Just a little bit of trivia re Leo Diamond

[victorianblue]

Since there have been some posts regarding the Leo diamond, I thought I would show a example of what information is provided to the uneducated consumer(that be me)when purchased.

Notice anything on the card in the comments that might cause a little confusion for consumer?

 

[oldminer]

Why was "one natural diamond (not graded)" if it was graded?
This is probably the result of a typographical error up at IGI. They are very busy people and that creates errors. There could be more sinister reasons, but I'd expect something far more innocent.

 

[Giangi]

Dave, maybe I am completely off, but I take it as if the ring had a hallmark in the shank with the 'MY LEO' inscription, and in the 'O' there's a 0.01 or maybe even 0.005ct diamond which was not graded due to unfavorable size and position. But I may be completely wrong.




P.S. Man, the girdle of the stone is waaay too thick!!

 

[valeria101]

That looks pretty standard to me. What do you mean?

Personally, I preffer lab reports without an estimated price on them - so that the gemology and econ. stay apart - but I would not call that "missleading". Is it... it

 

[Maniacal]

I don't notice anything too confusing, aside from the already discussed ungraded diamond in the shank. It looks just about the same as any of the IGI cards I've seen for any standard cut diamonds or Leo's at stores. I, too, am an uneducated consumer, but I wouldn't be alarmed about any of the information (I didn't look at the numbers too closely, though)

 

[victorianblue]

Thanks everyone for your comments.


I was inferring to the subject Dave has pointed out--the graded VS not graded in the comments section. Yes, it may be trivial, but I thought it to be amusing and I viewed this with a lightheart.


But thought it to be a interesting example of what specific information the consumer could receive if they choose to this particular branded diamond.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

What seems confusing to me is what they've got noted on the clarity line:

"SI(I)"

What is it? An Slightly Included stone, or an Imperfect stone?

The color line above is notated "Near Colorless(G)". I'm assuming that they're saying it's a "G" color. What's up with the "SI(I)"? Are they giving it a range of clarity, Slight Included to Imperfect?

I'm in the business, and it confuses me.

Plus, the photo doesn't even look like a Leo. Where's all the extra lower girdle facets? The photo just looks like a standard round brilliant cut with a very thick girdle.

I'd be curious if that is a photo of the actual diamond. Doesn't the inscription look a little odd? It seems too large, relative to the girdle. Almost like it's photo-shopped on. Is that why they refer to it as a "photo illustration"?

Sorry Victorian. I'm not knocking the stone, but rather critiquing the cert. IGI has always driven me crazy.

 

[victorianblue]

Rich,

Are you ready for this diamond?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Sure, bring it on.

 

[just-ice]

Awesome! This is great! would you share the results??

 

[Lynn B]

What do I know... but I think maybe the "I" after SI is a "1"???

Lynn

 

[Richard Sherwood]

You're probably right Lynn. The "I" does look like the "1" in some of the number descriptions. That would make sense.

Confusing format though.

 

[victorianblue]

I would be more than happy to share the results--I think it would be helpful,educational and confirm why it is important to have a independant review/appraisal.

 

[MrsFrk]

To me, the "I"s and the "1"s look identical. Confusing at the very least, especially since I've seen diamonds that claim to be SI3s.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

At VictorianBlue's request, I've posted my analysis of her Leo Cut on the Guerilla Gemology forum.