Why does this diamond have TWO official sets of specs on the diamond ???

[haagen_dazs]

I was kind of interested and was studying this diamond
http://www.exceldiamonds.com/Loose_Round_Diamond-143/Loose_Round_1.23_Carat_H_Color_SI1_Clarity_diamond-368813.html


1) From the website, the photo of the report says GIA 5106152311 and had additional inscription as GIA 17514541
I went to check out and there are some differences in the characteristics.
The crown and pavillion angles could be due the rounding off that GIA uses ???
What about the different table and depth %?
Which is the right report or are both acceptable?
Is this a classic example of tolerance/resolution error in measuring equipments (that do need to be calibrated) ?

2)
What do you think of the ASET and IS ?
Is there a real leakage on one side of the diamond or is it an artifact of photography? It can be seen on both images.

Are the H&A Arrows good? Some of the hearts where the > is not balanced.
However I wanted some input for you experts.
Thanks


Report Type: GIA Diamond Grading Report
Date of Issue: February 06, 2009
Laser Inscription Registry: 5106152311
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.80 - 6.90 x 4.27 mm
Carat Weight: 1.23 carat
Color Grade: H
Clarity Grade: SI1
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 62.3%
Table: 56%
Crown Angle: 36.0°
Crown Height: 16.5%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6°
Pavilion Depth: 43.0%
Star length: 50%
Lower Half: 80%
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted (3.0%)
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None





Report Type: GIA Diamond Dossier®
Date of Issue: July 29, 2008
Laser Inscription Registry: GIA 17514541
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.87 - 6.90 x 4.26 mm
Carat Weight: 1.23 carat
Color Grade: H
Clarity Grade: SI1
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 61.9%
Table: 55%
Crown Angle: 36.0°
Crown Height: 16.0%
Pavilion Angle: 40.6°
Pavilion Depth: 42.5%
Star length: 50%
Lower Half: 80%
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted (3.0%)
Culet: None

 

[jet2ks]

Crown and pavillion angles are the same on both reports. The difference in the depth and table % is because those are figured off the smallest diameter measurement, which is different for some reason (6.80 vs 6.87). The difference in depth at only .01mm is acceptable, but I do wonder about the diameter difference--.07 seems a little too much discrepancy. At first I thought maybe some additional polishing had been done for some reason (like to polish out a small chip), but that would have resulted in some weight loss. Someone with more experience with GIA and the machines used to measure the diamonds will have to chime in on that one.

The two reports are different. It looks like the diamond was first submitted for a Dossier, which is an abbreviated report which costs less that doesn't include the inclusion map , and then resubmitted later to get the more complete Diamond Quality Report. That is nothing to be concerned about.

ASET and IS are excellent--I think what you are seeing on the one facet is just glare. Hearts image is good, but not great--I think it may just meet the criteria for being called H&A, but would like to hear what some others think.

It is a very well cut diamond and should be an excellent performer.

 

[haagen_dazs]

Where are all the super experts?
I am waiting to hear your views

After more investigative work...

1)
Alright so i went to look at the numbers more closely

For the grading report 5106152311
The online report check says 6.80mm---x4.27mm..... but the physical document says 6.86---x4.28mm
The online report check says 55% but the physical document says 56%
The online report check says 62.2% but.......62.3%
The online report check says polish is excellent but ........very good
The online report check says symmertry is very good but .....excellent

WHAT THE HELL is going on?
Thats a total of 6 wrong entries comparing the hard copu to the 2009 copy NOT counting the discrepencies with the 2008 report !

@$?$?T$#^#$%

Either someone is not doing their job right OR the Report Check (ironically) is garbage

 

[haagen_dazs]

on a side note

Report Type: GIA Diamond Grading Report
Date of Issue: February 06, 2009
Laser Inscription Registry: 5106152311

Report Type: GIA Diamond Dossier®
Date of Issue: July 29, 2008
Laser Inscription Registry: GIA 17514541

TWO laser inscription registries
Does that mean that there are TWO sets of numbers on the girdle?

