Jump to content

Texas Leaguer

A-List Jeweler
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Texas Leaguer

  1. Thought you all might be interested in seeing this follow up article we just posted after hosting the Esperanza in Houston. It includes some nice video done by our photo team along with some creative stills. http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/news/esperanza-diamond-first-hand-look-1510.htm
  2. Tried to think of something to add... You are too thorough Neil! I will say that what the modern consumer is expecting (demanding) is more knowledge and more transparency. Jewelers who are not meeting these expectations either don't get it, or they are not trying hard enough.
  3. If you are interested in learning more about cut grading of princess you might find this article helpful: http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/princess-cut-grading-at-agsl---summary-1464.htm
  4. As others have said, the bolded statement is a huge red flag. If the diamond does not have a lab report, then it is 'caveat emptor' all the way. If it does have a GIA report, there could only be two Ex's. And even that does not give you enough information to assess cut quality, because GIA does not issue overall cut grade on princess. I would have very little confidence in any jeweler that made the above bolded statement!
  5. Aimee, In case you will feel better with an "arm's length" opinion, I agree with what Davide and David are advising you. Furthermore, this is the kind of diamond you buy because it appeals to YOU. It's largely irrelevant if jewelers who have little to gain from your purchase of a diamond from an outside source tell you the diamonds "are not very good". Follow your instincts. You can rely on the representations made by the two companies you are shopping. They are both specialists in this field. And both have far more experience in fancy color diamonds than the average jeweler.
  6. A friend in the business pointed me to this article after reading my article questioning the $1M estimate for Esperanza. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/07/japan-worlds-most-expensive-fish-sold-for-1-8-million/ This was his comment: Is 1.8 million too much to pay for a fish? Could be, but if Kiyoshi Kimura hadn't paid that much for the fish, then I (and many others ) would have never heard of Kiyoshi Kimura. As you point out, the buyer isn't just buying a diamond....
  7. How would YOU value the Esperanza? I think it is fascinating to see this story unfold. No offense to anybody on this board but I think the prelim valuations may be a little off. Here is an article we just posted questioning the $1 million estimate. We are hosting the diamond next week in Houston so we have some involvement with it. But our only financial interest is the remote possibility that the winning bid would come through Whiteflash, in which case we would be entitled to a small finders fee. My interest in this is primarily as a spectator in a saga the likes of which I have never seen in my 40 year career. I'd love to get your thoughts.
  8. The choice of shape was clearly designed to maximize yield and also to enhance the unique nature of the find. The distinctive shape and facet arrangement also called for a very innovative pendant design. A photo of the finished pendant below. What you cannot see in the frontal image is the fact that the diamond is elevated significantly in order to reveal 3 dimensional views of the diamond. At every step of the way this story is exceptional. Which I think adds immensely to the significance of this diamond.
  9. This is a really interesting story about a historic "All American" diamond! The diamond was discovered less than a year ago so it hasn't garnered widespread attention. Here is a short article about the Esperanza Diamond. It's a story that Neil Beaty (Denver Appraiser) is quite familiar with, but he probably feels reluctant to post about it considering his connection to the project. My company has the pleasure of hosting the diamond during the Houston stop of its cross country tour. I'm just curious as to how much or little awareness there is out there about this diamond and the story surrounding it. I have been the business for more decades than I care to reveal and I have never seen anything quite like it. I would be interested to hear what others think of the significance of it.
  10. Good Luck. And wear the mustache. That way the jeweler will know you mean business
  11. Aimee, I am glad to see that you sport the requisite facial hair. You're obviously one of us. Regarding those trade members who have a piece of jewelry as their avatar, I am somewhat suspicious. I am not sure they have all the qualifications necessary to be on this forum.
  12. I would rule out option 3 if you are looking for a vintage style diamond. It is a poorly cut modern round. Between the OECs ,if you are able post images you will get better feedback.
  13. It's not that hard to find competent jewelers who will set your stone. They may (and should if they are smart) require that you have your own insurance and/or agree to hold them harmless from any damage or loss that occurs while the piece is in their custody. It clearly makes no business sense whatsoever to assume risks that are way out of proportion to the relatively small fees being charged in many cases.
