Quick, what do you think of this diamond?

[maxpower3]

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?find=1&cid=130&item=939819

Item Number: 939819
Shape: Princess
Carat weight: 1.01
Cut: Ideal
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Certificate: GIA

Depth: 71.8%
Table: 71%
Polish: Excellent - Ideal
Symmetry: Very Good
Girdle: Medium to thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Strong
Measurements: 5.56*5.53*3.97
Ratio: 1.01

 

[maxpower3]

No thoughts?

 

[Rod]

Quick response is it looks like a nice stone. But I''m not an expert and I know less about princess cuts. JulieN will see this and she''s waaaay more knowledgeable about square cuts and I''m sure she''ll offer advice, including some likely other options you could consider.

But, this stone doesn''t look bad at all and James Allen is quite reputable.

Good luck!

 

[maxpower3]

Thanks for the help Rod. Anyone else?

 

[JulieN]

Picture looks nice. Ideal Scope? Or confirmation from James Allen staff that it's a stone you'd want? And no negative effects due to flouresence?

 

[maxpower3]

I can post the idealscope tommorow. Will you help me out at that time?

Jim says that there''s no negative effects due to the flourescence.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/11/2006 6:53:49 PM
Author: maxpower3
I can post the idealscope tommorow. Will you help me out at that time?

Jim says that there''s no negative effects due to the flourescence.

After the IS is posted we can better help you.

 

[Stone Hunter]

I wondered what happened to your 4 diamond choices, since you then posted a 5th. This is the one out of the 1st four stones that most PSers liked best.

I would like the fluo. so I'm biased. Can't wait to see how this stone looks in your photos. Hope you love it.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Although we know James Allen as a reputable vendor, I have serious reservations about the mis-representation of this stone.

The ''Cut'' is described as ''Ideal''. Based upon which criteria? The stone has a GIA-report, so what does ''Ideal'' mean in this instance.

In the same way, the grade ''Excellent-Ideal'' on Polish is misleading. The GIA-grade is ''Excellent''. Ideal is an AGS-grade and has no value in this respect.

Am I the only one who considers such incorrect descriptions as unacceptable?

 

[:)]

Date: 9/12/2006 11:16:10 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Although we know James Allen as a reputable vendor, I have serious reservations about the mis-representation of this stone.

The ''Cut'' is described as ''Ideal''. Based upon which criteria? The stone has a GIA-report, so what does ''Ideal'' mean in this instance.

In the same way, the grade ''Excellent-Ideal'' on Polish is misleading. The GIA-grade is ''Excellent''. Ideal is an AGS-grade and has no value in this respect.

Am I the only one who considers such incorrect descriptions as unacceptable?

I had actually noticed the same thing on the JA website on other stones. It has actually confused me a couple of times. Maybe they can clarify on this, as I also wondered how they were calling a GIA ideal

- I wondered if they also had an AGS report on the same stones?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/12/2006 11:16:10 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Although we know James Allen as a reputable vendor, I have serious reservations about the mis-representation of this stone.

The ''Cut'' is described as ''Ideal''. Based upon which criteria? The stone has a GIA-report, so what does ''Ideal'' mean in this instance.

In the same way, the grade ''Excellent-Ideal'' on Polish is misleading. The GIA-grade is ''Excellent''. Ideal is an AGS-grade and has no value in this respect.

Am I the only one who considers such incorrect descriptions as unacceptable?

All vendors do something or another I don''t agree with, none of them are perfect.
That said:

Using Ideal like this is one of the things some do but Ideal is not a trademark and the vendor can say that according to my criteria its ideal and its perfectly legal.
JA isn''t the only one to do this nor is he the worst.

Excellent - Ideal - same thing but when I read it I''m like huh?

Calling it mis-representation which carries legal weight is going a little far, but calling it not right would be my opinion on it.

Id buy from Jim he is a great vendor with tons of happy customers but he does like all vendors do a few things I dislike.

