Question about diamond quality

[ringgal2006]

I am very new to pricescope so thank you in advance for your help and opinions regarding a possible diamond....

My boyfriend and I went looking for rings about three weeks ago and we came across the following diamond:

Carat: 1.93
Color: G
Clarity: SI2
Cut: IDEAL
Shape: Round
Depth %: 60.2
Table %: 55
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 8.09*8.13*4.88
Lab: GIA

I looked at the diamond and you cannot see the inclusions and the color is good when compared to other diamonds of similar cut and size. The only reason I ask about this particular diamond is that fact that the price is really reasonable (approx. $14000) for a diamond of its size. I am a "newbie" to the diamond industry and want to make sure we are getting a quality diamond.

Again, thank you so much for your opinions. I really appreciate it!

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome

So far it looks promising, but we need the crown and pavillion angles to tell more. Can you post these?

 

[ringgal2006]

Thank you, Lorelei.

The crown angle is 31
The pavillion angle is 40.8

 

[JulieN]

It's shallow, but that doesn't mean it's not a nice stone. Would explain the price, though.

Girdle thickness?

 

[ringgal2006]

The GIA report says that it has a medium - slightly thick (faceted) girdle.

 

[Lorelei]

The crown and pav angles obviously work well to tell you it is a pretty diamond, also it scored well on the HCA, despite the shallow crown angle. The girdle is fine - I prefer thin to slightly thick, but this is my preference. It isn's a superdouperlouper cut as is said

, but nevertheless a nice make and probably very beautiful. If you love it and it is eyeclean ( this can be tricky in an SI2 of this size) then maybe this is the diamond for you!!!!

 

[JulieN]

I think you need a "slightly thick" girdle. "Medium" could be dangerous for 30 degrees. Might want a professional's opinion to check out the durability.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/12/2006 2:04:18 PM
Author: JulieN
I think you need a 'slightly thick' girdle. 'Medium' could be dangerous for 30 degrees. Might want a professional's opinion to check out the durability.

Julie do you really think that a medium girdle could be problematic here? Thin or very thin possibly might be a problem, but I would have thought that med would be fine? Just don't want to be scaring her off a diamond which might be perfectly fine if she loves it.

 

[JulieN]

Medium and 30 degrees, I''d say no. 31 degrees is very diferent from 30, though. But then, maybe the girdle is more like slightly thin than the middle or thicker range of the "medium" grade. Perhaps a case of overcautiousness on my part.

 

[ringgal2006]

Thank you, Lorelei and JulieN. I really, really appreciate it!

In an effort to keep looking, what online dealers do you recommend. I know the pricescope has some listed but I''m hoping to get your opinion.

Thanks!

 

[Lorelei]

Thanks for your thoughts Julie

RingGal, my personal faves vendorwise are:

Whiteflash
Good Old Gold
Wink Jones at Winfields
James Allen
Bill Pearlman
NiceIce
Engagement Rings Direct

and my vendor Michael Jay Fifth Avenue was terrific - he isn't a PS vendor.

Being on these forums a while, you get to know which vendors are great at their job and do everything in their power to make their customer's happy. These guys above do!

 

[strmrdr]

I think med-sl thick should be ok for 31.. borderline but ok ... Hopefully Garry will stop by and say for sure.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Two problems:

1. Like in another hot thread right now, the use of Ideal in Cut is inappropriate here.

2. Can you check angles again with the vendor, since with this crown and pavilion, I estimate the girdle to be relatively thick. Could there be a typo somewhere?

Live long,

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/13/2006 9:01:09 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Two problems:

1. Like in another hot thread right now, the use of Ideal in Cut is inappropriate here.

2. Can you check angles again with the vendor, since with this crown and pavilion, I estimate the girdle to be relatively thick. Could there be a typo somewhere?

Live long,

Paul could you please clarify what you mean please? Do you mean where Ideal was used with this diamond's specs to describe the cut and was possibly given this label by a vendor where it isn't deserved? If any of us are advising incorrectly then if you could say please so we don't give wrong advice to those seeking it.

