Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Please Help

L

LA_Hunt

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
6
I'm a first time user of pricescope and was referred by my friend. I have learned a huge amount of information in the past 2 days that I have been here. I believe I have narrowed down my search to these final 3 stones and was requesting input from the community. Hopefully you guys are aware of things or see things that I cannot. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

AGS-104047005005 ($16,278.54)
AGS-0104036632004 ($17,838.35)
GIA-2121802022 ($16750.00)

Or if you feel that I should stay away from these stones then please let me know and why. Thanks.
 
need the carat weight of each stone to look up the certificate.
 
AGS-104047005005 ($16,278.54)
this one seems to have the best performance
 
Out of these 3 I would go with the 1.54 G VS1. I don't think it's worth the $1600 to go with the other AGS. Does WF have a setting you love?
 
I haven't found a setting I like yet on their website. They had 1 that was close though.
 
Both AGS stone look promising.

any idealscope images?
 
All three could be lovely IRL, we don't have enough info on the GIA to make that call one way or another.

However, since we have more info to work with on the two AGS stones and the first AGS is considerably cheaper than the GIA for higher clarity, they're all about the same diametre (won't see those differences once set, definitely) - the first AGS (1.543) is my pick to have shipped out to inspect in-person, no question :sun:
 
Personally I would always go with the GIA diamond in a close situation. I honestly believe they are graded more strictly.
 
bridecat|1309292111|2957255 said:
Personally I would always go with the GIA diamond in a close situation. I honestly believe they are graded more strictly.
Click to expand...

that could be the case if you believe it, but have you read the GIA report of this diamond compare to the other two AGS ones? clearly the proportions of it is not as good as the other two.
 
The ideal scope image of the diamond is here.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2517106.htm?gb=1

I guess I'm just torn between whether to go with a diamond graded by GIA or by AGS. The prices are so close that it's negligible, I'd rather go with a diamond that will look better overall. The GIA is available through a B&M jewler who doesn't deal with AGS stones. He stated to me that perhaps the diamond does not have a GIA cert is because it is probably borderline G/H and so GIA gave it a H and so instead they went with AGS.

However I do like the fact that the AGS is Ideal on cut, polish and symmetry whereas the GIA is only ex/ex/vg. Also I only learned about HCA yesterday and the HCA for the ags stone is 1.5 whereas the GIA stone is higher I think around 3.
 
LA_Hunt|1309300874|2957370 said:
The ideal scope image of the diamond is here.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2517106.htm?gb=1

I guess I'm just torn between whether to go with a diamond graded by GIA or by AGS. The prices are so close that it's negligible, I'd rather go with a diamond that will look better overall. The GIA is available through a B&M jewler who doesn't deal with AGS stones. He stated to me that perhaps the diamond does not have a GIA cert is because it is probably borderline G/H and so GIA gave it a H and so instead they went with AGS.

However I do like the fact that the AGS is Ideal on cut, polish and symmetry whereas the GIA is only ex/ex/vg. Also I only learned about HCA yesterday and the HCA for the ags stone is 1.5 whereas the GIA stone is higher I think around 3.
Click to expand...


Oh look at those fat juicy arrows! I am in love :love:


Seriously though. GIA or AGS - both are reputable, both are well-respected. I have heard various things about AGS being stricter or looser than GIA's standards re. colour and clarity at various times, I don't know if A) all those stories are true, or B) if any such discrepancies exist now or at the time that these reports were issued.

Either way, honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. Both are, as I said earlier, reputable and well-respected, and more importantly I personally would trust WF to tell me if they felt that a given stone was graded too loosely or too harshly.

Buying in-person from a local establishment has definite advantages - you get to see the stone and play with the stone before you put down a penny, it's a great opportunity to build a relationship with a local jeweller for future pieces, repairs and work, etc. However most online vendors do have generous return policies, so the option of buying a stone, having it shipped out to inspect, and returning it if you are dissatisfied is a legitimate one, and one many PSers take advantage of. I would have that WF PS 1.543 shipped out, either to you or to an appraiser if you don't want the responsibility of an uninsured stone (contact them first to establish what fees you're responsible for, how much shipping will be, what the return timeframe is) and either take it in to this store or somehow get the GIA stone to the appraiser and compare both - this is really the best way to choose, letting your eyes pick! As you say the price difference isn't all that much, and given how much you're spending a couple hundred in shipping is drops in the ocean - definitely worth the peace of mind of knowing which one *you* found most beautiful in real-life.

HCA score on the GIA lowered b/c of crown & pavilion combo. BUT HCA takes four inputs that are averaged around 8 sections of diamond, then rounded, so it's not a precision tool by any means! Without more info - a full scan, some photos, we can't tell you much more about the GIA, since we have no idea what ranges of values might have gone in to produce those averaged rounded numbers printed on the report... AGS is a bit "safer" to buy blind with just the report because you do get unrounded (though still averaged) numbers, and the simulated ASET map on some of the DQD reports - but WF and some other vendors take actual still photos, actual IS & ASET pictures, which are even better as we don't have to worry about scanning uncertainties, error margins in the AGS simulation or in printing the map, etc. IRL the difference btwn vg/ex GIA and ex/id AGS polish is not something to lose sleep over!

