Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

PLEASE help me, even though my post is a bit long...

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

LJS300

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
56
Pricescope, I am so upset. Let me preface all of this by saying that I will contact the vendor tomorrow but I have a splitting headache right now and wanted your input.

I found what I believed to be our perfect stone and put it on hold, and got some feedback from Pricescopers on it (all good). We went to see the stone on Saturday and it was beautiful. Here is the stone, which I will call 1.46: 1.46. My only concern was that the AGS report was dated 2006. Jonathan told me that the stone could have been traded in and that he would check. (The Helium report is dated 2009.) I had seen a few other stones on the website, including the one that I will call 1.463: 1.463. When I asked about that, Jonathan said that it must be the same stone, because he didn''t believe he had 2 stones in that size range. He checked his stock and no 1.463, so he said that he had his people take that image off the website. The length, width and depth in millimeters of both stones are identical, but the other numbers are not. The HCA numbers are also different (1.5 for 1.46, 2.1 for 1.463). I also told him that the Brilliantscope/Gemex for 1.46 listed different width/length/depth #s than all the other stats for that stone, but he told me not to go by that.

Today I looked again at the AGS report for 1.46 and realized that it listed the carat weight at 1.463. That caused me some concern, so I went back to the page for 1.463 and looked more closely.

Please look very carefully at the magnified images. It is the same stone -- the inclusions are identical. However, the hearts in particular don''t look as good for the 1.463 as for 1.46, there is an Idealscope image instead of a Brilliantscope/Gemex, and there is no ASET for the 1.463. 1.463 also does not show a certificate. The stats indicate that the stone is AGS certified but the blurb up top shows that there''s a GIA cert that''s not posted (which is odd, as GOG''s reputation is that they provide all the info they have). The Helium report for 1.463 is dated 2006, just like the AGS cert for 1.46. Most disturbing to me is that 1.463 comes with the 30-day guarantee and not the lifetime guarantee that 1.46 has.

Can someone explain why the hearts would look different and the table and depth percentages and crown and pavilion angles would be different, but the photo would show the exact same inclusions? Why would GOG not post a cert, and why would the guarantee not be as good? When you view the link for 1.463, it says it''s on hold. I''m assuming that we''re the ones that have it on hold, but maybe not, so perhaps when we go back on Saturday the stone will have been sold? Is it that the stone was a trade-in and the data posted for 1.46 is the info from before the sale, and now the stone has been marred in some way?

I am really heartbroken. I will be in a meeting all day tomorrow so I don''t know when I''ll be able to reach Jonathan but I will try as often as I can. I really appreciate you reading this and your honest thoughts. Thank you.
 

AmberGretchen

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
7,770
I'd try not to get too worked up until you've had a chance to speak with Jonathan or someone else at GOG. I can see how the inconsistency and confusion would be upsetting, but I really think there is likely to be a reasonable explanation for the situation, even if its just an honest mistake.

Also keep in mind I'm sure they will be happy to work with you to find another diamond you are happy with if this one ends up not meeting your standards.

ETA: Jonathan and GOG have an excellent reputation for customer service, and I'm sure they will appreciate having the opportunity to make this right for you.
 

MissGotRocks

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
12,618
Date: 4/22/2009 9:52:47 PM
Author: AmberGretchen
I''d try not to get too worked up until you''ve had a chance to speak with Jonathan or someone else at GOG. I can see how the inconsistency and confusion would be upsetting, but I really think there is likely to be a reasonable explanation for the situation, even if its just an honest mistake.

Also keep in mind I''m sure they will be happy to work with you to find another diamond you are happy with if this one ends up not meeting your standards.

ETA: Jonathan and GOG have an excellent reputation for customer service, and I''m sure they will appreciate having the opportunity to make this right for you.
I couldn''t agree more. Jonathan and GOG would be the ones to be able to explain this to you - we just don''t have access to their whole inventory. Sounds like a glitch in the listings but Jonathan is a very forthright vendor and I''m sure he will be able to straighten it all out for you.
 

LJS300

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
56
Date: 4/22/2009 9:39:32 PM
Author:LJS300
Pricescope, I am so upset. Let me preface all of this by saying that I will contact the vendor tomorrow but I have a splitting headache right now and wanted your input.


