A-List Jeweler
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

497 Excellent

1 Follower

About davidelevi

  • Rank
    Ideal Diamond

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5011 profile views
  1. davidelevi

    Does The Engagement Ring Have To Be A Diamond?

    Nicola - best wishes for your engagement! Be careful with your stone, though. Tanzanite is stunningly beautiful, but it also cleaves easily and it's relatively soft. ETA: previous post was a bit spammy... but since the note on tanzanite above may be relevant to others, I've decided to leave my reply.
  2. davidelevi

    I'm ready to sale it

    It may help if you provide some way for users to get in touch with you other than posting a reply or sending a PM through this site. Good luck!
  3. davidelevi

    2 X Gia Diamonds For Sale

    Same advice as above. If you are a business intending to advertise here, contact @hermann, the admin and owner of the site. If you are a consumer intending to buy or sell, feel free to post a classified! FWIW, when a user posts to advertise several loose diamonds, using something that sounds like a business name and has an email domain corresponding to that user name, I think there is more than a reasonable suspicion that it IS a commercial activity, not a consumer sale. The question is now moot, since the business no longer seems to exist.
  4. davidelevi

    Colored diamond????

    Given the appearance in normal light and under UV, I would bet on the red stone being a ruby and almost certainly NOT a diamond. Whether it really is ruby, and then natural or synthetic, treated or untreated requires a physical inspection of the stone. Have you brought it to a gemmologist? Or even "just" a good jeweller? In terms of resale, it certainly has some value, but the value depends very strongly on exactly what the stone is (you may have a few grams of gold and a synthetic ruby, or you may have a natural untreated stone worth something by itself). You can't get this info from photos unfortunately.
  5. davidelevi

    How To Tell If Its A Diamond?

    @ivaluelab please read the forum rules http://www.diamondreview.com/misc/forumrules especially rule #3 @hermann there used to be a link to the rules on every page; it now requires a fair bit of sleuthing into old posts to find them. Any chance they can be pinned at the top of each subforum?
  6. The amount of ink on a report is not influential on prices; what is relevant is whether those inclusions are visible (and generally in VS2 they are not). There are plenty of reasons why your stone may be more expensive than those listed on the Finder; if I understand things correctly and you purchased from a "bricks and mortar" retailer, that by itself is much more likely to drive the price up compared to the typical Finder "internet based" dealer. As Laurent has noted above, you get something for your money when shopping in a real store: not many internet based dealers are able or willing to line up 25 similar stones. To your direct questions: 1. Need to worry in what sense? Durability/integrity-wise absolutely not; GIA would not have graded it VS2 otherwise. Visibility-wise presumably neither, since you saw, inspected, compared and liked the stone... with the inclusions in it! 2. There is no single answer. The price of melée increases with the size of stones, not just their overall weight, but on the other hand smaller stones mean more work for fabrication and setting. In addition, typically the main drivers for the cost of a setting are quality of finish and marketing... neither of which tells you much about "how many diamonds". Sorry.
  7. "HCA" - good only if being Garry Holloway is your main criterion. Are you? Jokes aside - not much to add to Laurent's and Neil's comments.
  8. davidelevi

    Opinion on this 1.85 ct, RB, G, VVS2

    "Leakage" is fairly ill defined, which accounts for some (or much) of the confusion. I would say that while "scientific" measurement and comparison across stones of various types of "leakage" requires reflector images, if there were anything untoward with your stone you'd see it. In the images there is nothing to suggest any major form of "leakage" - whether in the form of windowing, non-uniform reflection or major light obstruction (assuming the iPhone's focusing distance is ~ 30-50 cm). Excellent photos, BTW!!! To the "lab" point: I'm not sure it is a conspiracy - GIA could not be seen to endorse methodologies that originate in one of it's main competitors, no matter what the merit of reflector images and ray-tracing may be, and GIA decided relatively early on to discard reflector analysis as part of its cut grading methodology. AGS does not accept stone submissions directly from the public, but only through its network of associates; it does make for a slightly more complex process than with GIA, but there are hundreds of associates in the US; it should not be a problem to get an AGS report if you want one - however it will require (as would another GIA report) removing the stone from the ring. If what you want is an impartial analysis of your stone's optical performance, think about using an independent appraiser instead since it may well be cheaper and certainly will be faster; Neil (@denverappraiser on this forum) is an AGS affiliate and (hyper)qualified to conduct these analyses to AGS standard; I think he would also be able to arrange for the removing and resetting of the stone.
  9. davidelevi

    Any Reviews About Trax Nyc?

    How did this discussion move on to labs, suddenly? 1. That's what a lab does... a gemological lab that is not employing competent gemologists (and appraisers if it provides appraisals - the two things are not the same) should go out of business pretty quickly. 2. They don't need the connections to the market. They aren't buying or selling if they are a serious lab - the fact that this particular one is advertising its services as a buyer is NOT a good point in its favour. 3. This one is a good point - but how would a consumer know what's reliable and up-to-date equipment? 4. Subscription to Rapnet or Polygon is not expensive on a business scale, and consumers can check most lab reports on the lab sites for free nowadays. As to the conclusion - yes, plenty of ripoffs whether buying or selling in NYC and in a lot of other places; not sure why selling a diamond or buying a pearl should be particularly highlighted. But above all, two questions here: 1. One needs an expert to tell one what, precisely? 2. A 100% guarantee of what? That the goods were reasonably described? That you got fair value? That you will get a good price from them? That they will buy everything from you at their "appraisal" value, no questions asked, no time limits? Post reported for likely spamming. Note that the one lonely Google review is from a trade connection saying "I hope we can do business together". 'nuff said!
  10. davidelevi

    Gia I1 diamond with a feather... durability risk ?