 

[Regular Guy]

I''m sympathetic to Storm''s view on this, and think you''re sensitive to Princesses, Paul.

Re rounds...everybody uses ideal, as has been done for a long time, based just on table & depth.

But, if there''s been a change of practice, to describe a princess as ideal, since AGS has named it so, but it''s not AGS''s ideal, I''d agree that should be corrected.

 

[maxpower3]

I accidentally posted the idealscope on the wrong thread. Apparently I can''t posit it twice. So, if you would be so kind, please look here for the idealscope image.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/a-desperate-plea-for-help.50609/

 

[strmrdr]

here ya go... looks real good to me.

 

[maxpower3]

What exactly makes it look good?

 

[JulieN]

That''s really nice. www.ideal-scope.com

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/12/2006 12:12:54 PM
Author: Regular Guy
I''m sympathetic to Storm''s view on this, and think you''re sensitive to Princesses, Paul.

Re rounds...everybody uses ideal, as has been done for a long time, based just on table & depth.

But, if there''s been a change of practice, to describe a princess as ideal, since AGS has named it so, but it''s not AGS''s ideal, I''d agree that should be corrected.

Yes, indeed, I am sensitive to Princesses. The reason is simple, I think that I know how to cut princesses, and when holding them, I can see which is the best of the best, and which is not.

You must remember that there is absolutely no comparison possible with rounds. Rounds have a history of decades, in which there was a recognized set of best proportions, and because of this history, the average cut-quality of rounds is reasonably high. The proof is in the fact that a very high percentage of rounds have a GIA cut-grade of EX or VG, not to mention the high number of AGS-Ideals.

On top of that, there are scores of methods to assess the cut-quality of rounds, the HCA, Ideal-scope, ASET, H&A, and so on.

In princess-cuts, one cannot rely upon HCA, Ideal-scope or H&A. One cannot even work with the Sarin-measurement, since the general machine is not sophisticated enough to see (or measure) a lot of facet-edges. In short, there is no easy way to judge a princess online.

What we do have, is the new AGS-grading. And sadly enough, I have the impression that it is now easier to obtain AGS-0 than it was a year ago, in other words, that standards have somehow loosened. Even within the AGS-0-grade, there are different levels of cut-quality, just as within the AGS-0 for rounds. In rounds however, the other tools mentioned above offer a possibility to make that further distinction. In princesses, only the human observer seeing stones side-by-side can verify it.

On the other hand, one should remember that the average cut-quality of princesses is somewhere around AGS-5. So, there is a hell of a difference with rounds.

In rounds, an average vendor may claim that a nice 60/60 is ideal according to his book. And he might be right, in the worst case, the stone might be AGS-1, and dozens of consumers will stand up in protest, because the stone has no H&A, and a not-so-perfect Idealscope.

In princesses, however, a vendor can take an AGS-4, and call it Ideal, based upon whatever proportion-criteria and a rather red-looking Idealscope. In the end, we must realise that this assertion is based upon zero knowledge.

One can even think that most diamond vendors have indeed some experience with different cut-qualities in rounds, and that all at least have an idea what an AGS-0-round is. Not the case in princesses, where most vendors have never ever seen an AGS-0, not to mention that they possibly never even saw an AGS-2.

I am very sorry for the rant, and for the way in which this might sound agressive, but I do know what cut-quality we are cutting, but I hate to say that many vendors out there (in the case of princess-cuts) have no idea what cut-quality they are selling.

Sorry for being so sensitive,

 

[niceice]

Before this thread blows out of proportion

might I mention that the princess cut which is the focus of the debate isn''t "ideal" at all? Note the symmetry rating of Very Good... Only the Polish is listed as "Excellent - Ideal" which IS extremely inaccurate since the GIA does NOT have an Ideal rating of any sort and thus the description of "Excellent - Ideal" should not be used. Although I believe that JA is probably using it as script shorthand for their sorting system to save a little code and not to intentionally mislead anybody. However from a legal perspecive, it is perhaps wiser to describe the polish accurately as determined by the lab and not to mix the rating system of two laboratories because it obviously leads to confusion.