ETA - I found the 'hot thread' and I think I can see where you are coming from Paul.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/13/2006 9:05:15 AM
Author: Lorelei

Paul could you please clarify what you mean please? Do you mean where Ideal was used with this diamond''s specs to describe the cut and was possibly given this label by a vendor where it isn''t deserved? If any of us are advising incorrectly then if you could say please so we don''t give wrong advice to those seeking it.

ETA - I found the ''hot thread'' and I think I can see where you are coming from Paul.

Hello Lorelei,

''Ideal'' is not a cut-grade in the GIA-system, so, unless the stone has an AGS-report too, the vendor presenting it as ''Ideal'' is using a personal opinion. There is a hidden implication that the stone is AGS-Ideal, which is unsubstantiated.

On the other hand, the combination of table, depth, angles and girdle thickness do not seem to fit at first sight. There might be a typo in one of the figures. Such human error needs to be checked.

Live long,

 

[ringgal2006]

Paul-Antwerp,

The angles are based on the GIA report that is attached to the online vendor''s website. When you say the combination of table, depth, angles and girdle thickness do not seem to fit at first sight -- what do you mean?

Pardon my "newbie" status to pricescope/diamonds. I''ve been lurking for awhile but some things are still new to me.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/13/2006 11:21:59 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 9/13/2006 9:05:15 AM
Author: Lorelei

Paul could you please clarify what you mean please? Do you mean where Ideal was used with this diamond''s specs to describe the cut and was possibly given this label by a vendor where it isn''t deserved? If any of us are advising incorrectly then if you could say please so we don''t give wrong advice to those seeking it.

ETA - I found the ''hot thread'' and I think I can see where you are coming from Paul.

Hello Lorelei,

''Ideal'' is not a cut-grade in the GIA-system, so, unless the stone has an AGS-report too, the vendor presenting it as ''Ideal'' is using a personal opinion. There is a hidden implication that the stone is AGS-Ideal, which is unsubstantiated.

On the other hand, the combination of table, depth, angles and girdle thickness do not seem to fit at first sight. There might be a typo in one of the figures. Such human error needs to be checked.

Live long,

Thanks Paul

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/13/2006 11:30:58 AM
Author: ringgal2006

Paul-Antwerp,

The angles are based on the GIA report that is attached to the online vendor''s website. When you say the combination of table, depth, angles and girdle thickness do not seem to fit at first sight -- what do you mean?

Pardon my ''newbie'' status to pricescope/diamonds. I''ve been lurking for awhile but some things are still new to me.

I would think that the girdle with these measurements would be described as ''Thick''.

Since the figures come directly from the report, and not from the Sarin, there are two possibilities. Either the fact that the girdle description is verbal, and not a measurement, may mean that I am mistaken and ''Slightly Thick'' in GIA is thicker than I thought. On the other hand, because GIA rounds the angles, it is also possible that both angles are actually slightly higher than reported, thus girdle thickness is less than I expected, and thus correctly described as Medium to Slightly Thick.

In any case, the GIA-report will not state ''Ideal'' as a cut-grade.

Live long,

 

[Rhino]

Hi ringal,

Welcome to the forum! Paul is expressing a concern many of us in the trade have and that is representing diamonds as being "ideal" when in fact they aren't.

The angle combination you report neither makes AGS nor GIA's top grade yet it is being presented as such.

A. the fact that the symmetry is "very good" disqualifies it from AGS Ideal Grade (and that's not taking into account light performance metrics which it will more than likely fail in also due to the shallow crown angle)
B. GIA has provided an online database wherein consumers can input the measurements of a diamond and get an estimated GIA Cut Grade at this link. This database is based on their observation testing research which they conducted to determine their cut grading system (over 70k observations on over 2200 diamonds). The graphic below shows the results of the measurements you have provided less star facet length and lower girdle facet length (which I just used the defaults in their program they have there). The results according to GIA's database also indicate that this diamond does not meet top standards in GIA's system either for light performance (GIA does allow "very good" polish & symmetry in their Ex grade).