Compare in different types of lighting - spotlights, direct sunlight by a window, diffuse back office lights. Then get both stones dirty with fingerprints (they usually are when we wear them, sadly!) and compare again. I have no doubt that one will stand out to you over the other in-person!
 
I tried inputting the values on the AGS stone into "https://www.gia.edu/facetware/" which is the GIA cut calculator. But it seems like it would only obtain a Very Good cut rather than an Excellent cut. Anyone have any opinions on this issue? I guess it's an issue of what means more, a GIA excellent cut or a better HCA score?
 
LA_Hunt|1309302432|2957382 said:
I tried inputting the values on the AGS stone into "https://www.gia.edu/facetware/" which is the GIA cut calculator. But it seems like it would only obtain a Very Good cut rather than an Excellent cut. Anyone have any opinions on this issue? I guess it's an issue of what means more, a GIA excellent cut or a better HCA score?
Click to expand...


the WF 1.543? You must have put in wrong inputs.

Table rounds to 55%, crown to nearest 0.5deg (34.5), GIA always rounds pav *up* to nearest 0.2deg (40.8 ), star/lgf to nearest 5% (55/70). Pointed culet is AGS speak for none.

Capture_8.png



In any case it is useless to use tools to *estimate* total/overall light return when you have *actual photos* (IS/ASET) that SHOW total/overall light return, which you do for this stone. Not so for the GIA, or the other AGS that you have posted so far.
 
The Sarin report shows that the girdle thickness is 1.5-1.9% which I think is what makes it VG instead of EX.
 
LA_Hunt|1309303137|2957387 said:
The Sarin report shows that the girdle thickness is 1.5-1.9% which I think is what makes it VG instead of EX.
Click to expand...


No - GIA "girdle thickness" as described in Facetware software is measured (averaged around 8 sections of diamond) at the bezels (in green), max and min are measured - averaged again around - 16 valleys (in red). Sarin reports that girdle range in the valleys (red) - 1.5-1.9%, not Facetware girdle thickness description, we don't know it but can vaguely (yes, I know, imprecise and subject to discussion and argument!) say ~1.5-2% more than valley avg, assuming negligible painting/digging/etc - so ~3, 3.5%

Besides right on the WF Sarin it says
Sarin Disclaimer: Measurements may vary by up to 0.04mm from actual dimensions of diamond
gives you some idea of what you can assume re scanning error - 0.04/7.42 = 0.5% = not worth obsessing over Sarin output minutiae, should one otherwise be so inclined ;))


Capture_9.png



Copied from Facetware help -

Girdle Thickness

The range displayed for Girdle Thickness (percentages) varies with the choices for Girdle Min and Girdle Max (verbal descriptions). These three parameters describe different aspects of the round brilliant's scalloped girdle. Girdle Thickness is measured at the eight junctions between the bezel and pavilion main facets, and expressed as a percentage of the average diameter. It describes the distance between the crown and pavilion of the round brilliant. Girdle Min and Girdle Max (verbal descriptions) are assessed in the "valleys" between the upper and lower half facets. Typically the girdle thickness percentage in these valleys is about 1.7% less than the girdle thickness percentage measured at the bezels for normal proportions and when no or negligible painting or digging is present. Characteristics like naturals and cavities can affect the reported descriptions of Girdle Min and Girdle Max too (see Finish, Culet Size, and Girdle Thickness , pages 8 and 9).

Girdle Min/Max

The Girdle Min and Girdle Max values (along with the other additional factors) combine to potentially limit the maximum possible cut grade. Facetware opens with Girdle Min and Girdle Max both set to MED, which causes Girdle Thickness to show a range from 2% to 5%, at 0.5% increments. Changing Girdle Min to ETN changes the Girdle Thickness range to 1.5% - 4.5%. Alternatively, changing Girdle Max to ETK yields a range of 4% - 11% for Girdle Thickness choices. If the desired Girdle Thickness value is not displayed, try changing either Girdle Min or Girdle Max by a few settings to extend the range.

Once the desired value for Girdle Thickness has been chosen, set the values for Girdle Min and Girdle Max, and check that these choices did not force a change to the Girdle Thickness value. For the rare cases where the correct Girdle Min or Girdle Max is not compatible with the desired value of Girdle Thickness, find the estimated grade for the correct proportion combination. Then see page 5 of Finish, Culet Size, and Girdle Thickness, to apply further limitations from the actual Girdle Min or Girdle Max value.

Painting / Digging

The effect of painting or digging out to the cut grade can be applied at four levels: negligible, moderate, significant, or severe. Use this factor to determine whether moderate or stronger painting or digging would limit the estimated cut grade based on the proportions. An explanation and visual presentation of the different forms of painting and digging can be found in the PDF booklet: Finish, Culet Size, and Girdle Thickness.
 
if the stone is well cut ..
i don't mind buying GIA or AGS. they are both reputable and well respected grading labs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top