  14. No worries. Weight ratio is a bit tricky. From the info you have posted it would appear that the AGS software indicates that the weight of the stone is 10% greater than the expected (or ideal) weight - thus the 1.1 weight ratio. If it was only 5% greater (1.05 weight ratio) it would have passed without deduction.
  15. As they say "the devil is in the details". Post the details of the GIa cert here and you will get better feedback. There are a number of ways to go about selling a diamond. It depends on your needs and preferences which approach to take.
  16. Fancy color diamonds are a real specialty. Not all appraisers have a lot of experience with them. However, they can all verify the stone for you and answer basic questions. You should explore as many online sources as you can in order to be comfortable with the price. Beyond that, it is more about how pleasing you find the diamond. I don't know what, if any, trade-up benefits this vendor offers, but be aware that if later you decide you would like a different diamond, fancy colors like this are not liquid.
  17. You should have a qualified, independent expert evaluate the stone for you and answer any questions you may have about it during your return period. And look at the diamond in a variety of real world lighting conditions and make sure it does what you want it to do. Good luck!
  18. That's most helpful. 60% is the table and 62.2 is depth. None refers to fluorescence. The stone is decently proportioned. The main thing with fancy color diamonds is eye appeal. And price of course. You are obviously taken with this color and presumably the price seemed reasonable to you (the listing does not show a price, probably because it is reserved). As browns go this looks like a very attractive one. With the information you posted initially I was envisioning an overly dark stone. This one looks like it has what colored gem dealers call "open color". Now that I have said all that, I should tell you that I am not a fancy color diamond expert!!! Hopefully, others more knowledgeable in this area will give you their opinions.
  19. If you post the GIA report number the experts here can give you some feedback. However, with fancy color diamonds, especially dark brown, much will depend on aethetics which a report does not reveal. If you have any pictures or video that would certainly help.
  20. Weight ratio will be related to the slightly thick girdle. AGS allows 5% without deduction, but at 1.1 that would result in a proportion fault. As others have said, the downside for you is a smaller footprint or face up size. It could still potentially have 0 light performance however.
  21. A couple of small points that don't seem to have been fully addressed. Whether a VS2 is eye-clean depends in part on the size of the diamond. I agree that around 1ct VS2 is almost always eye-clean to the average viewer. In the 2ct plus range this rule of thumb does not hold as true. Agreed that Si1 can represent great value. But be aware that certain types of inclusions in S1 stones can impact light performance, even if they are eye-clean. So more evaluation should be done. Lastly, I am not sure where the reference to AGS 1 comes from. It could be a proportion fault (perhaps a thick girdle), but unless the diamond has an AGSL light performance report, that is just an estimate anyway. What does the GIA report say with respect to the girdle description?
  22. As the others have said, you will be much better off trading it for a GIA graded diamond. If you are getting full trade in value for yours, then just compare the price of the new one being offered to what you can find online. Even if the dealer is charging a bit of a premium for the new stone it could be a good trade for you. Post the GIA cert number here and forum members can give you more specific advice.
  23. As knots go that looks like a pretty big one and in a pretty obvious location. But as Davide suggests, probably nothing to worry about from a durability standpoint. And if the contained crystal is transparent (probably a diamond within a diamond), it could certainly be eye-clean no matter how gnarly the plot looks. As Davide also suggests, it's a 60/60 style cut which some folks like. Others like proportions more towards the Tolkowsky model of ideal, with smaller table and bigger crown which tends to produce more fire.
  24. Davide, I think you just coined a new term "robbery economics" :-)
  25. I think there is a pretty widely accepted general definition of eye-clean and it revolves around the factors Davide listed: No visible imperfections when viewed in normal overhead lighting by a person with normal vision, when the diamond is viewed face-up at a distance of 10-12 inches. Of course, such a definition still depends on certain individual judgments in applying the criteria and is therefore subject to variations from one person to another. Regarding the Si2 with feathers being discussed above, while nobody can say without seeing the stone, I would assume it is not eye clean. Considering that the feathers are centrally located they will probably show through the table and may also reflect. Reflectors take a single inclusion and make it appear as multiple inclusions. This factor can lower the clarity grade from what it would otherwise be if the same inclusion was located in a different place within the stone that did not get "mirror multiplied".
  • Create New...