaper somewhere else, but because I found a different and better stone from another vendor? No.

To put this into context, vendors A and B are both reputable and sell amazing stock. Only difference is vendor A is able and willing to provide information requested by the customer at no cost while vendor B will not only charge you for it, but you will subsequently not be able to get that cost back if you choose to purchase from vendor A. Why then, would I want to give my business to vendor B when vendor A is just as good?

I think I understand your point. I'm not sure that I would be willing to pay $300 (or whatever amount) to have a diamond that I've never laid eyes on, nor seen the report for, evaluated by a vendor, knowing that I may not be happy with the results, not purchase the diamond and be out $300, and have to start my search over with less money in my budget. But, at the same time, ordering stones online, site unseen, is risky as well. The cost to have stones shipped back and forth for personal inspection can quickly add up as well, so at least by having and paying for the tests to be run by a qualified trusted vendor and to have their seal of approval on the stone lowers the risk of disappointment, especially for a first time diamond buyer who may not be sure what they should or should not consider. So, I guess I'm on the fence, no I don't want to pay for services on a product that I won't be buying, but I don't want to deal with the frustration of shipping multiple stones back and forth and incurring the cost of shipping and insurance either, so I suspect that in the end, perhaps it's all a wash.

 

[distracts]

I say they need to start charging for the call-ins and diamond analysis and credit that toward the stone purchase for the people who require seeing the GIA report in addition to the tests and images. That way the jewelers aren't wasting time and the consumer pays for a service they asked for regardless of whether they buy or not.

This.

 

[kenny]

I say they need to start charging for the call-ins and diamond analysis and credit that toward the stone purchase for the people who require seeing the GIA report in addition to the tests and images. That way the jewelers aren't wasting time and the consumer pays for a service they asked for regardless of whether they buy or not.

This.

Yes and no.
Sure, they'll make a buck off the tire-kickers but may lose sales to competitors who tolerate (don't charge) for such unfortunate customer behavior.