Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

So Terribly Confused!!! Need your held bfore hubby kills me!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
devientdrow

devientdrow

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
557

Alright...this was my original thread:


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/please-help-diamond-upgrade-dillemma.36615/=


and everyone helped me so much that now that i''m in my final stage of purchasing I find that I need help once again. I find myself very very very confused. I thought I would go with Smyth. As far as a B&M goes I thought they were awesome. So I went in with my husband and we sat down with a sales lady who asked us what we were looking for and brought over what she thought we would like. I like that she was very straight forward. She brought over one ideal cut and a few of thier regualr stock. When she showed me the ideal cut she upfront told me where the inclusion was and pointed it out under the microscope for me to see....she didn''t try to hide it or make it sound less than what it was. In my opinion the regular cuts DID NOT compare to the ideal. What I wanted intitally was a very well cut diamond that sparkled brilliantly and was as close to 1ct as I could get for around 3k, less if possible. We ended up putting a diamond on layaway at Smyth.....I got a copy of the AGS report and this is the deal on it:
AGS Ideal 0 Round Brilliant
5.73x5.76x3.51 mm
Light Performance 0
Proportion Factors 0
Finish 0
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Color Grade: I (AGS 2.5)
Clarity Grade: S12 (AGS 6) This is "eye clean" however
Carat Weight: 0.704 cts
Comments:
Flourescence: Negligible
Table: 55.7 %
Depth: 61.0%
Crown Angle: 34.2
Pavillion Angle: 40.8
Pavillion: 42.9 %
Crown: 15.0%
Girlde: Faceted 1.2% to 3.6%

Total charge for this is $2,800.00 We put $280 down and then it will be a $55 charge to replace the head of my ring and to make it 4 prong instead of 6. What do you all think of this stone? I know it''s quality and everyone whose helped me in customer service has remarked about what a beautiful stone it is....then again they could say that to everyone :)


Then the I start looking online....why i''ll never know. And the cheapy in me see''s what appears to be the somewhat same particular diamonds online for less. Then I start thinking maybe I could go bigger online. The problem would be paying for everything upfront. So I filled out the customer request form and Whiteflash contacted me with this diamond:


http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2107684.htm#


They also sent me an email stating that they did have a payment plan. 20% down and then you pay over 3 months. The problem is "if" you don''t like and you want a refund they keep the downpayment, which would be $580.00. Thats a lot to loose I think.


So then the greedy greedy lady in me of course wants to go bigger than .7 so I went back to Jareds to try and see if I could get more info. Luckily it was a different non pushy lady working, she went right to the same diamond the other one did for me:
Round Brilliant .90 carats
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Measurements: 6.18x6.22x3.75
Thats all that was on the card....so I wrote down the IGI number and called them and they told me this:
Depth: 60.4%
Table: 60%
Pavillion: 63.5%
This diamond is $3,700

So what do you all think?I think i''m being dumb maybe about trying to make it to that 1ct mark. I have a funny feeling that Jareds diamond might not be that good? What do you all think about the specs from the Smyth diamond? On it''s own and compared to the WF one?


Thanks in advance.


 
*Help* Rather everyone hehehe......I don''t need to be held :)
 
Between AGS and IGI there is some distance.... with quite a few options in there.

Chances are the non-ideals you saw were not all that close to the mark - you could probably find better. Especially for that 3.7k.


I would be looking for H-I/SI2 1 carat, GIA< VG or better finish, and find a seller who can select a well cut one. There are several such things below $3500... but without pictures or as much as a copy of the lab reports online to look at I am not going to jump of joy because of reasonable depth (and table % alone
11.gif


Would it hurt if it did turn out to be a clean SI2? With strict grading that could easily be the case. But you''d need to judge diamonds on case by case basis, as usual

My 2C... of course.


There''s always that ''buyer''s remorse'' thing...
2.gif
 
Personally, I don''t like the specs on Jared''s diamond. I *do* like the specs on the Smyth diamond. However, since you''re trying to go larger, what about this one, an H/SI2?

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=AGS-6633609#

It is $2846 with the Pricescope discount, and it will face up with the same diameter as the I/VVS1 that Whiteflash found for you. They are both around 6.03-6.04 mm in diameter. I just hate paying for high clarity that you can''t see. The H/SI2 could be excellent if it''s eye-clean, and it would be a little whiter, to boot.
 
stay away from igi! repeat stay away from igi!