    Well, 20 odd years ago AGS tried to introduce colour grading by colorimeter, and it was a flop. The technology was fine, but it was coming up with results that human graders - and above all owners of stones - disagreed with. A properly calibrated machine cannot be persuaded, bribed or suborned to change its "mind". I may be wrong, but I suspect that "public grading" by AI would have much the same fate in the short term, much for the same reasons: there's a huge amount of stock in the diamond industry and therefore huge vested interests in keeping things as they are; I don't want to be told that (for example) my fancy intense pink is actually a fancy orangy-pink. Behind-the-scenes large-scale sorting of goods that aren't normally lab-graded when sold (as described in the article) is a different story, and in the long run, if enough stones sorted by AI come onto the market with "AI credentials" (whether visible to the consumer or not), then things in the long run may well change. As to how quickly, it's anybody's guess: GIA's cut grade took a long time to come to market (the first published papers on GIA cut grading are from the early '90s, the grade was officially released in 2005) again for the same reasons; it's nearly 15 years, and despite a lot of calls to change some aspects of the cut grading, nothing has moved. Finally a word of caution: while Sarine is a highly reputable company, they would have a huge amount to gain if machine grading were to be established as an acceptable standard: they would probably make a vast majority of the grading machines...
  11. davidelevi

    Gia I1 diamond with a feather... durability risk ?

    The answer is that "eye clean" is not part of the grading criteria. This is partly a result of the "diamond anomaly" where diamonds are the only gem variety graded for clarity under 10x magnification. Inconsistency is certainly possible, and even GIA says that they would expect uncertainty of +/- 1 grade on regrading; however do bear in mind that visibility of inclusions (even at 10x) is not the only criterion for clarity grading: the type, colour, extension and location of the inclusion are part of the grading, and for example in this I1 case I suspect there is a call on durability and integrity risk due to location that makes the feather "I1" (whereas by definition "SI" inclusions involve a judgement that there is no such risk).
  12. davidelevi

    Opinions on this .9 EVS2 oval diamond

    Not much to go on... can you see the diamond in person? And the setting? If you can and you are happy, then the price is within reason, especially if it includes European VAT at about 20%. If you cannot, unfortunately there isn't much we can do to help because the info for non-rounds ("fancy shapes") on GIA reports is appallingly limited. Can you get some photos, videos and/or reflector images instead?
  13. You may have... in the sense that there are some advertised for example here: https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=1&fShape=Rnd&fCaratLo=2.30&fCaratHi=2.55&fColorLo=J&fColorHi=K&fClarityLo=VS1&fClarityHi=VS2&fCutLo=&fCutHi=poor&fDepthLo=59.0&fDepthHi=62.0&fTableLo=53.0&fTableHi=58.0&fSymLo=ideal&fSymHi=exc&fPolLo=ideal&fPolHi=exc&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=&fFlrHi=vstrong&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=1000000&adv=1 Whether any of these are any good to you is a different question, and if you are not keen on shopping online because you want to see and compare stones directly none of them may be!
  14. Have you seen them in person, or are the photos (however good) the only evidence you have? FWIW, although on paper they look much the same (you didn't post diameter info, though), and the reflector images are either both (relatively) bad or (relatively) badly taken, I like the photos of the 2.13 better. HOWEVER this pales into insignificance if you have seen them in person and you like and prefer the 2.50. Bear in mind that with the 2.13 you are paying possibly for better cut and colour, but also quite a bit for VVS clarity, which is totally invisible without a loupe. If the 2.50 is actually a K (likely!), it's fairly priced, not a bargain. To answer your question very directly: I don't find the 2.50 "better value" because I don't find its advantages (larger size) enough to offset a poorer - albeit not bad - cut. I would probably try to find a better cut 2.50 with lower clarity rather than going with the 2.13. However this is me, and it's purely my opinion - don't feel in any way bound by it. ETA: medium blue fluorescence will do absolutely nothing indoors, and it will not turn a stone milky or hazy outdoors. It will ding the price (very little in a J) because of the risk of overgrading and because people nowadays are suspicious of fluorescence.
  15. davidelevi

    Considering Four Mine for purchase

    On the one side, penny saved penny earned. There is no obligation to accompany an engagement with a ring, never mind a diamond ring. However, on the other side, if you think this is the right thing to do, there is no escaping the purchase, and analysis paralysis doesn't help. Have you gone to a few jewellers and seen what they have to offer? Not necessarily with the intention of buying, but sometimes people build huge "(psycho)analytical" castles that collapse (in a good sense) when they realise that they cannot tell F from H, SI1 from VVS1 and a 59% table with a 33 crown angle from a 54% table with a 36 crown angle.