As a side note, it is generally accepted gemological practice to rate the overall "cut rating" of the diamond to the lowest denominator for polish, symmetry and proportions, thus if the polish rating of the diamond is Very Good, then the overall cut rating can be no better. Which is NOT to say that it might not be a beautiful diamond, check it out by all means...

 

[Rod]

Date: 9/12/2006 3:16:24 PM
Author: niceice
Before this thread blows out of proportion

might I mention that the princess cut which is the focus of the debate isn''t ''ideal'' at all? Note the symmetry rating of Very Good... Only the Polish is listed as ''Excellent - Ideal'' which IS extremely inaccurate since the GIA does NOT have an Ideal rating of any sort and thus the description of ''Excellent - Ideal'' should not be used. Although I believe that JA is probably using it as script shorthand for their sorting system to save a little code and not to intentionally mislead anybody. However from a legal perspecive, it is perhaps wiser to describe the polish accurately as determined by the lab and not to mix the rating system of two laboratories because it obviously leads to confusion.

As a side note, it is generally accepted gemological practice to rate the overall ''cut rating'' of the diamond to the lowest denominator for polish, symmetry and proportions, thus if the polish rating of the diamond is Very Good, then the overall cut rating can be no better. Which is NOT to say that it might not be a beautiful diamond, check it out by all means...

Ok.....so I''ll use my stone as an example and ask you the following:

My stone, which was presented to me as an Ideal Tolkowski cut (60/60 proportions of course) has excellent symmetry, but just good polish and is rated Very Good according to the new GIA Grading Report that accompanied my stone. Using your comment above, you believe my stone should only be considered Good, not Very Good? I''m not sure it''s really fair to use your example as gospel in the gemological world.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Todd is correct in the historical sense, and in the way AGS still grades. Recently, with new GIA-cut-grading of rounds, you are correct that you can point to another example.

But in any case, the presentation of ''Ideal'' and ''Tolkowsky'' is incorrect for your stone. And with it being a round, the mis-representation is not that bad, even, since with average high cut-quality of rounds, it is not that very far from AGS-Ideal probably.

In a princess, claiming ''Ideal'' without any basis is just plain guesswork from the vendor. This stone might just as well have AGS-light performance 4 (which is above average), but it is extremely far from Ideal.

Live long,

 

[Rod]

Date: 9/12/2006 3:52:26 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Todd is correct in the historical sense, and in the way AGS still grades. Recently, with new GIA-cut-grading of rounds, you are correct that you can point to another example.

But in any case, the presentation of ''Ideal'' and ''Tolkowsky'' is incorrect for your stone. And with it being a round, the mis-representation is not that bad, even, since with average high cut-quality of rounds, it is not that very far from AGS-Ideal probably.

In a princess, claiming ''Ideal'' without any basis is just plain guesswork from the vendor. This stone might just as well have AGS-light performance 4 (which is above average), but it is extremely far from Ideal.

Live long,

Thanks Paul. And btw., it doesn''t bother me in the least about whether my stone is or would be considered "ideal" by anyone else. My stone scored a 1.2 on the HCA. It rocks (pun intended) and I''m proud to be it''s host for a while.

 

[WinkHPD]

I think what has Paul''s goat is that he works extremely hard to meet (actually exceed) the standards that have been set forth by the AGS for calling a princess cut ideal. This has literally cost him tens of thousands of dollars.

For someone to be blatantly misusing the standards set for princess cuts by the AGS is vexing for those who have worked so hard to uphold them.

James is an excellent vendor, but in this instance he is doing himself, his clients, and the trade no favors.

Wink

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/12/2006 11:16:10 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
The ''Cut'' is described as ''Ideal''. Based upon which criteria? The stone has a GIA-report, so what does ''Ideal'' mean in this instance.

Gog me with a spoon!

Rather than have it go without saying...although it may be a slippery slope...overall, I think the consumer can benefit from the vendor stretching to have systems map onto one another. If it is intended, and then executed, as a value added exercise.

