Please Help - Need Opinion/Comment on Recent Diamond Purchase Please!

[Leigh]

I just recently ordered a diamond on-line and I'm very nervous about this purchase. I'll receive the diamond this week. I'm completely new to the whole diamond buying process, so I'd like some opinion/comments on the quality of the diamond I bought - I'm very paranoid about getting screwed somehow! Here is the info:

Carat: .90
Shape: Round
Color: H
Clarity: VS1
Depth: 61.3%
Table:58%
Girdle: Thin to Medium (is this okay?)
Culet: None
Polish: VG
Symmetry: VG
Flourescence: None
Measurements: 6.18-6.22 x 3.8
Cut: Ideal
Grading: GIA
Price: $4083

Comments? Opinions? Please help, I really appreciate it! Does this sound like a fair price? Even if it comes with the GIA documents, should I go ahead and spend the money to get this appraised?

Thank You!!

 

[pricescope]

Hi Leigh, welcome to the forum.


----------------
I'm very paranoid about getting screwed somehow!
----------------


Please don't be. Can you tell the company name? Some companies have very good reputation and many positive customer' feedbacks. We could tell you whether your vendor is known as such a company here.

You also should have some inspection time (7-30 days?) to return the stone if something will bother you.


----------------
Girdle: Thin to Medium (is this okay?)
----------------


That's fine.


----------------
Does this sound like a fair price?
----------------


Yes it does. It is not the lowest price but not unreasonably high.


----------------
Even if it comes with the GIA documents, should I go ahead and spend the money to get this appraised?
----------------


We always recommend checking a diamond with INDEPENDENT appraiser during your money-back period. Appraiser will verify the diamond for you and will be able to tell more accurate the fairness of the price you paid.

If you are going to insure your ring, you'll need an appraisal anyway.

 

[Leigh]

Thank you for your response!!

The company name is Diamonds.Com (with an "S") - any opinions of them you can share? Are there other places that are more reputable who have diamonds for a lower price? I keep seeing posts about dirtcheapdiamonds.com - is this one you would recommend?

How do I find an independant appraiser? I live in Indianapolis, IN.

Thanks again for your help!

 

[jessicarfc75]

IMO, dirtcheapdiamonds is a good site. Regarding your appraisal, ask around, talk to people you know. Also, it is best to have your diamond evaluated by someone who does not also sell diamonds...(conflict of interest)

 

[pricescope]

There are quite a few trustworthy companies including DCD.

Diamonds.com belongs to Mr. Rapaport himself. However, I haven't heard any feedbacks yet.

I would guess you should be ok with them but you might want to get independent opinion anyway.

 

[Leigh]

Okay, here is what I ended up with. Diamonds.com went down for maintenance in the middle of our order yesterday, so the order did not go through. This actually turns out to be a good thing (I think) because I started searching around on some other sites and found one I like a little better. The diamond is on hold and we'll pay for it tomorrow. PLEASE tell me what you think if any of you get a chance!! Here's all the info:

Carat: .95
Shape: Round
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Crown Height: 15%
Pavilion Depth: 44%
Culet: None
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Measure: 6.40-6.33 x 3.94mm
Lab: EGL
Price: $4,104

What do you think??!! Thanks for your opinions/comments - you've all been great!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

shocking cut

 

[Leigh]

What do you mean when you say "shocking cut"? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?! What is your overall opinion on this one?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

shocking = bad

 

[Leigh]

Whoops! I forgot to include the Depth and Table percentages. Let's try this again:

Carat: .95
Shape: Round
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Depth: 61.9
Table: 58
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Crown Height: 15%
Pavilion Depth: 44%
Culet: None
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Measure: 6.40-6.33 x 3.94mm
Lab: EGL
Price: $4,104

 

[Leigh]

Uh-Oh! What is bad about the cut of this diamond?! It's supposed to be an ideal cut, and from what I can tell, the table and depth fall within the "Ideal" categorty. I haven't paid for this yet, so I'm very curious to know what is bad about this diamond. To me, a fairly inexperience diamond consumer, it looked like a pretty good diamond!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

no need
avoid it

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Buy DiamCalc from the front page and you can be an expert too
For just $280.

 

[Leigh]

So, you are saying I shouldn't purchase this diamond? I'm confused. I guess I don't see what is wrong with this diamond.

 

[diamondnovice]

You may want to run your stone through the Holloway Cut Advisor (look at the third link from the left on the menu bar of this website) for yourself. I did and got the following:

"Light Return - Very Good
Fire - Good
Scintillation - Good
Spread or diameter for weight - Very Good

Total Visual Performance 4 - Good - Only if price is your main criterion "

"The grading scale is: 0-2 Excellent, 2-4 Very Good, 4-6 Good, 6-8 Fair, and 8-10 Poor. A score of zero is almost impossible because many of the factors conflict."

Hope this helps.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Bad? Bad???

Garry, I know you're a cut "nut", but do you think "bad" is really the correct descriptive term for a stone that would bring an AGS 1 cutting grade?

