Why would my diamond have an AGS and a GIA report?

[KnockKnock]

GIA 1116491375
AGS 1040405950002

http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=1116491375&weight=1.23

http://agslab.com/reportTypes/pdqdf.php?StoneID=01040405950002&Weight=1.234&D=1

With links to both reports.

Seems weird to me that the measurement is off (6.11 x 5.88 x 4.25 mm vs 6.17 x 5.88 x 4.26 mm)

The color being one off I can understand (somewhere between a G and F)

One has a "faint" fluorescence while the other is "negligible"?

The depth is within 0.1%, but the table is 0.7% different?

I guess, I need to wonder if I should be worried that this diamond has been graded twice or if its normal for the two grading sites to be this far off? (The width and table is almost a 1% difference, I wouldnt expect that...)

 

[denverappraiser]

Both labs use Sarin equipment for the various measurements and what you’re seeing is a difference in the measurements. Sarin says +/- 0.02 is what you can expect in terms of repeatability which makes a potential span of 0.04 on well calibrated equipment. Your difference of 0.06 would suggest that at least one machine was slightly out of calibration (or perhaps that Sarin is stretching their claims of accuracy). The table% and depth% are calculated figures from the above Sarin measurements so it’s the same thing.

The issues that caused the dealer to get 2 grading reports are the AGS cut grade and the color. It’s interesting that they got the GIA to do a girdle inscription. Usually they would get a different set of services, precisely to avoid the mentioning of the GIA inscription on the AGSL report. That way they could sell with whichever report they thought would yield the most money on the deal at hand. They didn't like what GIA told them so they sent it to AGS to see if they could get a better pedigree (which they got by the way). Save for that girdle inscription, I would expect that GIA report to be completely lost to the trash heap of history. Bet they don’t make that mistake again.

The line between ‘negligible’ and ‘faint’ is a judgment call by the grader at AGSL, as is the difference between ‘none’ and ‘faint’ at GIA.

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

 

[KnockKnock]

Interesting about the Sarin report. I''ll have to see what the appraiser says.

Im curious that the stone was graded by both, I was under the impression that they "werent allowed" or just didnt do stuff like that. Bad ethics or something?

The weird thing about the Cut was that Blue Nile had it listed as a Very Good (not their Sig Ideal) cut. Similiar diamonds with the Sig Ideal cut were around 10% more. So I paid a little bit more for the color upgrade, but I didnt pay for the cut difference (or at least I dont think I did)

I guess know pretty much exactly what my diamond is though since its been graded by both, somewhere between G and F with a miniscule amount of fluorescence and somewhere between 6.11 and 6.17 mm wide.

So...kinda off the topic of this thread...but what do I do now between the time that I have it and when I want to propose? Secret it away so there''s no chance I can lose it, or do I need to immediatly get some insurance for it?

Sorry, im 28, this is the first (and only) one that Im going to buy and while I know a little from this site, im still clueless on most everything.

 

[kenny]

Date: 5/13/2010 1:57:58 PM
Author: KnockKnock
I was under the impression that they 'werent allowed' or just didnt do stuff like that. Bad ethics or something?

Unfortunately nobody is overseeing this industry. (Not yet, anyway.)

It's buyer beware.

Hopefully publicity and pressure from threads like this on PS will lead to the industry cleaning itself up or, if it won't, the government addressing the lack of ethics in diamond grading.

 

[stone-cold11]

Only BN's in-house stone, their signature ideal will get the signature ideal grade. No other stones will get that as these are not own by them but from the virtual inventory.

I would secret it away unless you have a bank safe, then I would put it there.

 

[yssie]

Bank safe would work. If you secret it away and trust yourself not to pull it out and play with it every so often that would do, but if not I''d just get the insurance now

 

[Dreamer_D]

I would just go ahead and get the insurance now.

 

[John P]

BN has a presence in a number of countries. GIA paper may be used because AGS is not well-known outside the US. Duplicate reports are not uncommon for diamonds that shift between markets.

 

[stone-cold11]

John, the stone is graded by GIA first before it reaches the hands of AGS.

 

[John P]

Date: 5/13/2010 6:47:40 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
John, the stone is graded by GIA first before it reaches the hands of AGS.

SC, not sure if you're asking a question?

Which comes first is chicken-egg. If the diamond will be marketed in Europe it will have GIA or HRD. If on US websites (now or later) it may go to AGS if it's going to come back 0. If it originally goes to BN for their US website it may get AGS paper only at the start, and GIA later if it's shifted somewhere else. For Asian markets IGI HK may be used, or perhaps the NGTC if targeted for mainland China - and I'm leaving out numerous other possibilities.

 

[stone-cold11]

You seems to be implying the stone was a AGS0 stone first and then send to GIA because of increase in marketability. But the sequencing of the report, it is the other way round, the stone was graded first by GIA then send to AGS to get a less well known report?

 

[John P]

No implication intended SC. I was answering the question that's the title of the thread. There are various reasons to go with dup reports; which came first, second or last does not necessarily matter. For marketability, if the diamond was intended for BN UK first it explains GIA first. Or not. Could be a number of factors.