Price / quality check on this diamond please :)

[100]

Greetings,

I am shopping for a diamond and a local jeweler offering me this stone for a price of $5,000.00

It's AGS graded, it is H&A, cut by company name isee2.

I punched the numbers into HCA and the rating is 1.5 with Excellent light return, everything else is Very Good. The stone is very beautiful though. Combination of F color and strong fluorescence makes it a very beautiful stone.

However, the AGS report does not include the Idealscope image. Do you think it is necessary to have this image? The jeweler advised me that she cannot find it. She gave me the address of isee2.com to view the birth certificate of this stone. The website only display the H&A images, but no idealscope.

Another concern is the SI2 of clarity. It is eyeclean as far as my newbie eyes can see. But it is very visible under the 10x scope. So I am not totally sure the $5,000.00 is worth the asking price.

Thank you very much for reading and any advices.

AGS#: 8386704
Report Type: Diamond Quality™ Document
Shape and Style: Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.28 - 6.29 x 3.84 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Ideal 0
Light Performance: 0
Proportion Factors: 0
Finish: 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Color Grade: AGS 1.0 (F)
Clarity Grade: AGS 6 (SI2)
Carat Weight: 0.916
Fluorescence: Strong Blue
Comments:
"È2808974497" is present on the table facet of this diamond.

Table: 55.8%
Crown Angle: 34.2
Crown Height: 15.0%
Girdle: 1.1% to 3.2%
Pavilion Angle: 41.0
Pavilion Depth: 43.4%

Star Length: 57%
Lower Girdle Length: 78%
Total Depth: 61.2%
Culet: Pointed

 

[100]

Just found another stone from Brian Gavin. This one seems to have better HCA number. 1.3 vs 1.5 for the one above.

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/diamond-detail/?product_id=AGS-104051075003

Color is G and Clarity is SI1

So the question is G vs F color and SI1 vs SI2, and $250 higher on the BG's stone. Do you think the BG is a better deal?

Brian Gavin is pretty much a guaranteed quality. However I wanted to see what the veterans think.

 

[slg47]

isee2 are very high quality. have you seen it in person in different lighting and at different angles? that is the best way to determine if eye-clean or not. if you are interested in blue fluor maybe check out BGD blue also

 

[100]

Thank you for your suggestion. Good to know that isee2 is a reputable company.

I did look at the diamond in person. It is eye clean, to me

I just wanted to see if you were to pick between above two stones, which one you would pick. As well as the price. I am a bit unease of the SI2 even though it is eye clean.

I did look at BG Blue, unfortunately, the price is a bit out of range at the moment. Might have to increase the price ceiling of all else fail though.

 

[Dreamer_D]

isee2 is a great brand. You do not need an IS for them in my opinion, when combined with the AGS0 cut grade.

Note please that the HCA is a dichotomous accept/reject tool. Scores over 2 mean reject, scores under 2 mean worth further consideration. Nuances beyond that are not so useful to consumers.

In terms of value, it may surprise you to learn that the BGD is much better value. There is a HUGE drop in price per carat when you go from SI1 to SI2 grades. And so the stone you are considering from your B&M vendor is overprices, in my opinion, relative to what you can get online. Similar AGS0 F S12 stones (not H&A though) are going for about $3900 on the PS search engine. So in my opinion, the G SI1 is a better buy. I also thin G SI1 is a better balance of the Cs compared to an F Si2, for your money.

 

[100]

Thank you Dreamer for clarification on the HCA tool.

I was thinking the same about SI2. Your advice is greatly appreciated.

Do you think the H&A F SI2 version as in the post should priced somewhere mid $4K since the non H&A is ~4K? Is the AGS ideal vs AGS ideal H&A worths the increase in cost?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Thank you Dreamer for clarification on the HCA tool.

I was thinking the same about SI2. Your advice is greatly appreciated.

Do you think the H&A F SI2 version as in the post should priced somewhere mid $4K since the non H&A is ~4K? Is the AGS ideal vs AGS ideal H&A worths the increase in cost?

