!urgent! Error in diamond paperwork

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

I would just wait and talk to the people at James Allen but I am going to have a heart attack if I don't get some good ideas as to what is going on. My diamond came in loose with the AGS report and on the paper with the diamond there are two stickers, at first I only looked at one of them and saw it was a brief summary of the AGS report with a stock number penciled in at the top.

When I saw the diamond I noticed it had less broad flashes of fire and more overall general dispersion--from what I recall--of my previous diamond. At first I explained this as being a difference in star and LGF numbers but I was really surprised to be able to notice a difference and thought maybe it was in my mind. But then I decided to check out both of the stickers:

One sticker has brief summary of the stock number and the AGS report.

The second (seemingly inaccurate sticker) has hand written on it in red ink 34 (dot) 67 and it is a white sticker attached to a blue piece of paper. It looks very similar to a Sarin Anlysis report however it has different numbers than the Sarin analysis sent to me and it differs from the AGS report in 5 of the 8 listed elements , some of them significantly and some of the marginally.

This second sticker says .610 cts and 5.41X5.45 which also matches my diamond, but it has very different numbers for other dimensions.

In order of significant differences between one of the attached sticker and the AGS report they are:

1) The second paper attached has a culet of .6% and says "very small", while my diamond has a "pointed" culet according to the AGS report and on the Sarin analysis came back as .1%

2) The girdle on this sticker says " 2.0%-2.2%, Slightly thick-Slightly thick", where as the girdle on the second sticker and on the AGS report is listed as thin-Slightly thick and the Sarin Analysis came back as 1.5%-2.1%.

3) The table percentage on this sticker says 56.3%, whereas the diamond I ordered says 55.7% by AGS and 55.5% by Sarin analysis

4) This sticker says crown angle of 34.7 my diamond is supposed to be 34.6 according to AGS report and 34.8% according to Sarin Analysis

5) This sticker says depth percentage of 61.7 mine is supposed to be 61.6 According to AGS report and 61.8% by Sarin analysis (though the Sarin anlysis had different numbers for width, thus yielding different numbers for percentage)

 

[pricescope]

Date: 6/23/2007 8:03:02 PM
Author:WorkingHardforSmallRewards


3) The table percentage on this sticker says 65.3%, whereas the diamond I ordered says 55.7% by AGS and 55.5% by Sarin analysis

While other numbers can be within measurement error, 65.3% vs 55.5% is quite a big difference indeed.

If you have a digital camera, take a picture of the diamond and measure the table on magnified image. If it is 65% instead of 55% then it is definitely a wrong stone.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

ahh, geez, I seem to be prone to error, in my haste I typed the 6 and 5 backward, it is 56.3, which is also within a margin of error. I have reviewed all the other numbers again and they are all as written on the sticker.

My real concerns are the culet is significantly off

The girdle is significantly off at slthick-slthick instead of thin-slightly thick

and primarily Why is this report even stuck to my diamond in the first place? It does not match the Sarin analysis report sent to me nor the AGS report and no other data on dimensions was made available to me--thus giving me a bit of confusion as it looks just like a Sarin analysis report with the supposed cut grading off to the side and hypothetical AGS cut grade listed at the top.

 

[JulieN]

Sarin and AGS measure girdle differently, I think.

4 and 5 are close enough.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

sorry, I know nobody here can help me out. The problem is that these numbers differ significantly form my Sarin anlysis as well, as listed in the original post. I looks almost as though they had Sarin anlysis data already, and then ran it again and gave me new Sarin anlysis data rather than what they already had stuck to the diamond??

 

[enbcfsobe]

Don't panic. I had a Sarin done on a stone that I know matched the paperwork (no questions on anything being switched -- we looked at it under the scope and it matched the papers (its an SI1 so its easy to tell) and I watched it carried over to the machine), and the numbers were not identical. The girdle is a subjective analysis from what I understand. Also, from what I understand, the star/lgf numbers can affect whether you get more or less fire, but I'm no expert in that regard.

 

[Cehrabehra]

I think most of that is fairly negligible other than the table... that''s HUGELY different and that alone could make a big difference.

Look into it! Other than that I defer to the roundies

 

[Cehrabehra]

I just read your transposition but I have to say one thing... these numbers really don''t mean squat if you don''t like what you see with your *eyes*. Send it back if it isn''t pleasing no matter WHAT the numbers say!

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Well I wouldn't say that I am unhappy with it, just mostly surprised at the notable difference. I can't get to a jewelery store to compare to other ideals at the moment so I have been asking women whether they like the diamond in direct sunlight or in the shade of tree.

The direct sunlight create more clear burst of fire and the shade has alot more "sparkly fire" with a few smaller burst. And everytime the women have chosen hands down in the foliage. Which seems to me to simulate the same concept fairly well. (I spent hours looking at my old diamond and analyzing it in all different angles of the sun, foliage and indoors, so I remember it's performance quite well).

I have also done research on the FIC cut and it seems to basically be the same concept only to a larger degree, in those reports supposedly women generally choose the FIC over other cuts when compared side by side. I think it may just take some getting used to--but the first major step will be comparing it in a jewelery store to other ideals.

Thus, it may actually be just right for a woman (I personally love the slightly broader and brighter burst of fire, it just seems more powerful) but as it is all the women I have talked to said it is too bright and blinding in direct sunlight. So, pending some other opinions it may actually be the safest route to go...assuming there is a legitimate reason for this third set of somewhat different data to exist on that same stone.


(Also, incase you didn't realize it, this is why I named myself WorkingHardForSmallRewards

)

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

It finally got explained to me. There was no error. What was explained to me is that when they cut the diamond in Israel and offer them for sale they run a Sarin Analysis on it at the cutting location in order for the business (James Allen in this case) to determine that it is worth taking the risk to invest in and make part of the in-house collection. That Sarin Analysis was the one stickered to the diamond, and then when I requested one James Allen ran there own Analysis and didn''t mention the previous one(James Allen''s numbers were all around much more inline with AGS than the one in Israel.)

Sorry for the panic.