 

[strmrdr]

nice fic but not the best of the best, one set of the girdle facets is dug.
That is the green on ASET and why one set has a lot of white in the IS.
My guess is that:

the stone was chipped then repaired.
That explains everything.


edit: looked at the report dates and the repair is likely the best explanation.

 

[strmrdr]

The hearts is part bad picture and part some yaw on the diamond.

 

[stone-cold11]

strmrdr explanation sounds the most probable.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/24/2009 1:32:08 AM
Author: strmrdr
nice fic but not the best of the best, one set of the girdle facets is dug.
That is the green on ASET and why one set has a lot of white in the IS.
My guess is that:

the stone was chipped then repaired.
That explains everything.


edit: looked at the report dates and the repair is likely the best explanation.

Could be possible, I am thinking along those lines too.

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 9/24/2009 1:32:08 AM
Author: strmrdr
nice fic but not the best of the best, one set of the girdle facets is dug.
That is the green on ASET and why one set has a lot of white in the IS.
My guess is that:

the stone was chipped then repaired.
That explains everything.


edit: looked at the report dates and the repair is likely the best explanation.

I thought that at first, as well, but wouldn''t a chip and repair have resulted in some minor weight loss? Both reports show 1.23ct.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 9/23/2009 11:33:36 PM
Author: haagen_dazs

Either someone is not doing their job right OR the Report Check (ironically) is garbage

That’s my theory on why the printed document doesn't match the online data for the same report number. Call them up and ask them. 1-800-421-7250

(I agree Storm’s theory about a repair being the explanation for the two slightly different reports a few months apart)

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/24/2009 9:49:55 AM
Author: jet2ks

Date: 9/24/2009 1:32:08 AM

Author: strmrdr

nice fic but not the best of the best, one set of the girdle facets is dug.

That is the green on ASET and why one set has a lot of white in the IS.

My guess is that:


the stone was chipped then repaired.

That explains everything.



edit: looked at the report dates and the repair is likely the best explanation.

I thought that at first, as well, but wouldn''t a chip and repair have resulted in some minor weight loss? Both reports show 1.23ct.

Could have went from 1.238 down to 1.229 and still be 1.23 on the report.

 

[Judah Gutwein]

Folks,

Here is the accurate story.

This stone wasn't "chipped and repaired" as has been surmised here.
Sometimes, these types of discrepancies don't have to be attributed to something negative about the stone. The diamond is very beautiful and as indicated by the reports.

I just spoke with the manufacturer.

This diamond was manufactured in India and was initially submitted to GIA for a Dossier and laser inscription.
The stone was then shipped to their offices in N.Y.C.
Their branch manager in N.Y.C. decided that since the diamond is an SI2 it would benefit them and potential buyers to have the full GIA report with the plotted diagram. The diamond was then resubmitted to GIA for a (new) full report with a request for laser inscription service.

The resultant minor discrepancies between the old and new report is correctly attributed to the inherent variability in the tolerances and measurements, as well as the subjective variables (grading) on the part of the individual gemologist.

The loose diamond came back showing both inscriptions; the new and the old laser inscription, which was additionally featured and reflected on the new GIA report.

The branch manager saw this and realized that it would be a point of confusion, so he had the his diamond polisher remove the old inscription from the diamond and submitted it to GIA for an updated report to show only the new inscription.

However, they forgot to scan and upload the updated GIA Report and that is why the old and confusing report continued to appear in their uploads and subsequently on our website.

This has now been corrected and the updated cert has been properly attached to the stone.


Here is the updated link:


http://www.exceldiamonds.com/Loose_Round_Diamond-143/Loose_Round_1.23_Carat_H_Color_SI1_Clarity_diamond-368813.html

 

[haagen_dazs]

Date: 9/25/2009 1:23:14 PM
Author: Judah Gutwein

Folks,

Here is the accurate story.

Their branch manager in N.Y.C. decided that since the diamond is an SI2 it would

WOWOWOWOW

Firstly Thumbs up!!
EXCEL Diamonds (Barry and Judah) are very impressive.
They are really on the ball and they respond very fast.