There is a premium for an H&A branded stone. But it is not huge over a non H&A stone with an AGS0 grade. At that size and clarity etc I would say the premium is at most 10% - 15%, off the top of my head. So perhaps $4500 for the H&A branded stone. Is it worth the premium... the eternal question To some it is. The H&A label and the branding is not required to have a really awesome sparkly diamond. But it is a sufficient condition, taking the guess work out of the buying process. For some that is worth the premium. There is also typically a premium for buying in person at a store as opposed to online, and that accounts for the other $500 in the price you were quoted. So it is not out the lunch, as far as these things go.

But in terms of *value* I personally would prefer better clarity with the lower color, something like ther BGD stone (which is also a branded H&A. You could also look for a non-H&A or non-branded stone and find even more savings.). Whether you value the same things I value, that's up to you.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think ISee2 is a reputable brand. But I'd much rather have the BGD G SI1 over an SI2.

 

[yssie]

**edited by moderator**

Interesting post, Todd.

I do agree that if a brand can't maintain itself, usually it's no longer a "brand" - or, at least, its worth is much diluted a few years later when the panic of "buy it whilst you can still get it!" has subsided... Though, like with most things, there are exceptions - [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/egg-anyone.157432/#post-2867601?hilit=faberge#p2867601']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/egg-anyone.157432/#post-2867601?hilit=faberge#p2867601[/URL]

I do think that with diamonds, specifically, an objectively "better" stone is naturally going to be priced higher regardless of what the papers say - a "better" SI, for example. "Better" cut, as in - cut to the specific requirements of a defunct brand? Only if that person or organisation is looking for a stone that meets precisely those same requirements, either for personal use or to incorporate *that* specimen into their own brand - well, IMO, of course!

So IMO the only question is whether that stone is worth 5K as a well-cut F SI2, and 100 needn't factor the the isee name into his/her equation in determining desirability or a fair price... and I, like PPs, prefer the idea of a G SI1 anyway.

Oh dear. Perhaps I can join you behind that tree if the tomatoes come flying!

 

[100]

Thank you everyone for very informative advices.

I might be able to bump up the budget a little so probably will not go with either stones due to the BGD's stone doesn't has fluorescence and the other stone is overpriced. I also agree that the G / SI1 is a better balance than F / SI2.

My preferred color / clarity combo is around H / SI1 with strong to very strong fluorescence to help increase the color as well added individuality and saving

I will definitely keep watching BGD Blue line for my purchase.

 

[Pecel]

Thank you everyone for very informative advices.

I might be able to bump up the budget a little so probably will not go with either stones due to the BGD's stone doesn't has fluorescence and the other stone is overpriced. I also agree that the G / SI1 is a better balance than F / SI2.

My preferred color / clarity combo is around H / SI1 with strong to very strong fluorescence to help increase the color as well added individuality and saving

I will definitely keep watching BGD Blue line for my purchase.

Why do you want strong to very strong fluorescence in a H colour stone? Isn't that medium fl. is safer?

 

[yssie]

Thank you everyone for very informative advices.

I might be able to bump up the budget a little so probably will not go with either stones due to the BGD's stone doesn't has fluorescence and the other stone is overpriced. I also agree that the G / SI1 is a better balance than F / SI2.

My preferred color / clarity combo is around H / SI1 with strong to very strong fluorescence to help increase the color as well added individuality and saving

I will definitely keep watching BGD Blue line for my purchase.

Why do you want strong to very strong fluorescence in a H colour stone? Isn't that medium fl. is safer?

Pecel - more info for you on fluor
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-flourescence
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/few-quick-pics-of-my-brian-gavin-blue.157902/#post-2874111?hilit=fluor#p2874111']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/few-quick-pics-of-my-brian-gavin-blue.157902/#post-2874111?hilit=fluor#p2874111[/URL]
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/strong-blue-fluorescence-in-bright-sunlight.158817/#post-2886674?hilit=fluor#p2886674']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/strong-blue-fluorescence-in-bright-sunlight.158817/#post-2886674?hilit=fluor#p2886674[/URL]

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don't think the term "premium" is pejorative, as Todd's defense seems to imply , nor do I think it is misleading. The term does not imply that any increase in cost for H&A, branded or not, is not warranted by the extra labour involved. My use of the term, in my opinion, suggests that a branded H&A stone will usually cost more than a comparable (assuming people will even agree that you can find such a beast, which is perhaps the point Todd is making) non-branded, non-H&A stone that is also an AGS0. I don't think that is an incorrect assessment. The premium (i.e. added cost) may only be $50 in some cases (though I have never seen it), but it is there.

