LAST REQUEST, I promise! A NEW stone to consider!

[Lynn B]

Hello, friends! If you are familiar with my earlier post...

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-friends-please-help-me-decide-between-these-two-stones.15745/

... then you know I was considering 2 stones from my local jeweler. Well, a stone from one of our PS online vendors has just been tossed into the mix, and I really need your help again. THIS IS THE LAST TIME, I promise! I PINKY SWEAR!

(By the way, I have eliminated Diamond #2 from the other post, it's out of the running!)

I am still considering Diamond #1 (from my local B & M)
Here's the stats (copied and pasted from the other thread):

DIAMOND #1
AGS-0002959708; lab report dated 2/14/02
Round Brilliant (H & A) 1.516 cts.
Measurements: 7.34 - 7.38 x 4.55 mm
CUT GRADE: AGS Ideal 0
Polish/Symmetry/Proportions: All Ideal
COLOR GRADE: G
CLARITY GRADE: VS-1
Flourescence: "Inert"
TABLE: 57%
DEPTH: 61.8%
CROWN HEIGHT: 14.8%
CROWN ANGLE: 34.6
PAVILION DEPTH: 43.3%
PAVILION ANGLE: 40.9
GIRDLE: Faceted, 1.2% - 1.9%
CULET: Pointed
HCA Score: 1.7 (EX/EX/VG/VG)
ISEE2 Score: 8.8
Gemappraisers.com score: 1-A
Cost: $13,617 (Please note that this price is $1,000 more than posted on the other thread. This is actually the asking price - but he was taking an old ring I have on trade, so I was trying to spare the details and make it simpler!) But to compare apples to apples here, we should use the 13K price above!

AND HERE'S THE NEW DIAMOND
DIAMOND #2:
AGS0004797493; lab report dated April 12, 2004
Round Brilliant, H & A 1.530 cts.
Measurements: 7.49 x 7.51 x 4.55 (a little bigger diameter)
CUT GRADE: AGS Ideal 0
Polish/Symmetry/Proportions: All Ideal
COLOR GRADE: G
CLARITY GRADE: VS-2 (one "step down" in clarity)
Flourescence: Negligible
TABLE: 56
DEPTH: 60.7
CROWN HEIGHT: 15.3
CROWN ANGLE: 34.8
PAVILION DEPTH: 43.2
PAVILION ANGLE: 40.9
GIRDLE: 0.7 - 0.9 (Too thin??)
CULET: Pointed
HCA SCORE: 1.6 (EX/VG/VG/VG) (Lower score total, but one less "EX")
ISEE2 SCORE: Not available
Gemappraisers.com Score: 1-A
Cost: $12,663

I received magnified photos of the inclusions (but don't know how to post them!); the primary one is a couple of "faint white lines at the facet junction of the table and star facet". I've been told the stone is completely eye-clean and that the lines are barely visible even at 10x. I would be more than happy to e-mail the photos to anyone who would be kind enough to take a look and give an opinion!

Main questions: Is either stone a better cut? Does one or the other stand out as the best performer?

Other considerations: I have seen #1, haven't seen #2. If I buy #1, I pay sales tax. Stone #2 is no tax, no shipping, 30 day satisfaction guarantee. Also, my jeweler says his vendor does not want me to send out his stone to an independent appraiser! That's a major drawback (perhaps even a red flag???), as I was definitely planning to do that. (However, for $100, they will resubmit and re-cert the stone through AGS.)

Also, my jeweler is still willing to buy my trade outright if I choose the other stone (he is such a good guy) and so if that's the case - all things considered, stone #2 would end up costing me well over $1,000 less.
WHAT TO DO??!!!

Many thanks,
Lynn

 

[verticalhorizon]

Again, the two in question are so close. #2 is larger on paper b/c of the difference in girdle (nothing to worry about) and depth. It's one clarity grade lower but at VS2, still should be very minor.

All the specs look great, but without a Lightscope, BrillianceScope, or ISee2 to compare, you'd better see it in person.

I would go with #2 and save the extra cash!

Very strange that they wouldn't want to send the stone to an appraiser. They are probably just worried about WHO it's being sent to. Have them contact the appraiser directly to alleviate any fears. If you go with Dave or Richard, they do this all the time!