I found what I believed to be our perfect stone and put it on hold, and got some feedback from Pricescopers on it (all good). We went to see the stone on Saturday and it was beautiful. Here is the stone, which I will call 1.46: 1.46. My only concern was that the AGS report was dated 2006. Jonathan told me that the stone could have been traded in and that he would check. (The Helium report is dated 2009.) I had seen a few other stones on the website, including the one that I will call 1.463: 1.463. When I asked about that, Jonathan said that it must be the same stone, because he didn''t believe he had 2 stones in that size range. He checked his stock and no 1.463, so he said that he had his people take that image off the website. The length, width and depth in millimeters of both stones are identical, but the other numbers are not. The HCA numbers are also different (1.5 for 1.46, 2.1 for 1.463). I also told him that the Brilliantscope/Gemex for 1.46 listed different width/length/depth #s than all the other stats for that stone, but he told me not to go by that.


Today I looked again at the AGS report for 1.46 and realized that it listed the carat weight at 1.463. That caused me some concern, so I went back to the page for 1.463 and looked more closely.


Please look very carefully at the magnified images. It is the same stone -- the inclusions are identical. However, the hearts in particular don''t look as good for the 1.463 as for 1.46, there is an Idealscope image instead of a Brilliantscope/Gemex, and there is no ASET for the 1.463. 1.463 also does not show a certificate. The stats indicate that the stone is AGS certified but the blurb up top shows that there''s a GIA cert that''s not posted (which is odd, as GOG''s reputation is that they provide all the info they have). The Helium report for 1.463 is dated 2006, just like the AGS cert for 1.46. Most disturbing to me is that 1.463 comes with the 30-day guarantee and not the lifetime guarantee that 1.46 has.


Can someone explain why the hearts would look different and the table and depth percentages and crown and pavilion angles would be different, but the photo would show the exact same inclusions? Why would GOG not post a cert, and why would the guarantee not be as good? When you view the link for 1.463, it says it''s on hold. I''m assuming that we''re the ones that have it on hold, but maybe not, so perhaps when we go back on Saturday the stone will have been sold? Is it that the stone was a trade-in and the data posted for 1.46 is the info from before the sale, and now the stone has been marred in some way?


I am really heartbroken. I will be in a meeting all day tomorrow so I don''t know when I''ll be able to reach Jonathan but I will try as often as I can. I really appreciate you reading this and your honest thoughts. Thank you.

I think my first link didn''t work, so please try this:1.46

Also, there is approximately a $500 difference between the two, with 1.463 being less expensive.

Thank you all so much again.
 

mrssalvo

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
19,132
Please try not to worry until you can talk to Jonathan. GOG is a wonderful vendor and I''m sure he will be more than happy to clear everything up for you. I''m sure if there is an error on their part they will do whatever it takes to make it right. Their customer service is top notch. Mistakes do happen and it''s how a vendor handles them that sets them apart. Everything will be fine!
 

LJS300

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
56
Thank you. We are absolutely keeping an open mind. I am guessing that 1.463 shows the data from 2006, before the diamond was returned or traded in or whatever, and that 1.46 is the data from the stone now that it''s back, which would explain why 1.463 has an Idealscope image and 1.46 has the more recent ASET image.

So, my next question is, would you have any reservations about buying a stone that was pre-owned? Should the price be lower as a result?

Thank you, thank you, thank you.
 

AmberGretchen

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
7,770
No, I wouldn''t have any reservations about owning a diamond that had previously been owned by someone else, and I wouldn''t expect to pay a lower price when buying it from a reputable vendor. I''m sure they examined the stone thoroughly to make sure it is in perfect condition. Diamonds are extremely durable and there''s no reason to think this diamond would be any different from a diamond that hadn''t been pre-owned in any essential way.
 

AprilBaby

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
11,111
I would venture to guess most stones have been pre-owned.
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,275
Hi LJS,

I''ll be happy to clear it up right here right now and while I appreciate things like this handled privately I''m more than happy to answer publicly as we run an extremely transparent operation and have done so since our inception.


Date: 4/22/2009 9:39:32 PM
Author:LJS300
Pricescope, I am so upset. Let me preface all of this by saying that I will contact the vendor tomorrow but I have a splitting headache right now and wanted your input.

I found what I believed to be our perfect stone and put it on hold, and got some feedback from Pricescopers on it (all good). We went to see the stone on Saturday and it was beautiful. Here is the stone, which I will call 1.46: 1.46. My only concern was that the AGS report was dated 2006. Jonathan told me that the stone could have been traded in and that he would check. (The Helium report is dated 2009.)
I have checked and it was just as I indicated to you when I spoke to you.