"Bad" should be reserved for Class 4 stones, or the like. You've got so used to looking at only the best, that you turn your nose up at something that is slightly less than best.

I guess if all you carry is ideal cuts, then it's safe to use a term like bad for an AGS 1. But is that really being fair to the industry as a whole?

I think if you were to create a grading standard system using your IdealScope that is more realistic (and not so damning), it would possibly be adopted throughout the industry. But right now, the stones you term "bad" cuts or "rejects" are what 90+% of the population are wearing on their fingers and enjoying everyday.

Let's examine a scale such as Poor Fair Good V.Good Excellent. In my opinion, your definition of "bad" is falling in the "good & very good" range. With your quality standards I can understand why, but it doesn't seem accurate, or fair.

Rich

 

[Leigh]

Sorry for my inexperience, but what does "AGS 1" mean? I really feel like this is a good diamond for me from what I have seen so far. Not that I'm an expert by any means, but I guess I feel really good about buying this diamond, so I was just looking for some sort of reassurance from some people who know a lot more about diamonds than I do since I'm a little nervous about buying on-line. This diamond is rated as an "Ideal Cut" diamond, so I guess for me I don't really need the perfect, flawless stone to be happy with what I've got on my finger. I just wanted someone to point out if there were any glaring problems they saw with the ratings of this stone.

 

[diamondnovice]

The American Gem Society (AGS) has a cut grading system. The grades are from 0 (being the best) to 10 (being the worst). Here is a website that has both the GIA and AGS grading system.

http://www.diamondring.com/GIA_AGS_CUT_MAKE_CLASS.htm

Hope it helps.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Leigh, the AGS is a well respected laboratory that grades cut on a scale of 0 thru 10.

0= Ideal Proportions
1= Excellent Proportions
2= Very Good Proportions
3= Good Proportions
and so on...

The stone you mentioned has two characteristics which place it in the "1" category instead of Ideal. The pavilion depth (Ideal ranges from 42.2 to 43.8%), and the table% (Ideal ranges from 52.5 to 57.5%). As you can see, "your" stone is just slightly above these two ranges. Not a huge deal, except to the rarified "cut nuts".

The truth of the matter is that the diamond you are referring to has "excellent" proportions. As long as that descriptive term is backed up by your visual (or a professional's visual) inspection of the diamond, I would say don't worry about it.

The thing that I would have double checked though is EGL's grading. If the stone came from the Los Angeles Lab, chances are the grading is strict. If it came from another lab (EGL has labs all over the world which are independent franchises), I would definitely have it double checked for accuracy. For that matter, I would have any certed stone double checked for accuracy, and a professional's objective opinion of it's visual beauty.

Rich, GG
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This diamond very likely has a 41.5 degree pavilion and around 33 crown from the limited data and normal distributions. (either way the crown and or the pavilion are too deep)

It will fall within the No Go Zone which performs worse that many diamonds that are deeper still.

It is average in the market, but we believe from our experiance here at Pricescope that the requirements of web shoppers are more stringent than the mall type goods.

http://www.diamond-cut.com.au/21_nogo.htm will give a technical explanation including pictures, or if you want just read the text here:


"We are now going to look in more detail at a zone of poorly performing crown and pavilion proportion combinations, or ‘no go zone’ (NGZ). There has been no previous mention in any literature of this most important issue. Tragically most of today’s diamonds are cut to proportions in this zone. The result is light leakage out the pavilion that can be seen through the table in a face up view. This zone includes many stones in the top cut grades of most labs cut standards.

Cutters will naturally cut to the maximum allowable crown and pavilion proportions used by institutes that issue reports on diamond cut standards in order to maximise yields and profitability. These diamonds display a dull area just inside the table and are defined here as no go zone diamonds (NGZ).



Figure 20. The first stone is a no-go-zone diamond (NGZ) which has AGS 0 proportions. This combination of crown and pavilion angles allows some light entering the table to escape out the pavilion (and vice-versa) resulting in an unattractive dull area just inside the table when set. ‘Promotional’ proportioned diamonds like the second stone, unashamedly cut for weight retention, can be more beautiful than many NGZ diamonds with top cut grades and higher prices. The third stone scores the highest HCA score yet it is an AGS 3. (All three DiamCalc images have 57% table sizes).

Stone 1 2 3
Crown 35.7° 38° 32°
Pavilion 41.2° 41.5° 41°
HCA Score 3.7 Good 3.1 V Good 0.5 Excellent


This cause here is not related to the ‘Harding’ of ‘nail head’ resulting from a viewer’s head blocking the illumination source. Nailheads occur when pavilion angles are greater than 43.5° (Harding 1975). This darkness is caused by light leakage via the pavilion as a result the combined effect of increased crown and pavilion angles. If an observer were viewing a diamond in a face up position in the direction of the ray path then rather than observe light entering the diamond via the opposite side crown facet, the viewer ‘looks’ out the pavilion of the diamond.

