consumer guidance. we do not sell jewelry.

Jump to content

View New Content      Forum Rules                            New here? Quick site intro

Photo

Help With Following Diamonds


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 04:19 PM

Hi all,

 

I am looking to exchange my 1.55 CT F VS1 due to error on revised GIA report. When I bought this diamond it has all three Excellent categories and it was 1.55 CT, but the new report defers as you will see. I already paid for the diamond and due to the discrepancy in the diamond report, the jeweller agreed to change my diamond to a comparable one. I received the following diamonds to look into and he is going to bring any of these if I am interested. 

 

Can you please review these and let me know which among these, I should ask him to bring. One of the attachment is the Diamond I already paid for. The file named as My Diamond with GIA of 1142996515.

 

I was researching online and found these configurations will fall into ideal cut...Any comments will be appreciated too.

 

TABLE 54 - 57 %

DEPTH 61 - 62.5 %

CROWN ANGLE 34 - 35 Degrees

PAVILION ANGLE 40.6 to 41 degrees

STAR LENGTH 55%

LOWER HALF LENGTH 80%

GIRDLE Thin to Medium3%

 

 

Thank you

Attached Thumbnails

  • 1.png
  • 2.png
  • 3.png
  • 4.png
  • My Diamond.png

Edited by Newbee, 08 December 2016 - 04:21 PM.


#2 davidelevi

davidelevi

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Jeweler
  • 7,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 08 December 2016 - 11:43 PM

Of the 4 options, I would tend to discard (on paper) #1. However, if you have a seller that can call all of those in, why not give yourself the benefit of a broader set to choose from? Ask him to bring in all 4 (or possibly #s 2, 3 and 4 plus a further #5).

 

On "ideal" parameters - those are fine, but overly restrictive. There are very nice looking diamonds (that incidentally AGS calls "Ideal" - and theirs is the only well-defined use of the word "ideal" that I know of) with one or more parameters outside that table.


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
[email protected]

#3 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 02:40 PM

Thank you....

 

Did you mean discard the Diamond with GIA number 2175815402?.

 

Among the other three, which one is better among the them on paper? Your help will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you



#4 davidelevi

davidelevi

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Jeweler
  • 7,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 14 December 2016 - 01:10 AM

Yes, that's the one I'd discard. Nothing wrong as such, but I think the other 3 are better (at least on paper).

 

Of the other 3, I'd pick the one with report ending 9748, but as I mentioned above, at this stage the most productive course of action is to look at many diamonds, not pieces of paper. Ask the vendor to bring them ALL in. Not least because having now looked back at "your" original diamond, I think it looks on paper the best of all these 5, other than the "good" polish grade that causes its cut grade to be downgraded too. However, the interesting question is whether the "good" polish (or rather the reason for it) affects the looks in any way.


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
[email protected]

#5 LaurentGeorge

LaurentGeorge

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Jeweler
  • 629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 14 December 2016 - 06:08 AM

I concur with Davide on opting out of 5402 but of the remaining stones, I like the 1.60 FVS1 ending in 3896.  The slightly higher crown and perfect pav angle should produce more fire.  The reality is that these are all very close and really need an in person comparison or at the very least a comparative video showing all the stones together.  this is the only way for you to weigh these minor difference and decide which most appeals to you.


Laurent George

Diamond Ideals

New York City
www.diamondideals.com

212-207-4845

[email protected]

 

 


#6 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 December 2016 - 04:52 PM

Thank you and appreciate your help. I will look at them and will get back to you.

 

You guys are great....



#7 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 December 2016 - 05:11 PM

Hello again,

 

i just got the info that, none of those diamonds are available currently and these are my current choices. I appreciate if you can recommend which one among the three is best atl east on the paper. These are the GIA report numbers.

 

1. 7231927968

2. 5146399492

3. 6235633896

 

Your input will be greatly appreciated. 

 

Thank you in advance...



#8 davidelevi

davidelevi

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Jeweler
  • 7,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 14 December 2016 - 05:47 PM

All three of these seem well cut. My personal favourite on paper has the report ending in 9492. However, as recommended above, do NOT ask to see one stone at a time. The whole point of calling stones in and going somewhere to see them is to see more than one of them at a time. Number on lab reports can be deceptive and personal taste has a significant role to play.