For purists, this may always fail.

If you''ll stand up for the argument, having thought it through, analysis done on a consumer''s benefit is OK with me.

But this is a transgression.

Nevertheless, always, buyer beware.

 

[WinkHPD]

Ira,

Are you saying that Paul''s statement is a transgression or James calling the stone ideal is a transgression? I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. If you are saying Paul''s statement is a transgression then I must respectfully dissagree with you.

Wink

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/12/2006 4:31:16 PM
Author: Wink
Ira,

Are you saying that Paul's statement is a transgression or James calling the stone ideal is a transgression? I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. If you are saying Paul's statement is a transgression then I must respectfully dissagree with you.

Wink

I see I am misunderstood....(eta, but if anything my entry here is a transgression).

I am semi-thread shifting, but not really.

I am saying that this sort of practice can be done with insight, benefiting the customer, and GOG engages in it with a strategic intent, apparently.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I guess that this also horrifies me, because I cannot get rid of the following thought:

''If you go and check out the Infinity-site, you will find a number of AGS-0 princesses there, but also some which are graded Ideal in all aspects, except for Symmetry or Polish being Excellent. These are noted on our site as AGS-1-Excellent. The question now is: Am I honest, stupid, or both?''

Live long,

 

[Regular Guy]

Paul,

I cannot quantify the benefit, or the truth of the matter, but I think and hope it is not lost. As Denver always says:

--------

Neil
There''s never a crowd when you go that extra mile.

 

[belle]

Date: 9/12/2006 4:40:58 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I guess that this also horrifies me, because I cannot get rid of the following thought:

''If you go and check out the Infinity-site, you will find a number of AGS-0 princesses there, but also some which are graded Ideal in all aspects, except for Symmetry or Polish being Excellent. These are noted on our site as AGS-1-Excellent. The question now is: Am I honest, stupid, or both?''

Live long,

you are honest AND respected paul.

i will neither buy from nor recommend vendors that choose to misrepresent their product just to make a sale. and yes, calling a diamond ''ideal'' and using that term in the description, even if you have tiny little ****''s with a footnote saying it is an estimate of ideal is misreprentation in my book. you should NOT list a stone as having ideal polish/symmetry (or anything else) if it was not graded as such.

does this practice make me a leeeetle angry? yes it does.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 9/12/2006 4:35:19 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/12/2006 4:31:16 PM
Author: Wink
Ira,

Are you saying that Paul''s statement is a transgression or James calling the stone ideal is a transgression? I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. If you are saying Paul''s statement is a transgression then I must respectfully dissagree with you.

Wink

I see I am misunderstood.

I am semi-thread shifting, but not really.

I am saying that this sort of practice can be done with insight, benefiting the customer, and GOG engages in it with a strategic intent, apparently.

LOL! I thought you said gag me with a spoon, I did not see that you were saying Gog me with a spoon. How funny!

Still, in this case I do not think it is a benefit to the customer that he thinks he is buying an ideal cut princess when it is not, at least not by the only standards for princess cuts that have been published by a major laboratory. (No offense to Old Miner intended, he was the first to publish anything about standards for princess cuts to my knowledge.)

Also, I believe that GOG clearly lists both sets of criteria from what I have read here. I have not actually been to his site in many years, so I may be wrong about this. (If he is only listing one set of criteria and then stating that it is equal to the other, then I would dissagree with him on that too, as would both GIA and AGS.)

If you are going to call a stone ideal, then it should be ideal by the only lab that has established parameters for ideal. If you want to say it was cut to ideal parameters as set forth by the AGS then you are providing useful information, otherwise you are, intentionally or otherwise, misleading the customer and I do not see how that can possibly be to his benefit.

Wink

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/12/2006 4:53:00 PM
Author: belle
even if you have tiny little ****''s with a footnote saying it is an estimate of ideal

actually, Belle, though I see the asterisk, where is the footnote?