I like them

I am matching up my investigative notes and they speak the truth and for that I like them even more.

Judah : btw you probably had a typo but its an SI1 not SI2
-----------
You may wonder why am i digging through this diamond history.
Well I just like to know whats going on.
A curious mind =p


I wanted to post this yesterday but I was holding back and waiting for information and for people to chime in with their expert opinion.


1)
I called GIA and spoke to a gemologist.
She must think I am crazy with all my questions.
Apparently we were looking at different reports and I was wondering why the heck were we talking about different things in the SAME GIA report number.
I was going off the Report 2009 and she was probably going off the Updated Report 2009.


SOOOOOOOOOOOOO

it seems that there are three reports for this diamond
-Dossier 2008
-Report 2009 5106152311 (there was a hardcopy. hardcopy now not available online but details are in my first post)
-Updated report 2009 5106152311 (new hardcopy online)


2)

I asked if there was a chance that the diamond was reworked upon in those 6 months.

GIA gave me 3 reasons for the changes.

2a)
Manufacturer possibly wanted to improve the diamond by removing inclusions and improve the value.
However the clarity went from SI1 ---> SI1 (no change)

which makes me wonder ... oh wells .. mfg did not achieve that objective


2b)
A facet was added to remove the inclusion

At that time, I was looking at the Report 2009 and there was no symbol of an additional facet.
The gemologist probably think I am crazy since I said i wasnt seeing one and she said it was on the hardcopy.

Unfortunately the Updated report 2009 hardcopy was scanned with the symbols cut off.

I still cannot verify this extra facet


2c)
GIA said the polish was improved on this diamond.

Dossier has no information on the polish.

Report 2009 states polish is very good
Updated report 2009 states polish is excellent

Yeah!

2d)

However

Report 2009 states symmetry is excellent
Updated report 2009 states symmerty is very good

Arghhh ... but I think I can explain why

3)

The carat weight dropped from (Dossier) 1.23800 ct to (Updated Report 2009) 1.23605 ct

The story connects well with Judah''s story (again I like the truth)

They polished off the inscription.
Inscription was noted in the Report 2009
Inscription was removed in Updated Report 2009

This was also EXACTLY what the gemologist mentioned to me.

This makes sense too since the diameter dropped from
Dossier 6.87 - 6.90
to
Updated Report 2009 6.80 - 6.90

This probably points to the drop in symmetry grade in paragraph (2d)
The variance in the new diameter is now 0.10mm and not 0.03mm

4)

The GIA online check matches the Updated Report 2009.
ahh finally..


5)

Lastly (i am sure i heard this clearly and doubled checked)
the gemologist told me that chips are not recorded as an inclusion in the plot diagram.

I asked if there was a chip and hence reworking was performed.

GIA says No chips on the diamond (matches Judah;s update - I like )

Can experts here verify that chipping is not noted in the plotted diagram ?????

6)
A few more loose ends which might still bug me

Why was there no extra facet noted on the Report 2009 ? Unless the extra facet was added between Report 2009 and Updated report 2009 ??

Is is possible to
add a facet,
improve polish on diamond and
polish down the griddle

all with the loss of 0.00195 ct ?
(thats 0.039g or 39 milligram)




phew.

maybe after all this work, i should buy this diamond LOL !!

 

[haagen_dazs]

hey PSers... just revisiting this thread again.

I was wondering if more people could comment on their views of the asset and is and h&a images.
is the crown angle too steep at 36 degrees?

 

[stone-cold11]

Crown angle is ok for that pavilion angle, ASET and IS are both good, and since the stone is not sold as an H&A, I won''t worry about them.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/6/2009 12:32:33 PM
Author: haagen_dazs
hey PSers... just revisiting this thread again.

I was wondering if more people could comment on their views of the asset and is and h&a images.
is the crown angle too steep at 36 degrees?

There is a lot more flexibility with crown angles than pavilion, in this case the crown angle is balanced with the 40.6 pavilion angle so these two angles can make a good combination ( which the images prove), also a steep crown angle can aid the production of fire or coloured light, as long as the pavilion angle isn't correspondingly steep.