 

BTW - if the dealer you are working with is the one recommending stones cannot come up with more than one 1.5x F VS/VVS at a time, change dealer. If you are going around hunting stones (or GIA report numbers) for him/her, that is not an efficient way to proceed; let them find stones according to your specs (to the extent that those specs are reasonable - and if they are not, it should be the dealer's task to explain why not and what should be changed to make them reasonable).

 

Links to GIA reports in case anyone else wants to comment:

 

https://www.gia.edu/...rtno=6235633896

https://www.gia.edu/...rtno=5146399492

https://www.gia.edu/...rtno=7231927968


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
[email protected]

#9 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 December 2016 - 06:02 PM

Thank you Davidelevi,

 

As I mentioned earlier, I already paid for the stone and due to a discrepancy in the GIA revised report, I am changing the diamond. So, I had to go with the same dealer. Please see the starting post where I posed my Diamond info. 

 

Is there anyway, you can give me some specs for 1.5 to 1.55 ct F VS1 stone, so I can ask him to find a stone in that criterion.

 

 

My diamond GIA report can be found here ( When I bought it, it was 1.55 CT, 3 EXCELLENT) but you will see the difference. 

 

https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=1142996515

 

I am not changing the setting and planning to find a near size stone to fit the ring. I will wait for your specs so, i can ask him to get some in that range.

 

Any other comments / Recommendations will be appreciated.

 

 

Thank you



#10 davidelevi

davidelevi

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Jeweler
  • 7,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 14 December 2016 - 06:18 PM

You never said anywhere that the dealer is refusing to refund your money after describing the first stone incorrectly. In fact, strictly speaking you haven't even said that in your post above - though it may seem implied. Have you tried asking for a full refund on the basis of misrepresentation?

 

If they told you that the first diamond was XXX and it's not (since it's VG/G/X), you have all the grounds to ask for your money back. If they told you "it's XXX" in a way that can be documented (i.e. in writing/email), then your case would stand in a court of law.

 

Your specs at the top are reasonable - even too tight, as I said already. The issue here is the process, not the specs. Incidentally, if you are planning to fit things to your current setting, then external dimensions can become crucial - how crucial and which ones depends a lot on the style of the setting, but as a rough guideline anything more than 0.1 mm difference in diameter may be visible as a gap or require significant adjustment to the setting.

 

Let the dealer work for his money: he is the one who provided an incorrectly described diamond in the first place; it is his responsibility to come up with options that are available and that fit the original criteria (which BTW your original diamond does - other than the polish grade). Presumably you chose the first diamond among others that were available - it's perfectly reasonable to ask the dealer to come up with more than one candidate for replacement too.

 

You have mentioned twice a "revised GIA report" for your original diamond. Does it mean that there is a former GIA report describing the diamond as "XXX" (as opposed to the dealer incorrectly describing the diamond as "XXX")? Why was the report revised?

 

If there is a previous GIA XXX report, it's possible that the diamond got scratched very finely/some facet junctions got abraded, to the point that only the polish grade is affected, rather than being noted as a clarity characteristic. If that's the case, it should be possible to repolish the stone - and that is as well proportioned as anything else that they have proposed / you have found, plus it certainly fits the setting.


Edited by davidelevi, 14 December 2016 - 06:41 PM.

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
[email protected]

#11 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 15 December 2016 - 08:34 AM

Hi Davidelevi,

 

The initial diamond was XXX based on GIA report dated few year ago. But due to notice of some stain on a facet immediately after setting, I gave it for an evaluation and they re-polished and boiled it as the stain was not coming off. Due to these issues, I got that diamond re certified and now the grading is not XXX as you see it.

 

I haven't asked for a refund as I am not sure that would happen given I bought this ring a nearly a year ago. He offered me to re cut / polish the diamond, but due to utter disappointment, I asked him to change the stone itself. 

 

This is where the search for new diamond started. 

 

I will ask him to to bring him in more diamonds and lets see how it works. He also recommended not to deviate more than 0.1 mm as you mentioned. For your information, mine is Halo setting and that is an additional concerning to me.

 

Thank you



#12 denverappraiser

denverappraiser

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Appraiser
  • 7,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver Colorado, USA

Posted 16 December 2016 - 05:41 AM

1) Hmm.  There’s nothing in the setting process that should stain a diamond.  That takes heat, and a lot of it.  Are you 100% confident that this wasn’t there originally?  Why?