But to see the premium one must make the correct comparison. The comparison of BN Signature stones to H&As offered elsewhere for less does not disprove my point. That is an unfair comparison as you are varying both vendor and diamond type in your comparison, which both add variance to pricing. Rather, one should compare WITHIN vendor to see the branded H&A cost premium -- so compare BN signature to non-signature BN AGS0 stones; compare WF ACAs to ES stones; Compare JA TrueHearts to their other AGS0 offerings; etc etc etc. Alternatively, one should compare ACCROSS vendors to average the price of their branded H&As and compare it to the price of their non-branded, non-H&A, AGS0 offerings. In either scenerio, I think it is clear one pays more for branded H&As.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don’t think it is accurate to say that there is a premium for a branded diamond which exhibits a crisp and complete pattern of Hearts & Arrows… while there are one or two specific brands which command significant premiums for their production / brand, there are many internet vendors who sell H&A quality diamonds under their various brand names without charging a substantial premium, a quick peek around the forum will reveal them... but saying that there is a "premium" for H&A quality diamonds is perhaps a bit of an understatement for those who lack the experience to know what goes into the price of a diamond, such as a Newbie to the forum?

And I think you mean "overstatement" here

 

[Dreamer_D]

...In terms of relative value, F-SI2 is in line with G-SI1...

Todd, this was also very surprising to me, from my laypersons'/consumer perspective, as it does not fit my own observations. To test my intuitions on this, I did a search using the PS function for diamonds in the 1.0ct to 1.05ct range, AGS0 cut grade, of G Si1 and FSi2 color/clarity respectively.

My search returned 28 G SI1 stones, with an average price of $6124. Range from $5280 - $6175 (I did not include in these calculations one branded H&A which was $7598 )

I found 11 F SI2 stones, with an average price of $5518. Range from $4270 - $6460 (No H&As included).

Not a scientific sample of course , but suggestive that *on average*, from a pricescope consumer POV, AGS0 graded G SI1s are more pricey than F SI2s that are available to us easily in searched we may run using PS. And the difference is approximately 10%.

Of course, there is overlap in the ranges, so a consumer could find an F Si2 that is the same price as a G SI1 from these lists. Can of worms indeed.

 

[Todd Gray]

I don’t think it is accurate to say that there is a premium for a branded diamond which exhibits a crisp and complete pattern of Hearts & Arrows… while there are one or two specific brands which command significant premiums for their production / brand, there are many internet vendors who sell H&A quality diamonds under their various brand names without charging a substantial premium, a quick peek around the forum will reveal them... but saying that there is a "premium" for H&A quality diamonds is perhaps a bit of an understatement for those who lack the experience to know what goes into the price of a diamond, such as a Newbie to the forum?

And I think you mean "overstatement" here

No, I mean that it might be an "understatement" in that it states a concept which appears to be pretty basic without providing enough detail as to why there are "premiums" for diamonds which exhibit crisp and clear patterns of Hearts & Arrows without providing new forum members with the reasons for those "premiums" and thus the concept is understated and in need of additional explanation

 

[Todd Gray]

I don't think the term "premium" is pejorative, as Todd's defense seems to imply , nor do I think it is misleading. The term does not imply that any increase in cost for H&A, branded or not, is not warranted by the extra labour involved. My use of the term, in my opinion, suggests that a branded H&A stone will usually cost more than a comparable (assuming people will even agree that you can find such a beast, which is perhaps the point Todd is making) non-branded, non-H&A stone that is also an AGS0. I don't think that is an incorrect assessment. The premium (i.e. added cost) may only be $50 in some cases (though I have never seen it), but it is there.