I had seen a few other stones on the website, including the one that I will call 1.463: 1.463. When I asked about that, Jonathan said that it must be the same stone, because he didn''t believe he had 2 stones in that size range. He checked his stock and no 1.463, so he said that he had his people take that image off the website.
Exactly. Once I personally learned the same diamond was published 2x, I would not want to advertise the same diamond twice, especially when you already had a desposit on it and had it on hold. When the diamond was traded in my lab inspected the diamond, ensured it was in its original condition and published the original web page that we had posted on the diamond. That was published under the 1.463. After running the diamond again through our battery of tests (in 2009) we republished the data under what you posted as the 1.46. My lab director forgot to pull off the original web page with the older data.


The length, width and depth in millimeters of both stones are identical, but the other numbers are not. The HCA numbers are also different (1.5 for 1.46, 2.1 for 1.463).
It really depends on what numbers you use when you''re determining an HCA score (Sarin, Helium, AGS Report, etc.). It is utterly important to bear in mind that the HCA is a sort of "crystal ball" that attempts to predict light performance based on incomplete data. What we do in our lab is a live analysis which trumps the HCA.


I also told him that the Brilliantscope/Gemex for 1.46 listed different width/length/depth #s than all the other stats for that stone, but he told me not to go by that.
Correct. The BrillianceScope is attempting to now measure the mm diameter of a diamond which it does not do accurately. I stand by my advice and you have absolutely nothing to worry about.


Today I looked again at the AGS report for 1.46 and realized that it listed the carat weight at 1.463. That caused me some concern, so I went back to the page for 1.463 and looked more closely.
No need to be concerned. It confirms exactly what I suspected from the first moment we spoke. That they were the same diamond.


Please look very carefully at the magnified images. It is the same stone -- the inclusions are identical. However, the hearts in particular don''t look as good for the 1.463 as for 1.46, there is an Idealscope image
That''s good. It tells me my assistants are getting better at their photography.



there is an Idealscope image instead of a Brilliantscope/Gemex, and there is no ASET for the 1.463.
Back then I don''t believe we included ASET imagery with each diamond as it was a new technology and we did not master the photography at that time.


1.463 also does not show a certificate. The stats indicate that the stone is AGS certified but the blurb up top shows that there''s a GIA cert that''s not posted (which is odd, as GOG''s reputation is that they provide all the info they have).
Yes. A typo by my staff. From time from time we do make typos.


The Helium report for 1.463 is dated 2006, just like the AGS cert for 1.46. Most disturbing to me is that 1.463 comes with the 30-day guarantee and not the lifetime guarantee that 1.46 has.
Another typo. My lab asisstant Chas has officially earned 30 lashes.



Can someone explain why the hearts would look different and the table and depth percentages and crown and pavilion angles would be different, but the photo would show the exact same inclusions?
The Hearts look different because more careful attention is taken to that photography. The depth and table percentages you are pulling the numbers from must be from one of the scanners (Sarin or Helium). On any scanner the numbers can vary by tiny percentages/degrees. Even if GIA or AGS run the same diamond on the same scanner the numbersy may not be identical each and every time. This is the nature of scanners and I happen to possess in our lab here the same scanners GIA and AGS possess. The photomicrographs show the same identical inclusions because it is the same diamond.


Why would GOG not post a cert, and why would the guarantee not be as good? When you view the link for 1.463, it says it''s on hold. I''m assuming that we''re the ones that have it on hold, but maybe not, so perhaps when we go back on Saturday the stone will have been sold? Is it that the stone was a trade-in and the data posted for 1.46 is the info from before the sale, and now the stone has been marred in some way?
The diamond is not marred in any way. Our concern however is that you are happy LJS. If for some reason you are not then do not purchase this diamond. We have been nothing but totally honest and transparent with you but if you prefer another diamond or if you feel somehow wronged by me or our staff no hard feelings. An honest mistake was made and the diamond is what it is. Let me know what you decide and we will honor your decision either way.

I sincerely apologize for the confusion and the fact of the typos on the original page from 2006 and it''s republishing. If you have any other questions please direct an email to my staff and to my attention and I''ll be happy to answer any of your questions.