 

2) Who did this polish/recut job?  That’s not the sort of thing that most consumers get involved in.  Was the original seller involved in this process?  Was the setter?  Some other jeweler?  I'm assuming you didn't do it yourself since it takes some pretty exotic tools and skills and I'm curious about the path that led you to where you are now.

 

3) So you own this stone, right?  Are you planning on selling it, or keeping, or repairing it again, or trading it in or what?  Are you a dealer? 


Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

There's never a crowd when you go that extra mile.
Professional Appraisals in Denver

#13 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 02:09 PM

Hi denverappraiser,

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

1. I am close to 100% certain that, the stain wast there when I bought the diamond. As you know, I am a buyer with limited experience. I noticed it after few days of my wife wearing it. 

 

2. The jeweler couldn't remove the stain and he had to send it to somewhere to boil to remove the stain. 

 

3. I currently own the diamond and I got it re certified to get some piece of mind due to what has happened and the report is definitely changed. I am planning to change the diamond due to mere disappointment. 

 

Thank you



#14 denverappraiser

denverappraiser

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Appraiser
  • 7,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver Colorado, USA

Posted 19 December 2016 - 02:37 PM

Boiling is very different from recutting and repolishing.  

 

I agree, this doesn't sound like the sort of damage that either you or the setter could have done.  GIA keeps meticulous records.  Call them with the two report numbers and talk to them about it.  They have more information than what is on the report, especially if they're decently recent.  The questions are:

 

Is this the same diamond?
What's wrong with the polish?

Has it been altered or damaged between the two inspections?  If so, what has changed?

Assuming not, why is the grade different?  (the polish grade is the reason your cut grade went down)

 

By any chance did anyone qualified inspect the stone as soon as you got it?


Edited by denverappraiser, 19 December 2016 - 02:42 PM.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

There's never a crowd when you go that extra mile.
Professional Appraisals in Denver

#15 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 02:33 PM

Hello all,

 

Hope you had great Christmas and I am going to see the following stones tomorrow to replace my current stone. I really appreciate if some one can go through these and give me expert opinion on these based on the reports.

 

https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=1116720627

 

https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=5146399492

 

https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=6232180183

 

https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=6235633896

 

I am seeing these tomorrow PM and if someone can give me their opinion by order of priority, that would be greatly appreciated. 

 

Thank you once again.


Edited by Newbee, 27 December 2016 - 02:59 PM.


#16 davidelevi

davidelevi

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Jeweler
  • 7,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 28 December 2016 - 12:40 AM

All 4 are very well cut on paper. 

 

Since you are going to see them in person, there is very limited value to you in providing an opinion that is 1) of somebody who may or may not share your aesthetic preferences and 2) based on the limited data on the GIA reports. Look at the stones in different lighting environments, and trust your eyes - it's the best test there is, particularly with four stones that are as similar on paper as these. Also, at some point price differentials will need to come into consideration - or is the vendor offering you any of the four as a zero-cost replacement for your original stone?

 

Also - I know you are not pleased with your current stone, but it is very well cut, and most likely the damage/staining can be removed with polishing (not boiling - that's a completely different thing). I would suggest you keep that one in the comparison too: no point in changing if you like the result of the change less than you liked the original.


Edited by davidelevi, 28 December 2016 - 12:45 AM.

Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
[email protected]

#17 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 12:15 PM

Thank you Davidelevi,

 

I appreciate your comments. 

 

I am sure there is cost difference as I requested the florescence now to be faint to none compared to Medium of mine. There is a decent blue tinge in the bright sunlight and my wife is not liking it. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, the stone definitely underwent boiling to remove the stain as they couldn't remove it by polishing by both my jeweler and also the whole sale seller. The options I was given is either re cut the diamond or change the diamond and I opted to change it. 

 

Lets see how it plays and I will keep you posted. 

 

Any other comments will be appreciated. 

 

Thank you



#18 Newbee

Newbee

    Silver

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 02:17 PM

Hello all,

 

I ended up getting the 1.54 CT F-VVS2 with no florescence and I had to pay extra money for it. 

 

https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=1116720627

 

 

Thank you all for your help and I hope I selected a good diamond. 



#19 davidelevi

davidelevi

    Ideal Diamond

  • A-List Jeweler
  • 7,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 11 January 2017 - 09:24 AM

Congratulations!


Davide - Specialised Consumer Information and Assistance,
Diamonds by Lauren (http://www.diamondsbylauren.com)
[email protected]