But to see the premium one must make the correct comparison. The comparison of BN Signature stones to H&As offered elsewhere for less does not disprove my point. That is an unfair comparison as you are varying both vendor and diamond type in your comparison, which both add variance to pricing. Rather, one should compare WITHIN vendor to see the branded H&A cost premium -- so compare BN signature to non-signature BN AGS0 stones; compare WF ACAs to ES stones; Compare JA TrueHearts to their other AGS0 offerings; etc etc etc. Alternatively, one should compare ACCROSS vendors to average the price of their branded H&As and compare it to the price of their non-branded, non-H&A, AGS0 offerings. In either scenerio, I think it is clear one pays more for branded H&As.

Hey Dreamer, it appears that I should have picked up a recent Rap sheet before making the comparison of price between F/SI-2 and G/SI-1 because at the moment G/SI-1 is in the lead and my last recollection of price was that they were more even... However in terms of quality equivalency, trading a higher color for a slightly lower clarity is often seen as beneficial by many consumers who often choose color over clarity; then again, there are plenty of consumers who choose clarity over color, so there is another argument that could run rampant for quite some time. However the conversation at hand was "price" and I failed to make the correct comparison.

As if often the case within a forum discussion, I think that "we" are talking about two different matters at the same time, which confuses our conversation a bit... and I actually think if we were discussing this over coffee that our understanding of how diamonds are priced would match up quite nicely because you've been around long enough to know how this works... I'm merely trying to provide a more detailed explanation of diamond pricing to somebody who is new to the forum.
Let's see if I can't clarify what I'm trying to say... from my perspective, there are two distinctly different premiums:

One premium represents the inherent quality of a product, this can be compared within the individual offerings of each vendor and may indicate whether a vendor considers one of their products to be more valuable | desirable | marketable | than another... Then again, I can think of one vendor who appears to offer their primary / quality line at a price which seems to be less expensive than their second-tier line and that could be seen from the perspective of the world is upside down; or it could be determined that what is being offered as "first tier" is actually of lower quality than the diamonds being offered as second tier. Hmmm, I don't think I can discuss this much further without digging myself a deep hole per forum rules, but those who are interested can dig around themselves and perhaps might see a parallel to my thought process.

I don't think that I'm defending the premium common to diamonds of higher caliber and thus my explanation is not "defensive" or "pejorative" (yes friends, I had to look that up!) but merely intended to provide an explanation to consumers as to why different levels of diamond cut quality reflect the prices that they do... My explanation is a simple reality pertinent to the industry and is easily verified by talking with anybody in the trade who is employed as a diamond buyer or an appraiser... diamond value is dictated by diamond cut quality and the variance can be as much as 60% within the same range of carat weight, color and clarity.

Stepping away from my knowledge as a trade member and looking at the difference in price as a consumer, it is simple enough to say that whether a price difference is "worth it" depends on the personal preferences of each individual consumer... some will find that the premium is not worth what they are able to see or not see with their eyes and others will appreciate the difference and gladly pay for it. This premise applies to practically all consumer products which are offered in a variety of designs, features and brand names.

The other premium is a brand-premium, which in my book is the premium attached to any brand, regardless of any inherent quality-difference. To this regard, I believe my comparison across vendors is important, since I see no other way to provide any sort of comparison without doing so. And thus my reference to BN-Signature is relevant since they are a sort of benchmark for the trade in terms of quality and price... The inner circle conversations being along the lines of "Have you been paying attention to the prices | quality | offerings | sales volume | of Blue Nile?" because in terms of overall sales and presence on the web, they are quite simply the benchmark of the industry at the present time.

I see certain brands (not truly popular on PS) carrying huge brand-premiums and others which appear to have no brand-premium, and some even having a negative brand-premium... suffice to say that a consumer buying a diamond today is faced with a variety of options and claims of Good | Better | Best | The Most | Whatever... and quite often is provided with very little actual support of those claims, all the while trying to make an informed decision.

And all I was really trying to point out is that saying that there is a premium for H&A goods and brand names is too simple of a concept... And the depth of our conversation along this line only supports that belief I think.