You put a down payment on what looks to be an awesome diamond you love.
b&m does have its advantages and the price doesnt look too out of line.
The WF diamond you linked isnt an ags0 thats why its cheaper compare apples to apples and the price isnt bad.
 
Storm, how do you know it''s not an AGS0? I didn''t see any AGS grade for cut for that WF diamond that she linked.
 
I definitely don''t like the Jared''s stone since you are looking for "Ideal" and that certainly is not. I''m not saying it''s not a pretty diamond, but I would go with the Smyth diamond over the Jared diamond any day.

The stone Kim suggested is also great.

Personally, I like the fact that you would have access to the B&M store whenever you have a problem or concern (opposed to having to ship everything back to WF or find a new jeweler to service the WF ring near you). And they seem very knowledgable and have been nothing but honest with you, which is always nice! Also, you have to consider whether you would send your current e-ring to WF (more money for shipping and insurance), how much they will charge to set the stone in your setting with a new head, or how much a local jeweler is going to charge to set a diamond that you did not purchase from them in a new head.
 
Date: 12/6/2005 6:53:55 PM
Author: Kim N
Storm, how do you know it''s not an AGS0? I didn''t see any AGS grade for cut for that WF diamond that she linked.
Click to expand...

exackly so it isnt an ags0
New ags grading system only ags can issue the grade and they didnt.
it may or may not have ags0 performance level but its going to take more info to prove that.
Even if it does it will never be an ags0 cut without regrading by ags if it could pass it.
 
There are a few under $3K over .80ct in the expert selection at Whiteflash!
 
Date: 12/6/2005 3:04:01 PM
Author:devientdrow

Then the I start looking online....why i''ll never know. And the cheapy in me see''s what appears to be the somewhat same particular diamonds online for less. Then I start thinking maybe I could go bigger online. The problem would be paying for everything upfront. So I filled out the customer request form and Whiteflash contacted me with this diamond:


http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2107684.htm#

Click to expand...
Strange. I notice that when you click on this diamond the WF description page identifies it as AGS-6747209, but when you bring up the grading report it''s AGS-6747208, another (similar) diamond, similar in proportions but VVS2 and only 0.79 carats. Hmm.

This will be fixed immediately.
 
Date: 12/6/2005 8:30:50 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

It''s not often that such a thing goes undetected for 5 hours on this board!
2.gif
Click to expand...

OHMYGOSH! We are all sleepin'' at the wheel!!! SLACKERS ALL!
2.gif
1.gif
9.gif
 
Date: 12/6/2005 7:06:22 PM
Author: strmrdr


Date: 12/6/2005 6:53:55 PM
Author: Kim N
Storm, how do you know it's not an AGS0? I didn't see any AGS grade for cut for that WF diamond that she linked.
Click to expand...
exackly so it isnt an ags0
New ags grading system only ags can issue the grade and they didnt.
it may or may not have ags0 performance level but its going to take more info to prove that.
Even if it does it will never be an ags0 cut without regrading by ags if it could pass it.
Click to expand...

Kim, you asked a great question. The answer was correct, but the perceptual differences (or lack thereof) may interest you all.

Both of the diamonds (the .837 VV1 AGS-6747208 and the .79 VV2 AGS-6747209) actually did get 0 in light performance. They’re part of our Expert Selection for the same reasons: They both received a 1 (Excellent) in polish. Everything else, light performance, proportions, even symmetry on both diamonds is 0/Ideal. Polish brought their finish grades to a 1, so the overall cut grades became 1s.

That’s all that stopped them from having AGS0 DQDs, and possibly even being ACA...with the accompanying premium of course. [$$)] Trivial this may be, especially since there is no visible difference in Ex and Ideal polish...but that is why the AGS0 pedigree is so coveted.

Interesting that a non-visible element can be what separates an AGS0 from a non-AGS0, yes? It’s one example of how differences may become more exaggerated on paper than in real life.

Here's lab data:

AGS-6747208Lab.jpg
 
The point is that there may be differences between DQD and DQR that are more a matter of pedigree than perception.