In May 1999 I employed a competent and experienced appraiser and while testing her skills I asked her to rank the cut quality of a random parcel of ten diamonds. The results of this test were almost the opposite of my grading. I then understood the cause of the problem. Next day I left on an international buying trip and conducted similar tests with diamond dealers and merchants on three continents. Each time the preferred selection included diamonds that fell into the NGZ (I did not name it until 2000).

Experienced dealers grade unset diamonds with a loupe, backlit to enable a thorough clarity examination. Well-cut diamonds appears dark and dull because the head and loupe block light from the front of the stone, while NGZ diamonds sparkle because light from the dealer’s lamp is able to enter the pavilion. This and the fact that most institutions approve diamonds with NGZ proportions explains why we find we reject more than 90% of the diamonds we see.

Because less light is returned via the crown facets fire is enhanced when these stones are examined (in the manner that most dealers do) held at arms length in tweezers and rocked from side to side. The leakage area displays excellent fire, but once set of course there is no back lighting supply. This leakage not only results in a loss of light return, but also patchy static scintillation. NGZ diamonds should be set in ways that enable light to enter via the pavilion.

The HCA system penalises NGZ diamonds, and the more buyers that take heed, the sooner diamond cutters will respond to market demands and less NGZ diamonds would be cut.

The three DiamCalc images of the same identically proportioned stone show an AGS 0 or so called ‘ideal cut’. The diamond shown has very commonly found proportions of crown of 35.3° and a pavilion of 41.2°.

(This example is part of a letter to the Editor of the Gemmological Association of Great Britain concerning errors I believe Mr Michael Cowing made in his article published early in 2001. The Editor has refused to publish or enter into further discussions on the matter. The diamond used by at the top of Figure 11 and Table II of his article was an example of an ‘ideal cut’ diamond. However Michael appears to have inadvertently lit the pavilions of the diamonds from the side, there by obtaining completely wrong results. A true ideal cut diamond is little changed when illuminated from below the girdle.)

In realistic illumination where light is only supplied from above the girdle a large black donut shaped ‘hole’ can be seen inside the table. The ray path image shows the dull area is caused by light leaking out the pavilion.



By illuminating the right hand side of the diamond’s pavilion (the third illustration) with a strong virtual light bulb, light can be seen emerging from the area in question. The light has entered the pavilion in the reverse direction indicated by the ray path (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) and then refracts out through the black ‘hole’ making the right side of the diamond appear brilliant. A truly ideal cut diamond is little changed when illuminated from below the girdle.

 

[pricescope]

I modeled this diamond on Diamond Calculator. Firescope image shows strong light leakage under the table (white).

That is why Garry said it is bad cut.

 

[pricescope]

cut evaluation results for this stone. As you can see light return is much less than for ideal cut diaomnd[/u]

 

[pricescope]

[/u][/u][/u]

 

[Leigh]

Thanks to all of you for your help - you've been great!

I guess my question is, to a person like me who is quite unexperienced and just wants something very nice that will look nice to the human eye once it is set, will this diamond do the job? I guess I will be able to see for myself tomorrow when I receive the diamond. I want a very nice diamond that sparkles and is bright, so that's what I'm mainly concerned about. Are you telling me my diamond will look dull? I guess I'm curious to know if I would ever have any clue about the things you guys are telling me if I were to just look at the diamond with my own eyes and give it my own (unexperienced/non-expert) opinion.

Thanks again - I really appreciate all of this!!

 

[pricescope]

----------------
will this diamond do the job?
----------------


Yes it will.

Is it EGL USA report or Israel or Europe?

 

[Leigh]

I'm not positive how I can tell. I just e-mailed the person who sent me a scanned copy of the certificate to ask her where it came from. Is there a way I can tell myself? What does "diascript on the girdle" mean??

 

[pricescope]

For comparison sake, here is Firescope simulation of a diamond with 58% table but crown and pavilion angles are 34.5 and 40.7 degrees correspondingly.

Note much less white = light leakage.

 

[pricescope]

The reason I asked is because EGL USA is more strict than EGL Israel or Belgium.


----------------
What does "diascript on the girdle" mean??
----------------


It means something is inscribed on the girdle e.g. grading report number.

 

[Leigh]

Another opinion please. Turns out....bad news, that diamond was not available and the wholesaler made a huge mistake. They haven't had that diamond for four months and I already wired the money for it because the wholeseller told them he had it and it would be shipped today!! I'm not too worried though - I've been on the phone with them all morning and they've been very reassuring.

Need an opinion though. Which one of these looks better on paper to you:

0.92 G VS2 GIA $4,099 61.6 56 VG VG None 6.26x6.31x3.84

0.92 H VVS2 GIA $3,965 61.1 57 VG EX None 6.27x6.29x3.84


That's all the info I have at this point. Please help - you have all been so great and your opinions have helped! Hopefully I can find one this time that doesn't have the light leakage the other one did and I feel better about these being GIA certified.

Please let me know. Thanks!!!!

 

[pricescope]

#2 looks better pricewise although I personally prefer saving some $$ on clarity.