To summarize, in the case of the few remaining Isee-2 diamonds available in the market, I see no brand-premium (as the brand is not supported anymore), but I see a quality-premium, which I personally find absolutely acceptable because as previously stated it costs more money to produce a diamond of that caliber. In addition, it is being offered by a brick and mortar retailer who likely maintains a different mark-up than an internet dealer offering the same diamond at this time... This thus leads to my conclusion that the stone is not overpriced "for what it is".

 

[yssie]

I don't think the term "premium" is pejorative, as Todd's defense seems to imply , nor do I think it is misleading. The term does not imply that any increase in cost for H&A, branded or not, is not warranted by the extra labour involved. My use of the term, in my opinion, suggests that a branded H&A stone will usually cost more than a comparable (assuming people will even agree that you can find such a beast, which is perhaps the point Todd is making) non-branded, non-H&A stone that is also an AGS0. I don't think that is an incorrect assessment. The premium (i.e. added cost) may only be $50 in some cases (though I have never seen it), but it is there.

But to see the premium one must make the correct comparison. The comparison of BN Signature stones to H&As offered elsewhere for less does not disprove my point. That is an unfair comparison as you are varying both vendor and diamond type in your comparison, which both add variance to pricing. Rather, one should compare WITHIN vendor to see the branded H&A cost premium -- so compare BN signature to non-signature BN AGS0 stones; compare WF ACAs to ES stones; Compare JA TrueHearts to their other AGS0 offerings; etc etc etc. Alternatively, one should compare ACCROSS vendors to average the price of their branded H&As and compare it to the price of their non-branded, non-H&A, AGS0 offerings. In either scenerio, I think it is clear one pays more for branded H&As.

Hey Dreamer, it appears that I should have picked up a recent Rap sheet before making the comparison of price between F/SI-2 and G/SI-1 because at the moment G/SI-1 is in the lead and my last recollection of price was that they were more even... However in terms of quality equivalency, trading a higher color for a slightly lower clarity is often seen as beneficial by many consumers who often choose color over clarity; then again, there are plenty of consumers who choose clarity over color, so there is another argument that could run rampant for quite some time. However the conversation at hand was "price" and I failed to make the correct comparison.

As if often the case within a forum discussion, I think that "we" are talking about two different matters at the same time, which confuses our conversation a bit... and I actually think if we were discussing this over coffee that our understanding of how diamonds are priced would match up quite nicely because you've been around long enough to know how this works... I'm merely trying to provide a more detailed explanation of diamond pricing to somebody who is new to the forum.
Let's see if I can't clarify what I'm trying to say... from my perspective, there are two distinctly different premiums:

One premium represents the inherent quality of a product, this can be compared within the individual offerings of each vendor and may indicate whether a vendor considers one of their products to be more valuable | desirable | marketable | than another... Then again, I can think of one vendor who appears to offer their primary / quality line at a price which seems to be less expensive than their second-tier line and that could be seen from the perspective of the world is upside down; or it could be determined that what is being offered as "first tier" is actually of lower quality than the diamonds being offered as second tier. Hmmm, I don't think I can discuss this much further without digging myself a deep hole per forum rules, but those who are interested can dig around themselves and perhaps might see a parallel to my thought process.

I don't think that I'm defending the premium common to diamonds of higher caliber and thus my explanation is not "defensive" or "pejorative" (yes friends, I had to look that up!) but merely intended to provide an explanation to consumers as to why different levels of diamond cut quality reflect the prices that they do... My explanation is a simple reality pertinent to the industry and is easily verified by talking with anybody in the trade who is employed as a diamond buyer or an appraiser... diamond value is dictated by diamond cut quality and the variance can be as much as 60% within the same range of carat weight, color and clarity.

Stepping away from my knowledge as a trade member and looking at the difference in price as a consumer, it is simple enough to say that whether a price difference is "worth it" depends on the personal preferences of each individual consumer... some will find that the premium is not worth what they are able to see or not see with their eyes and others will appreciate the difference and gladly pay for it. This premise applies to practically all consumer products which are offered in a variety of designs, features and brand names.