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/21/2004 3:17:16 PM Lynn B wrote:




Other considerations: I have seen #1, haven't seen #2. If I buy #1, I pay sales tax. Stone #2 is no tax, no shipping, 30 day satisfaction guarantee. Also, my jeweler says his vendor does not want me to send out his stone to an independent appraiser!  That's a major drawback, as I was definitely planning to do that.
----------------

Lynn, I would go with Stone 2 for a number of reasons.

I have a real problem with the jeweler's resistance (or his vendor's) to getting an independent appraisal, and that alone would cause me to drop Diamond #1 from contention.

Also, as you mentioned, Diamond #2 offers 30-day refund and is $1K less. Sounds like a no-brainer to me in favor of #2.

 

[Lynn B]

Thanks for the input. I am starting to get a wee bit frazzled by all this. If I didn't already have that gorgeous semi-mount, just waiting to be worn, I might just put this whole business on HOLD for awhile!!!

According to the vendor, all their stones rate 'high' to 'very high' on Brilliance Scope readings and 9+ readings on the ISee2.
But of course, I haven't seen that with "mine own two eyes..."

Lynn

 

[valeria101]

Those numbers really are the same! I could not guarantee that from a couple of Sarin measurements those stones could not turn out equal down to a tenth of a degree

Great pair! I thought the other two you posted were nice twin brothers... but these are identical twins !

Given the H&A pedigree, I would imagine stone #2 comes with all the electronic bells and whistles we are used to here, so this would not be that rare oddity where the HCA fails due to odd minor facets and the like.

On the other hand, I definitely realize that I am more comfortable with PS than with some unknown jeweler half a Globe away from where I stand! For you, the situation should be the other way around... And no, I do not blame the jeweler for not accepting an appraisal: after all, he does not know the appraiser! The jeweler was at some point willing to let you leave the shop with two diamonds to play with and decide at home. I get the same treatment from my jeweler, and totally love it

Your cost will be the same for either stone and... how about the new setting? Can the jeweler make something you like?

Oh well... one stone comes with a cozy relationship with a jeweler 3 hours drive away. The other with a cozy relationship with PS (just look at my number of posts for proof of how badly addictive that is). Your choice is likely down to this, not the diamonds - those are too darn close to allow for a clear choice. One can probably start splitting hairs between the two, but I am not a proponent of such exercise: this is a choice between two diamonds, not two sets on numbers, for what I know!

 

[Giangi]

Hey Lynn!

Wow, the new candidate looks amazing for a number of reasons! (among them the price

). The girdle, at 0.7-0.9%, is 'thin'. Nothing to worry about.

 

[Lynn B]

You guys are wonderful. With each post, I feel my blood pressure coming down... (just kidding!)

Can someone tell me how to post the photos that I have of this diamond?! I have them in an e-mail from the vendor. I am a techno-idiot, apparently.

Thanks!
Lynn

 

[Giangi]

They are jpeg's, right? If it's so, when you compose a post there's the option ''attach a file''. it's right below the cancel-preview-submit buttons. at the top of the page.

 

[Magnum]

Also, you need to save the pictures from the e-mail to your computer first in a folder you'll remember. You can't attach them directly from e-mail to PS. Once you save the pictures to the computer and then you click the "attach file" option, you can use the browse feature to find the file on your computer and click on it, then upload, and when you post, the picture will be there.

Edited to add: You also need to write something. It won't let you just upload a picture with out any text.

 

[Magnum]

For lynn

 

[Magnum]

Idealscope

 

[Magnum]

Arrows

 

[Magnum]

Hearts

 

[Magnum]

Whole diamond under Magnification

 

[Lynn B]

Magnum,

THANK YOU for posting the photos for me. I appreciate it so much!

Lynn

 

[Magnum]

No problem at all. Glad to help.

All the pictures look AWESOME to me.