This diamond is being falsely presented as ideal when there are many factors that say it isn't. That is the concern. While the stone does score well on the HCA you must bear in mind that the HCA is a database produced with the opinion of just one person's observations which in many instances run counter with the 2 most conservative labs and is not entirely accurate for determining AGS Id/GIA Ex cut grades. This stone may be nice and exactly what you're looking for however you might want to compare it to a true Ideal/Excellent to see where your preference truly lies. Hope this helps.

Kind Regards,

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/13/2006 12:19:00 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi ringal,

Welcome to the forum! Paul is expressing a concern many of us in the trade have and that is representing diamonds as being ''ideal'' when in fact they aren''t.

Sorry for budding in...but Jonathan...since you''ve shared your thoughts on this specific diamond, I wonder if you wouldn''t further generalize, and apply to your own practices, and review what you think represents reasonable practice. Paul did reference another "hot" threat, this one, and I''ve been interested in your co-association of qualities between the two major labs. It seems like for all your options that could at least be considered either or both excellent (GIA) or ideal (AGS), you''ll stretch to adopt the label for both at your site, as for example, here. You do have the astericks, which will apply to the one that had not been given by the lab, but you have the asterisk on both...a bit confusing. And with no expected footnote that I can see, that Belle alludes to in the other post. Rock Doc is at some pains to indicate only application of PGS software will give a rigorous analysis of a GIA option, to allow realistic application of AGS to any GIA excellent (or otherwise.) Do you have any protocols that must pass your test, that makes you feel comfortable to "co-describe" a diamond under both labs?

 

[Rhino]

Hi Ira,

No apologies necessary and a very valid question. Having read the other thread now I''m wondering in which thread to respond.

In response to your questions here I will address these for you specifically.

Sorry for budding in...but Jonathan...since you''ve shared your thoughts on this specific diamond, I wonder if you wouldn''t further generalize, and apply to your own practices, and review what you think represents reasonable practice. Paul did reference another ''hot'' threat, this one, and I''ve been interested in your co-association of qualities between the two major labs. It seems like for all your options that could at least be considered either or both excellent (GIA) or ideal (AGS), you''ll stretch to adopt the label for both at your site, as for example, here. You do have the astericks, which will apply to the one that had not been given by the lab, but you have the asterisk on both...a bit confusing.

I understand your point. Perhaps I should have my web developer arrange it so that the asterisk is only on the estimated cut grade of the other lab wherein it wasn''t sent.

And with no expected footnote that I can see, that Belle alludes to in the other post.

Do you think I should have the footnote, not at a link but perhaps on the diamonds page itself? Perhaps the word "estimated" should be included as well. I am open to suggestions. I care about the integrity of the information we provide and in no way make attempts to misrepresent which is why I had made that disclaimer page.

Rock Doc is at some pains to indicate only application of PGS software will give a rigorous analysis of a GIA option, to allow realistic application of AGS to any GIA excellent (or otherwise.) Do you have any protocols that must pass your test, that makes you feel comfortable to ''co-describe'' a diamond under both labs?

Yes. Firstly we are familiar with all of the protocols that go into determining both GIA Ex cut grades as well as AGS ideal cut grades in the new scheme of things. If I have a stone I consider borderline I''ll have it confirmed with either of the labs. I have been studying ASET imagery since we''ve acquired it (and we were the first to acquire it) plus we have been generating models of diamonds for years now which allow me to see ASET results of any stone we''ve generated a model on in the past few years. When you examine stone after stone after stone and learn what does and what doesn''t make AGS Ideal for light performance, polish, symmetry, proportions factors etc. the task gets easier over the course of time. In fact I am so confident in my ability to assess ASET imagery I guarantee my results. If you look on our site for rounds just about all of them have ASET imagery akin to the graphic below.

Regarding the official AGS Performance Grading Software ... we have this as well for further confirmation and can assess AGS Light Performance not only in round diamonds but also princess cuts as well. In fact we''re having fun running other shapes through it too.

So in short ... on GIA Ex/Ex/Ex graded stones we do the following.

