Jump to content

Dated 3/28/17 Gia: Report States Clarity: Vs1, Not Potential


ronk15a
 Share

Recommended Posts

To remove the VS-1 primary grader inclusion resulting in a bump up to IF clarity.

 

I think I understand what your saying Barry, but for clarity. How can the VS1 primary be removed, when there are so many illustrated? IF? I can understand 1 small inclusion near the edge, away from the interior.

Edited by ronk15a
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from a prelim grading report before the final is rendered.  It's like a working plot where you have the opportunity to take all the seemingly surface or near surface inclusion out by putting the stone back on the wheel.  In this case the stone is improvable to VVS but not potentially IF.

 

As a cutter, you now have to make a value judgement.  Improving the stone will lower the weight fractionally but will it give you a higher $$ yield?  Probably not as VS1 stones are far easier to sell than VVS stones, but that is the thought process.

Edited by LaurentGeorge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though its dated 3/27/17 on both? I'm still confused. Which one is accurate to the current stones clarity issues? the clean plot or dirty one? I presume clean. But even then VS1 should not be IF clean? The full report/ shows and IF plot. I think.... :blink:

Edited by ronk15a
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final report is correct one.  Ever see the phrase 'minor details of polish not shown"?  The working plot shows some of that.  In the final report there are a couple of chips and and extra facet so it seems all of the issues are quite superficial; https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=2185249575

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Internally, GIA teaches their people to plot pretty much everything.  This then gets edited before publication to only show the details that affect either the grade or identification of the stone.  The reason is to avoid confusion for the end reader.  Cutters like to see these original notes precisely because one of the decisions they need to make is if they might be able to improve a stone through additional work.  Obviously, all a cutter can do is subtract, and they're not going to want to do that if they don't think it's going to do some good.  

 

How such a document would end up on ebay with a mounted stone is curious.  Your guess is as good as mine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all. Got it. The images are so bad on eBay. (I was confused) The plot on the full report looks spoltless. Only When you go to the GIA website, and zoom in with your mobile device, can you see 2 chips, and 1 extra facet. Hence VS1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW: The GIA Small document: So this is a diamond cutters or diamond dealers, prelim report that shows everything internally regardless if it affects the clarity grade or not? Does this come with all certs, or do you have to request one?

 

Just curious: Never got two reports from GIA; (Prelim & Actual)

 

Is this a new feature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much issues as things that can be done to the stone in order to improve it.  I have always received these if improvements were possible.  I cannot remember asking for them.  Once again, as Neil says:

...  This then gets edited before publication to only show the details that affect either the grade or identification of the stone.  ...

 

Putting this working plot on eBay does not make a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that this is some diamond dealer who has a relationship with some ebay seller to move stuff for them.  82000 feedbacks tell me that this is no amateur seller, and the fact that they have this document at all tells me that there's a diamond pro involved in the background.  I'm guessing they just had a stack of documents in the file when they gave the stone to the seller and the seller didn't know what it was so they scanned it and included it.  

By the way, that's a terrible setting job.  Look at the prongs 4 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 1 o'clock prongs under their high magnification tool.  Whoever owns this never should have let that through quality control.  That seems like a similar problem.  Whoever took those pictures probably didn't know what to look for.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I brought it up:

 

The 12 o’clock prong has severe tool marks and the ‘v’ of the prong isn’t centered on the stone.  The tip of the stone isn’t covered.
The one at 6 o’clock isn’t touching the stone at all.
The one at 4 o’clock is barely touching (assuming it is at all), as opposed to the other 3 supposedly identical prongs that are very different.
The spacing between the prongs on the left is different from those on the right.

All this from one photo that I didn’t take.  I’d be willing to bet there are more.  The defense of sellers when buyers complain about craftsmanship is that the photos fully disclose everything about the piece.  In this case they do, but do you know what to look for?  Just in case you didn’t already know, this is one of the reasons to get things appraised by an independent expert as soon as you buy them.  What are the chances that the ‘free’ document supplied by the seller and included in the packing materials is going to mention ANY of this?  Does the 'appraiser' even actually look at the piece?

post-109418-0-67386500-1491417896_thumb.jpg

Edited by denverappraiser
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...