The Idealscope picture shows top notch light return, the Arrows picture shows pretty much perfect arrows, and the Hearts picture is very symmetrical, in my opinion. I did a cut quality search and there are several other stones in the 1.5 G VS2 range, but this looks like the least expensive and should be at least as good, if not possibly better, than the other stones. There is a 1.5 F SI1 ACA from whiteflash for about the same price that looks awesome, and as long as it's eye-clean, might be a good comparison (I still like the G VS2 you listed better, though), but if VS2 is your lower limit for clarity, than I think the stone you listed is definitely the way to go. I think it is awesome that you were trying to work with your local jeweler, and definitely encourage it, but to me, this is an equal, if not better stone, for a lot less, and is what i would choose. If i remember right, it sounds like the jeweler has the setting you want, so I'm sure he'd be happy to get your business for the setting.

Edited to add: Oh yeah, I forgot. I doubt anyone would be able to see that inclusion without some sort of magnification. that goes for anyone with eagle eyes out there, too.

 

[Lynn B]

Yes, Magnum, I already have the setting (a gorgeous semi-mount), and if I buy Diamond #2, I will definitely have Mr. Local Jeweler set it. I have frankly spoken with him, and he says he totally understands if I go with the other stone.

A G color is my only "must have" (that's the color of the 2.5 TCW in the semi-mount) and I would like to stay at VS clarity. Thanks for "looking around" for me... I appreciate it! But I'll tell ya', I have been belaboring this now for long enough... and I'm getting weary! I plan to buy one of the above stones... and #2 is in the lead right now!

Lynn

 

[Lynn B]

Do the "expert eyes" out there think that the whitish-color "half-moon" line near the top of the tweezers is an inclusion?

Lynn

PS And yes, Magnum, I will DEFINITELY post photos after the ring is done... I promise!

(Actually, WILD HORSES couldn't keep me from it! LOL!)

 

[WinkHPD]

The "half moon" is a reflection of the tweezers.

Both stones are obviously incredible stones. I would think you might like the relationship with your local jeweler, the free cleanings, the free checkups and stone tightenings and the free appraisal for your ring.

The first stone is 4% back of Rap, the second is 7%, a 3% difference in price. Most of the net price difference is because of the difference in clarity. Either stone is a great deal. The net difference between dealers is a scant 3%. The hometown jeweler has spent hours of his time with you and shared his expertise and treated you well. In my opinion as a primarily bricks and mortar jeweler, that has to have some value.

Wink

 

[Lynn B]

Yes, Wink, you are so right - I do feel a real loyalty to my jeweler. However, his vendor will not let me have that stone independently appraised, and the cert is over 2 years old! Even my jeweler said, "I'd LOVE to sell you a diamond, Lynn... but honestly, if I were you, I'd seriously consider that internet stone. It looks great, and you can't beat the price."

My jeweler did sell me the semi-mount (no small beans!

), and he would be setting the stone, too.

It's a hard decision, and I appreciate your kind advice.

Lynn

 

[sluke]

My vote is for diamond #2. If you feel some guilt 'bout not going w/ the local jeweler, spend the difference in saving on something in his store.

 

[Giangi]

The pics look great!! I would go for it and have your local shop set it. I think you said it's a 2.5cttw ring... So it was a good sale for them too. Don't feel too guilty, after all business is all about competition.

 

[WinkHPD]

Business is about competition yes, but her local vendor has expenses and provides services that the internet vendor does not. To me that is worth the 3% difference in price, but of course I am also have a B&M presence so I am not unbiased. Frankly, I would have expected an internet vendor to be more below the B&M store, I think the B&M store is acting an a very slim margin for such a stone and is doing an excellent job of competing.

The real difference in the stones is more like $300 and change if you compare apples to apples by correcting for the difference in clarity. The sales tax issue is more tricky. When you fail to put the cost of the stone and the use tax that you owe on your state tax return at the end of the year, then you have committed a crime. When it is discovered by the state, and the likelyhood of that happening someday in the near future is increasing yearly, there will be penalties and interest to pay as well as the tax.

Currently most people get away with it, but there are proposals floating around to have the internet vendors supply a list to their own tax authority on all non taxed transactions and the then have the tax authority send each state a list of the names and numbers so that they can check if the proper itemization was made on the state tax returns. Currently this is not happening, but BILLIONS of tax dollars are being lost. In today's economy and with our various state governments each whining about needing the money, is this or another scheme to collect these taxes very far away?