1. Check the polish/symmetry.
2. Check the proportion factors
a. weight ratio
b. durability
c. girdle thickness
d. culet size
3. Inspect the ASET imagery.
4. Generate the most accurate model possible on the given stone (in most circumstances a Helium model) and run this through the AGS PGS software.

Once these items have been confirmed here then I will give the corellating AGS grade on a GIA graded diamond.

Of course if the diamond is an AGS Lab Graded diamond there is a different procedure we follow to determine GIA Ex Cut Grade.

If you or belle or anyone has suggestions to help clarify I am certainly open to those suggestions. We certainly don''t seek to confuse but to help make things more clear with the information we provide. I apologize if there was any confusion. I had hoped our disclaimer would have resolved that. I look forward to your suggestions. Consumer input is very important to me.

Kindest regards,

 

[Rhino]

forgot the graphic ... just about all rounds on our site are akin to this although AGS does allow for a bit more greens.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/13/2006 1:48:39 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Ira,

I had hoped our disclaimer would have resolved that. I look forward to your suggestions. Consumer input is very important to me.

Kindest regards,

Hi, Jonathan. Thanks for being very responsive.

I would recommend this idea from your notes above..."I understand your point. Perhaps I should have my web developer arrange it so that the asterisk is only on the estimated cut grade of the other lab wherein it wasn''t sent." Also, I don''t think I''ve actually found the disclaimer...where is it?

But, my main point on the other thread is proven out here, I think. Your work to correlate these things is frankly impressive, and provides value added service, I think.

Not sure if these notes belong here, particularly, but hopefully interested shoppers will figure this out. Also, though, if what you''ve presented here is not on your site now, consider adding it...or maybe even sharing where on your site you tell customers you do these verifications.

Regards,

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 9/13/2006 2:04:37 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/13/2006 1:48:39 PM

Author: Rhino

Hi Ira,



I had hoped our disclaimer would have resolved that. I look forward to your suggestions. Consumer input is very important to me.


Kindest regards,

Hi, Jonathan. Thanks for being very responsive.


I would recommend this idea from your notes above...'I understand your point. Perhaps I should have my web developer arrange it so that the asterisk is only on the estimated cut grade of the other lab wherein it wasn't sent.' Also, I don't think I've actually found the disclaimer...where is it?

RG, you have to click on the ideal* or excellent* and the disclaimer page comes up.


Rhino, I think having the asterisk only on the estimated cut grade of the other lab wherein it wasn't sent would be a good idea and less confusing for it can appear the stone received both grades or was somehow graded by both labs or whatever else someone might think. Also, adding the disclaimer on the same page would also be a good idea, I guessed by clicking on the Ideal* word since there is nothing to indicate that someone should click on it. I only did this after searching on the same page for the * info..

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/13/2006 2:15:45 PM
Author: mrssalvo

Date: 9/13/2006 2:04:37 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/13/2006 1:48:39 PM

Author: Rhino

Hi Ira,



I had hoped our disclaimer would have resolved that. I look forward to your suggestions. Consumer input is very important to me.


Kindest regards,

Hi, Jonathan. Thanks for being very responsive.


I would recommend this idea from your notes above...''I understand your point. Perhaps I should have my web developer arrange it so that the asterisk is only on the estimated cut grade of the other lab wherein it wasn''t sent.'' Also, I don''t think I''ve actually found the disclaimer...where is it?

RG, you have to click on the ideal* or excellent* and the disclaimer page comes up.


Rhino, I think having the asterisk only on the estimated cut grade of the other lab wherein it wasn''t sent would be a good idea and less confusing for it can appear the stone received both grades or was somehow graded by both labs or whatever else someone might think. Also, adding the disclaimer on the same page would also be a good idea, I guessed by clicking on the Ideal* word since there is nothing to indicate that someone should click on it. I only did this after searching on the same page for the * info..

Gah...there it is. Maybe it should be clearer. Was it always there?

Good to know it''s there. Maybe yes, have it on the same page...not sure.