Kindest regards,
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,983
Glad Jon saw this! I wouldn't have been concerned for even half a second. Honest mistakes do happen on websites that have hundreds of pages. Diamonds are sold as currently graded, so there really is no such thing as a "used" diamond. Any diamond sold could technically been owned by someone previously. One thing is for sure, Good Old Gold is a totally trustworthy vendor, so no worries!

(That is a fabulous stone, by the way! Can't tell you how long I tried to find one just under 1.5 cts.!!!)
 

LJS300

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
56
Thank you everyone for your feedback. Jonathan, I hope that you don''t take offense that I ran this by the Pricescope experts. Were it not for them, I never would have found you or had the confidence to reserve a stone from you and spend as much time as I have in person, by email and on the phone with you and your team. Being brand new to this process, I really want to be sure that we get such a significant, emotionally-charged purchase right. What I hoped to accomplish with this post is exactly what happened -- I got glowing reassurances about you and your integrity from people with a lot more experience both in this arena and with you personally. Tomorrow is going to be a brutal day for me and I didn''t know when I''d be able to touch base with you, although I was certainly going to do my best to reach you, but it''s nice to be able to get some sleep without these concerns on my mind.

We''re very much looking forward to coming back to the store on Saturday and looking at more settings with Marie -- I hope you''re still looking forward to our return too.


Thanks very much again.
 

AmberGretchen

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
7,770
So glad you got this resolved LJS - sounds like you and Jonathan are on the same page now and will figure it out. Be sure to come back and post pictures of the finished product - sounds like it will be lovely
 

LJS300

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
56
Thank you so much again for your reassurances. This is such a happy and exhausting process.

Thud. *collapses on floor*
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Date: 4/22/2009 11:14:28 PM
Author: Rhino
Another typo. My lab asisstant Chas has officially earned 30 lashes.
Oh noes! I''d hate to be in his shoes!
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,275
Hey LJS,

Thoughts between the lines...


Date: 4/22/2009 11:54:05 PM
Author: LJS300
Thank you everyone for your feedback. Jonathan, I hope that you don''t take offense that I ran this by the Pricescope experts.
Not at all. These guys are consumer advocates as am I and exist for your protection.


Were it not for them, I never would have found you or had the confidence to reserve a stone from you and spend as much time as I have in person, by email and on the phone with you and your team. Being brand new to this process, I really want to be sure that we get such a significant, emotionally-charged purchase right.
No need to explain. If I were in your shoes and found our site and saw the same diamond posted twice I''d share the same concerns as you. That is why when I saw this thread last night thought I''d respond.


What I hoped to accomplish with this post is exactly what happened -- I got glowing reassurances about you and your integrity from people with a lot more experience both in this arena and with you personally. Tomorrow is going to be a brutal day for me and I didn''t know when I''d be able to touch base with you, although I was certainly going to do my best to reach you, but it''s nice to be able to get some sleep without these concerns on my mind.
I could feel the angst in your post and hoped you''d catch my response before hitting the hay. I am glad you did. Sometimes when I''m responding, since I tend to respond in a "thought for thought" way my responses may sometimes come across "sterile"
or "matter of fact" so my only concern in posting last night was that my tone would not be miscontrued. You know what I mean ... sometimes typing words doesn''t quite convey the meaning/tone we are trying to communicate.
Thank God for smiley''s.



We''re very much looking forward to coming back to the store on Saturday and looking at more settings with Marie -- I hope you''re still looking forward to our return too.


Thanks very much again.
Absolutely LJS and it''s a pleasure to serve. Just let me know how you and SO like your coffee and we''ll have it ready when you arrive.


Warm regards,
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,275
Date: 4/23/2009 4:50:04 AM
Author: Imdanny

Date: 4/22/2009 11:14:28 PM
Author: Rhino
Another typo. My lab asisstant Chas has officially earned 30 lashes.
Oh noes! I''d hate to be in his shoes!
Chaz is allowed 1 typo a month.
Two on one page ... I start cracking the whip.
 

LJS300

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
56
Thank you so much for this post, Jonathan. We take it black.


There is a customer of yours panicking on another thread (named something like, "Help, panicking!") -- I just suggested that she call the store...or you can spend your evening spreading reassurances across the PS forums...

See you Saturday!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Push Present: Engagement Ring Upgrade
    Push Present: Engagement Ring Upgrade
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    Horses for Courses: Polo Match Jewelry
    Horses for Courses: Polo Match Jewelry

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top