Jump to content

What Is A Fair Price For This Diamond? (Gia Attached)


SIGMACHIGUY
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

I've been looking for a diamond for my soon-to-be fiance (hopefully! hehe) and have narrowed it down to a few.  This may be the one and I wanted to ask for your feedback as to what you would think a fair price for this stone would be?  I greatly appreciate your help during this nerve-wracking time!post-134562-0-54422500-1412718610_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there!

 

So firstly, as a 4th gen diamond dealer and engagement ring designer - I would never let you buy that diamond from us/sell you that diamond.

 

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/cut_score_calculator?certificate=5113964082

 

Why? Its a poorly performing "Excellent" cut diamond, achieving a low 74 cut score with our cut tool. It will be lacking in fire/brilliance. 

 

Whats it worth? To me, not much, I wouldnt take it in as a trade-in - how much does it sell for? I found a similar cut quality diamond for $16,100. 

 

What I would do? I would look for a better performing stone regardless of the price of the one you posted in regards.

 

Out of curiosity - how much are they asking?

 

Let us know if we can help with anything!

Edited by Joshua Niamehr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Josh,

 

Thank you VERY much for your reply. I truly appreciate it! I was so tunnel visioned on this stone that I was looking to potential buy it. They are asking for $21,000 for this stone. Way over priced based on what you're saying it seems like. I think I will have to sit down and reevaluate now. This has been a big learning process. Thanks very much for your help! I'm looking for a 2-2.1 carat F SI1 with excellent polish, symmetry, and cut. No flourescence. What do you think this will run realistically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against fluorescence just because I do not like the color glow they would give off under certain lighting conditions. The one stone in mention, the indented naturals are on the perimeter which is good so to speak but do they affect the brilliance or distort diamond lighting at all? Are they anywhwre near viewable with the naked eye?

 

Out of curiosity, do you own enchanted? How long have they been around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again!

 

There are a lot of myths out their about fluorescence - and thats one of them. Fluorescence is a naturally occurring phenomena in diamonds. Its actually an easy way to tell if a diamond is real or not, you just have to have a blacklight/UV light in hand ;) 

 

actually companies like:

 

http://www.maisonbirks.com/en/collections/bridal-collections/nordic-light-trade/

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/brian-gavins-blue-diamonds-with-fluorescence/

 

Sell diamonds with fluorescence for a premium

 

Which is a great way of taking diamonds that are priced really low because of consumer misconception and years of misinformation from the diamond community (yes, I did just say: THE INDUSTRY IS MISINFORMING YOU) and making a nice profit on them!

 

My advice here: 

 

1. There is nothing wrong with a diamond that has fluorescence. Consider it!

2. Save the money and upgrade your honeymoon, save for your future kids, put a down payment on your home, keep the money in your savings.

 

The indented naturals dont affect the brilliance or distort lighting in a way thats impacting the diamond. THIS DIAMOND IS A FIRECRACKER!! The other diamond would be pale in comparison to the stone I showed you. 
 
I co-founded Enchanted Diamonds 3 years ago with my business partner Jonathan Las and a few other team members, we are 11 people here in the NYC office. We are growing everyday thanks to wonderful clients that love our service. 
 
My family has been in the diamond business since 1874 - my great grandmother was a diamond dealer in Tehran, as was my grandfather, my father - alllll his brothers and a few cousins, and me! 
 
Jon's family has also been in the diamond business for 4 generations - his family has a colorful background in this business as well, and from an entire different region of the world, Europe. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is exactly 1 diamond in the database that meets Sigma’s requirements (2.0-2.1,F, SI1, XXX, no flo), and it doesn’t cost $16k.  It’s a few dollars under $21k or he could buy it from you for a few dollars over.  You’re ONLY complaint about it is your black box formula and that you would rather he buy one from YOU.  Maybe he would like your’s better and maybe not, but that’s a completely unreasonable disparagement of some local jeweler’s goods to suggest that it’s only ‘worth’ $16k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.  By the way, I notice that it's listed as 'medium green' fluro on the GIA, even though it's not listed that way in the database, which makes it outside of the specs too.  Davide's right, there are zero.  Several dealers have this stone for sale in the database but it didn't come up offered by enchanted in the above search.  That link came directly from the ED site. 

Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this right? I thought what Joshua is pushing - his stones - his calculator and his store - was against the whole grain of this website? Am I wrong here?