Another thing to remember is that some people might have been calling both of those diamonds 0 in ‘street terms’ if they were graded by the GIA, since Ex is their top grade (presuming they’d receive ex at GIA too), and since the cut parameters fall within trad 0 proportions. That's not technically correct, since going through the AGS' light performance metric is the only way to earn the 'new' 0, but you'll still see it happen.

Just remember not to dismiss a diamond out of hand because it doesn’t have one certain paper. It’s always worth investigating all of the details with an expert who knows the ins and outs of the specific, innocent, happy little rock.
 
interesting John,
Does AGS give you the results before issuing the report so you can pick which report is issued to make the diamond look better on paper?
 
Date: 12/6/2005 10:28:21 PM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 12/6/2005 8:30:50 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

It''s not often that such a thing goes undetected for 5 hours on this board!
2.gif
Click to expand...

OHMYGOSH! We are all sleepin'' at the wheel!!! SLACKERS ALL!
2.gif
1.gif
9.gif
Click to expand...
LOL! No kidding Lynn. The number-crunchers must have taken a siesta today
3.gif


Another FEI (for everyone''s info): With the corrected grading report on our site all of the former links in this thread are going to link the .79 now, but the original subject that caused the ruckus was the .837 (AGS-6747208).
 
Date: 12/6/2005 11:20:15 PM
Author: strmrdr
interesting John,

Does AGS give you the results before issuing the report so you can pick which report is issued to make the diamond look better on paper?
Click to expand...
Of course they do. The reason we prefer DQR here is that they are going into Expert Selection, and it costs more for a DQD than a DQR. The whole motif of Expert Selection is ''value for the money,'' so we avoid the extra charge and can sell the diamond for less.

I suppose we could have made these ''look better'' by having DQD''s issued showing light performance 0, proportions 0, and finish 1, but that would only have value to DQD fanatics. All of the stats (carat-color-clarity-all proportions-polish-sym) would have read identically. The only difference would have been seeing the 0 in light performance and 0 in sym they earned - which did not appear on the DQR.

Considering the strength of AGS, the DQR is really a great document. Proportions are provided and color/clarity strictness is identical. The only difference in this circumstance is a sliver between invisible top finish grades - so the customer benefits from not paying a DQD premium.

I suppose you could make these ''look better'' by sending them to another lab, where they might earn all top marks (maybe that is what you meant?).
 
A 001-1 would play good on PS but in the wider world of diamonds its a black mark.
The percentage of ags1 reports issued is very very small im willing to bet.
Better to avoid the issue then trot out the unofficial results to get sales if your playing in a field that gets it.

Thats what i ment by it.

But anyway as far as consumers are concerned to quote you:
"the report is the official record of the diamond"

The official record of both those diamonds is they are not ags0.

Its a slipperly slope to say otherwise.
 
Wow, John, it''s really interesting to learn all that. Thanks for explaining!
 
Date: 12/7/2005 12:31:08 AM
Author: strmrdr

The official record of both those diamonds is they are not ags0.

Its a slipperly slope to say otherwise.
Click to expand...


No one said otherwise Strm. Kim asked about the grade. You said it may or may not have ags0 performance level but its going to take more info to prove that. I trotted out 'more info' and illustrated the lab process. I thought that might be cool for Kim and others.



A 001-1 would play good on PS but in the wider world of diamonds its a black mark.
The percentage of ags1 reports issued is very very small im willing to bet.
Better to avoid the issue then trot out the unofficial results to get sales if your playing in a field that gets it.

Thats what i ment by it.
Click to expand...
That's a unique view. Most of the world's diamonds are either ungraded or graded by softer labs. You rarely see AGS documents, so a DQR is like a tall cool drink of water in the wilderness. Even if it was a DQD 1 it wouldn't be any less than it is...

Edited to add: I suppose on an internet search I can see how one might check proportions on a DQR to 'see for yourself,' whereas on a fast glance a cut grade of 1 may be dismissed. In any event, our approach is simple economics. This way we're saving consumers money, and I think most everyone agrees that is a good thing.
 
Date: 12/7/2005 4:10:44 AM
Author:
Author: Kim N


Wow, John, it''s really interesting to learn all that. Thanks for explaining!
Click to expand...