I guarantee you that when the tax man commeth to the vendors and say, "We are here for your list," and our choice is to fork over the list or pay a tax that is higher than the margin that was collected on the sale, that the lists will be forthcoming. I sincerely hope that when such legislation is passed that the tax athorities will not be allowed to go back to previous years, although the laws are already in place that you legally owe the money. It is just a matter of time until they figure out how to get it. I will not like it, you will not like it, but I think the days of the free ride are coming to a close.

The issue of the two year old cert to me is not an issue. If you have a qualm about it, pay for the stone to be recerted. If the stone comes back with an equal cert, from the same lab, then pay the cost of the cert. If it comes back differently, then all bets are off and the jeweler pays for the cert. That is how I handle it at my business.

Of course, if you prefer stone #2, then buy it. But it should be because it is what you want, not because of the $300 savings that you get for accepting no service.

Just my thoughts.

Wink

 

[hoorray]

Wink -- you make a good point about the apples and apples pricing difference being $300, but the reality is that Lynn won't see the difference between vs1 and vs2, so that absolute difference of what she will or won't pay is still $1000 in price. I agree on the tax issue that it is a limited window item and a difficult thing for B&M's to have to compete against. It's days are numbered.....




I think it's about which stone does she really want at this point. Many of the vendors point out that it often comes down to finding the right stone at the right time.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/21/2004 4:52:30 PM Lynn B wrote:



A G color is my only 'must have' (that's the color of the 2.5 TCW in the semi-mount)

----------------

Aha !

Small stones like those are not individualy graded like a big one is. I would expect G-VS melee to contain pieces G/H-VS1/VS2 not to say F/H-VS/SI1. It could well be that someone push color matching a tad further, but this would be regarded as overdoing anywhere - especially since the cut & clarity of the accents would be more imporatnt and color grade never show.

I am sure this doesn't make things better, but if this the only argument for G - than it is not a strong one.

 

[fire&ice]

I see the value in Wink's words. But, it seems like the jeweler isn't pushing his stone. He's probably making money on the setting. We all know that's where alot of the money is. Also, VS2 is a better buying price point. I'm with the one poster - take the saved money & buy a nice bauble from the jeweler. It sounds like you already have a relationship with him.

 

[diamond demon]

Hi Lynn,

I don't know what the sales tax in your state is, but at 6%, that's another $800 or so dollars. Now you're close to $2,000 more for stone #1.

Sine the two stones are sooooooo close in performance, since stone 2 will appear larger, and is nearly $2k less....it's a no-brainer for me.

Stone #2. If you're truly not happy once you receive it, you've got your money back guarantee. What's to lose!

 

[Magnum]

Lynn,
I was also told they they didn't have the equipment in order to keep prices down, but that they were still excellent cut diamonds. I don't think they were tested ahead of time, as i'm sure they would be able to get that information and provide it if it was. I'm sure it's possible some of their stones may have been tested after the fact by certain appraisers that may have that equipment, but that doesn't mean all their stones are going to get the same scores. It might have been her opinion that they would get those scores if tested, but I don't think they all already have been tested.

 

[Lynn B]

----------------
On 5/22/2004 10:47:05 PM Magnum wrote:

Lynn,
I was also told they they didn't have the equipment in order to keep prices down, but that they were still excellent cut diamonds. I don't think they were tested ahead of time, as i'm sure they would be able to get that information and provide it if it was. I'm sure it's possible some of their stones may have been tested after the fact by certain appraisers that may have that equipment, but that doesn't mean all their stones are going to get the same scores. It might have been her opinion that they would get those scores if tested, but I don't think they all already have been tested. ----------------

That makes sense, Magnum... I'm sure you are absolutely right.
Thanks!

Lynn

 

[WinkHPD]

I too would like clarification on the ISEE2. My understanding is that this is a proprietary machine that is only provided by the vendor of the machine to clients who buy sufficient quantities of diamonds from him to warrant letting the client. Thus it is only available to a few vendors who are selling that manufactures diamonds.

This is what I have been told, but I have not been able to verify so I would welcome comments.

Wink