You are correct. I have sent a note to the folks at Enchanted Diamonds. They are new to our community and are getting up to speed on our norms & rules.

 

As a reminder, our Forum Rules are here:

http://www.diamondreview.com/misc/forumrules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

I've been looking for a diamond for my soon-to-be fiance (hopefully! hehe) and have narrowed it down to a few.  This may be the one and I wanted to ask for your feedback as to what you would think a fair price for this stone would be?  I greatly appreciate your help during this nerve-wracking time!attachicon.gifGIA.JPG

 

I should have said why I dont recommend that diamond, its because its crown and pavillion angles dont fall in the realm of ideal:

 

http://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-grading-chart-round

 

His upper price limit is $21000.

 

http://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds/?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=0&fShape=Rnd&fCaratLo=2.00&fCaratHi=2.10&fColorLo=F&fColorHi=F&fClarityLo=SI1&fClarityHi=SI1&fCutLo=exc&fCutHi=exc&fDepthLo=50.0&fDepthHi=80.0&fTableLo=40.0&fTableHi=80.0&fSymLo=ideal&fSymHi=exc&fPolLo=ideal&fPolHi=exc&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=&fFlrHi=vstrong&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=21000&fLabGIA=1&adv=1

 

Here’s the stone I spotted.  It's tricky because they didn't list fluro at all if you use that as a search parameter.  They left it blank in the list:

 

http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-5111370-2.02-carat-Round-diamond-F-color-SI1-Clarity.aspx?sku=5111370&utm_source=diamondreview.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=diamondreview.com

 

Here’s the same stone on the Enchanted site for roughly $900 more by the way.  That's why their version of it doesn't turn up on the search:

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R202-9AT71G

 

Same with the diamond Neil recommended: http://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-grading-chart-round

 

As you can imagine, my opinion is that cut is the most important "C". None of these meet the AGA specs or my own. The table is a really great reference, let me know if I can help explain it or answer any questions you may have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um... what if one decides that neither the AGA charts nor Pricescope's (mentioning which, incidentally, is strictly speaking outside the rules of this forum, but I hope Hermann won't mind) aren't particularly indicative of "beauty"? Or - at least in my case - they are way too restrictive/prescriptive?

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is exactly 1 diamond in the database that meets Sigma’s requirements (2.0-2.1,F, SI1, XXX, no flo), and it doesn’t cost $16k.  It’s a few dollars under $21k or he could buy it from you for a few dollars over.  You’re ONLY complaint about it is your black box formula and that you would rather he buy one from YOU.  Maybe he would like your’s better and maybe not, but that’s a completely unreasonable disparagement of some local jeweler’s goods to suggest that it’s only ‘worth’ $16k.

 

Neil, the OP has an F SI2 diamond certificate, his WANT is something totally different, the value I was basing my post on was an F SI2. I think you'd like to revisit your post? 

 

 

Um... what if one decides that neither the AGA charts nor Pricescope's (mentioning which, incidentally, is strictly speaking outside the rules of this forum, but I hope Hermann won't mind) aren't particularly indicative of "beauty"? Or - at least in my case - they are way too restrictive/prescriptive?

 

Davide - when I answer a question I answer it based on the modern diamond buyers needs/wants/demands/taste.

 

So I would say I that I concur with David Atlas and his philosophy: http://datlas.com/philosophy-of-the-cut-class-grader/

 

"IDEAL is the ULTIMATE, not simply due to a performance based on brilliancy. While brilliancy alone may be the way the general industry would like to grade fancy shapes and/or rounds, so that any diamond, no matter how poorly cut, is “IDEAL†as long as it is brilliant, this is a foolish notion. This approach would be very biased in that it would favor cutters and dealers at the expense of integrity and those few consumers who still have some degree of faith in diamond sellers.
 
IDEAL is an absolute concept of TOP QUALITY light return and cutting, and it ought to be seen as encompassing all the aspects of each stone so judged. Anything less is not really an unqualified Ideal cut."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for defining me "antiquated" or "without taste". :)

 

Define "light return", please. A well silvered mirror has perfect light return, but it ain't very interesting. Sorry, but the notion that there is one "ideal" set of proportions doesn't really work for me... or AGS, or GIA. Even though it is what the AGA (or PS) tables would have consumers believe.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Davide,

 

light return is a physical attribute of diamonds as measurable by devices like the Sarine Light: http://sarine.com/products/sarine-light-device/

 

Or as quantified by the enchanted cut score.