What she said!
1.gif


John,
I found that information fascinating, too - thank you! Ya'' just can''t go wrong with those ES stones!
30.gif


Lynn
 
John,
Lets see if i can make what im saying clearer.

I believe you when you say WF does it for:
1: brand seperation - reserving the better report for ACA''s
2: save a few bucks.

BUT:
in the overall diamond industry view:
Im not comfortable with the idea of a vendor saying "the lab said" when it isnt on the official report.

See what im saying?
 
Date: 12/7/2005 12:31:08 AM
Author: strmrdr

A 001-1 would play good on PS but in the wider world of diamonds its a black mark.
The percentage of ags1 reports issued is very very small im willing to bet.
Better to avoid the issue then trot out the unofficial results to get sales if your playing in a field that gets it.
Click to expand...
It's a black mark? According to who.....you? When did you become the voice for the diamond industry?

You make a LOT of broad statements about what you *think* you can see (albeit with the very, very limited number of diamonds you've actually seen in person and not on a DiamCalc) and what you *think* the industry is, but you are not actually part of the industry, and you are not a voice for them either.

Before you start sitting in judgment on how others are representing themselves and their products and whether or not they might be overstating a bit, a little self-reflection might be in order.

Trotting out unofficial results to get sales? Why are you being so surly and combative? YOU are the one who opened the door about "not enough information".

Really......the attitude doesn't become you at all, Storm.
 
Date: 12/7/2005 8:44:08 AM
Author: strmrdr


BUT:
in the overall diamond industry view:
Im not comfortable with the idea of a vendor saying ''the lab said'' when it isnt on the official report.

See what im saying?
Click to expand...
Again, you don''t represent the industry. So, what you''re personally comfortable with or not is just that....what YOU are comfortable with as an average consumer. That doesn''t mean others cannot be comfortable with more information, or that they shouldn''t be privvy to it because of your personal preferences.

Further.......the results John posted ARE lab results. PERIOD. Which document one chooses to represent them doesn''t affect what the results actually were.

Assume that 20 students take an exam, and the professor elects to express the results this way: 11 students scored a C or better; the rest scored C- or worst. Reporting the results this way doesn''t change the fact that Jane Q. Student scored a B.....OFFICIALLY. But it''s simply not how the professor chose to report the results.

Keep in mind the grading report isn''t a *official* anything......it specifically states it''s not a guarantee, warranty, or any other ----tee. It''s an educated OPINION that some find reassuring in buying a stone, and it can affect the premium one can fetch for it.

As long as they aren''t saying "this diamond IS an AGS0", they are not misrepresenting lab results.
 
You guys should chill a little bit. So what if strm is somewhat nit picky with details??? I''M GRATEFUL FOR THAT. I came to this forum to LEARN. I started this thread pretty much outright saying i''m a newb. I think strm being nit picky on how thing are worded is a good thing for me, because he caused the other guy to explain further where EXACTLY he got his info and how.........which is just more information for me me to take into accouint while debating what action I will take. I''m personally grateful there are people on here that challenge each other and make each other really explain things in detail. Honestly though i''m grateful for EVERYONES help.
 
Also I have no idea why i''m getting hung up on this 1ct thing. I''m not even all that particualr about it being 1ct exactly........I would of taken a .90 and been just as happy. What do you guys think? Do you all think a .704ct is small? I''m being ridiculous and mediaized aren''t I? *sigh* Maybe it''s because I think I have grubby little man hands.........
 
Date: 12/7/2005 11:38:37 AM
Author: devientdrow
You guys should chill a little bit. So what if strm is somewhat nit picky with details??? I''M GRATEFUL FOR THAT. I came to this forum to LEARN. I started this thread pretty much outright saying i''m a newb. I think strm being nit picky on how thing are worded is a good thing for me, because he caused the other guy to explain further where EXACTLY he got his info and how.........which is just more information for me me to take into accouint while debating what action I will take. I''m personally grateful there are people on here that challenge each other and make each other really explain things in detail. Honestly though i''m grateful for EVERYONES help.
Click to expand...
I agree that challenging information and asking for clarification is how we all learn.........when it''s done in a civil, non-accusatory spirit and not laden with insinuations.

Yes, you did say you''re a newb, which means you probably aren''t privvy to knowing this approach is a pattern, not a one-time thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top