 

[brt_mbl]

I could be mistaken, but doesn''t WF and James Allen still refer to "Ideal cut" when descibing their GIA diamonds at times? I am new to this, so are we talking about something else, or is this just common to use "ideal" in the description- and is this a bad thing still?

 

[Rhino]

Hi Ira,

Date: 9/13/2006 2:04:37 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/13/2006 1:48:39 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Ira,

I had hoped our disclaimer would have resolved that. I look forward to your suggestions. Consumer input is very important to me.

Kindest regards,

Hi, Jonathan. Thanks for being very responsive.

And thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention. A thanks to you too belle.

I would recommend this idea from your notes above...''I understand your point. Perhaps I should have my web developer arrange it so that the asterisk is only on the estimated cut grade of the other lab wherein it wasn''t sent.'' Also, I don''t think I''ve actually found the disclaimer...where is it?

I see Mrs salvo has answered this for ya already. Thanks Mrs s.

But, my main point on the other thread is proven out here, I think. Your work to correlate these things is frankly impressive, and provides value added service, I think.

I appreciate that Ira. Sincerely the point of my doing what I do is to help better serve people. I know if I were in the general consumers shoes I would like to have this data at my fingertips.

Not sure if these notes belong here, particularly, but hopefully interested shoppers will figure this out. Also, though, if what you''ve presented here is not on your site now, consider adding it...or maybe even sharing where on your site you tell customers you do these verifications.

Consider it done. I''m rethinking the changes now and as I get more input as well. I just put in the request to change the asterisk disclaimer thing around and that the word estimated be included on the stones page with a more obvious link to how we determine this information. If I can''t fit the disclaimer on the diamonds page I''ll make the link more obvious. I appreciate the input.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/13/2006 2:15:45 PM
Author: mrssalvo

Rhino, I think having the asterisk only on the estimated cut grade of the other lab wherein it wasn''t sent would be a good idea and less confusing for it can appear the stone received both grades or was somehow graded by both labs or whatever else someone might think. Also, adding the disclaimer on the same page would also be a good idea, I guessed by clicking on the Ideal* word since there is nothing to indicate that someone should click on it. I only did this after searching on the same page for the * info..

I appreciate this Mrs s. The request for this specific change is in. Thank you for this suggestion. I can see how having the 2 asterisks could get somewhat confusing.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/13/2006 2:23:46 PM
Author: brt_mbl
I could be mistaken, but doesn''t WF and James Allen still refer to ''Ideal cut'' when descibing their GIA diamonds at times? I am new to this, so are we talking about something else, or is this just common to use ''ideal'' in the description- and is this a bad thing still?

Hi brt,

Over the course of time we have seen many stores/websites and even consumers abuse the term which is why there is concern in the trade and here on this forum. In the past experts would also refer to stones as being Ideal if they had GIA Ex/Ex in polish and symmetry (which is generally comparable in most circumstances to AGS Ideal polish/symmetry) and as long as the diamond had proportion measurements that fell into AGS Ideal standards.

With the recent changes in both labs grading systems for cut it is imperative that if a professional in this trade is going to use this term with any degree of accuracy that they are

a. familiar with the characteristics that comprise their Ideal/Excellent grade and
b. have the necessary experience and tools to determine and confirm the grade.

and even at that ... it is still an estimate unless it is sent to the actual lab itself for the grade as there are certain things about cut grading that are subjective (ie. some polish/symmetry features). That is why we include those words in our disclaimer on stones we cut grade that were not sent to the actual lab (even though we are most often in agreement).

Websites that arbitrarily list stones as being a certain cut grade with absolutely no criteria to back this up should be examined more closely and questioned. The stone in this thread is a good case in point. It is being listed on a vendors site as being "Ideal" when there is hard evidence from the data that it is anything but.

Hope this helps.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/13/2006 3:21:52 PM
Author: Rhino

LOL... Paul we're going to have to call you the Hijack King of the Week.

In Europe they do have royalty. I think Paul is at least a prince to most.

I started another thread here guys: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-terms-ideal-and-ags-ideal.50802/