The other premium is a brand-premium, which in my book is the premium attached to any brand, regardless of any inherent quality-difference. To this regard, I believe my comparison across vendors is important, since I see no other way to provide any sort of comparison without doing so. And thus my reference to BN-Signature is relevant since they are a sort of benchmark for the trade in terms of quality and price... The inner circle conversations being along the lines of "Have you been paying attention to the prices | quality | offerings | sales volume | of Blue Nile?" because in terms of overall sales and presence on the web, they are quite simply the benchmark of the industry at the present time.

I see certain brands (not truly popular on PS) carrying huge brand-premiums and others which appear to have no brand-premium, and some even having a negative brand-premium... suffice to say that a consumer buying a diamond today is faced with a variety of options and claims of Good | Better | Best | The Most | Whatever... and quite often is provided with very little actual support of those claims, all the while trying to make an informed decision.

And all I was really trying to point out is that saying that there is a premium for H&A goods and brand names is too simple of a concept... And the depth of our conversation along this line only supports that belief I think.

To summarize, in the case of the few remaining Isee-2 diamonds available in the market, I see no brand-premium (as the brand is not supported anymore), but I see a quality-premium, which I personally find absolutely acceptable because as previously stated it costs more money to produce a diamond of that caliber. In addition, it is being offered by a brick and mortar retailer who likely maintains a different mark-up than an internet dealer offering the same diamond at this time... This thus leads to my conclusion that the stone is not overpriced "for what it is".

That, I think, is the key point here - and it's one we all agree on

 

[Todd Gray]

I don't think the term "premium" is pejorative, as Todd's defense seems to imply , nor do I think it is misleading. The term does not imply that any increase in cost for H&A, branded or not, is not warranted by the extra labour involved. My use of the term, in my opinion, suggests that a branded H&A stone will usually cost more than a comparable (assuming people will even agree that you can find such a beast, which is perhaps the point Todd is making) non-branded, non-H&A stone that is also an AGS0. I don't think that is an incorrect assessment. The premium (i.e. added cost) may only be $50 in some cases (though I have never seen it), but it is there.

But to see the premium one must make the correct comparison. The comparison of BN Signature stones to H&As offered elsewhere for less does not disprove my point. That is an unfair comparison as you are varying both vendor and diamond type in your comparison, which both add variance to pricing. Rather, one should compare WITHIN vendor to see the branded H&A cost premium -- so compare BN signature to non-signature BN AGS0 stones; compare WF ACAs to ES stones; Compare JA TrueHearts to their other AGS0 offerings; etc etc etc. Alternatively, one should compare ACCROSS vendors to average the price of their branded H&As and compare it to the price of their non-branded, non-H&A, AGS0 offerings. In either scenerio, I think it is clear one pays more for branded H&As.

Hey Dreamer, it appears that I should have picked up a recent Rap sheet before making the comparison of price between F/SI-2 and G/SI-1 because at the moment G/SI-1 is in the lead and my last recollection of price was that they were more even... [remainder removed to save space]

Actually a friend of mine just pointed out that I was correct in my initial assessment and was only incorrect in correcting myself when I made the mistake of basing my correction on the prices within the 1.00 - 1.49 carat range "on the fly" as opposed to returning back to the price grid for 0.90 - 0.99 carat range, in which the Price Per Carat (PPC) difference between F/SI-2 and G/SI-1 is only $100.00 per carat and thus they are within a reasonable tolerance in terms of PPC at myself for being brain yesterday afternoon.

 

[100]

After talked to the dealer informing her that I can find a similar non H&A diamond online for $3900.00

She said that her original cost is higher than the $3900. But said that she can knock 10% off the original price. Which come out at $4500.00

Do you think this is a good price? Or the stone below is a better value at $3900?

Shape: Round
Carat weight: 0.90
Cut: Ideal
Color: F
Clarity: SI2
Certificate: AGS

Depth: 61.1%
Table: 56.4%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Girdle: Thin to slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.21*6.23*3.80
Crown Angle: 34.5
Crown %:
Pavilion Angle: 40.9
Pavilion %:

 

[yssie]

If you love the stone - I'd do it. Yes, it's pricier than you could find online, but it's not outrageous, and buying from & building a relationship with a local B&M certainly has advantages.