 

People who believe it are not believing it because its what's simply said. There is a lot of science behind all of this.

 

Have you seen good old gold videos? Look up the one on the lgf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joshua - this is precisely the problem: what is Sarine measuring, and what are you "measuring" (apologies, but applying an algorithm to third party data is not measuring anything, hence the quotes)?
 
Simply saying you (or Sarine) have a scale that tells you about "light return" tells us - or the consumer - nothing about what is being measured; expanding it to "Brilliance (reflected light), Sparkle (bright flashes), Fire (colored bursts), and Light Symmetry" as in the Sarine site is better - even if not new, but still there are no details about the methodology or metrics. This is not "scientific", no matter how repeatable it may be (and the extent to which the measurement IS repeatable is not a given in a machine like Sarine's: see Gemex). Science is about disclosure and debate, as well as measurement and repeatability.

For example: I beg to differ with some of the opinions that Sarine (and you) have expressed already: "Most other available techniques use mathematical computations based only on a polished diamond's geometry to predict its light play, ignoring the effects of its Color grade and its internal inclusions (Clarity)" (both quotes from the Sarine page you linked). I can see some value in expanding a definition of light return to consider inclusions (although we are talking transparency and not clarity, and not all transparency issues are clarity issues and vice-versa), but sorry, colour has nothing to do with it, unless you want to say that D is objectively better than J. Which it isn't; it's objectively whiter, but better (or more beautiful) is purely a subjective evaluation. Or Sarine and/or yourselves have conducted double blind studies on colour perception and preferences, doing what you need to do to eliminate marketing influences? If so, where are they?
 
Finally, again apologies, but don't try to conflate what you and Sarine are doing. You have developed something else than simply applying the Sarine algorithm (starting from the fact that Sarine claims applicability to modern rounds and you say you can grade all shapes). On this "something else" you are at the moment deciding not to disclose details, which is your commercial decision, but it doesn't add anything to claims of "scientific".

 

The issue here is that you are claiming some scientific basis to what in the end is - lacking proper disclosure of what you (or Sarine) are measuring and how - opinion and thus to use your words "what's simply [being] said". Just like the AGA cut classes or the Pricescope "definition" of ideal or - for that matter - the HCA's score. There is no science behind any of these, or if there is it is not being disclosed, which in the end equates to the same thing.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, we can argue semantics until the end of time, and sure, there's a level of subjectivity involved in personal preferences and such (this is a nonsensical statement and obvious statement, basically applies to everything).

 

What cannot be argued and is without question, is that within certain proportions, angles, and measurements, a diamond will exhibit better light performance. You don't need to physically inspect a diamond to know this. Sure, you can’t account for the bizarre outliers that might be physically look stunning, but these odd proportion diamonds aren’t suitable for 99% diamond buying public.

 

I’m not sure where you got this idea of anyone saying lower color being "better". But, there’s nothing subjective in saying, all things equal, a D color stone will appear more beautiful than a J.  In evaluating several thousand stones by hand, and asking my grandfather, who's possibly evaluated well into 6 figures of stones, he laughs at this statement of "subjective". Otherwise, why haven't we heard of perfectly cut L I3's setting records at Sotheby's and Christie's? Why? Because these stones are less desirable and less beautiful. (Yes, I'm aware that's an extreme example, but I'd rather get in front of it before you write a dissertation on this statement.)

 

Of course every customer and person is different. Everyones budget is unique. Everyones tolerance and preference for color is unique. Everyones preferences for size vs color, size vs clarity, color vs clarity, is unique. This is obvious. Everyones concept of “taste†is unique.

 

To grandstand about this, is akin to publishing a headline reading "The Earth is Round" in the year 2014.

 

I can't understand how members of the trade who are clearly knowledgeable and experienced, have such a hard time understanding the basic concept of light performance and light return. When you look at a beautiful diamond, what is it displaying? Why do you think it's beautiful? Is that not the concept of light performance and light return? Is there some opaque or secret concept/ingredient/reason you have for preferring one stone over another?

 

It seems the conversation keeps reverting back to how necessary it is to evaluate each stone one at a time by hand and eye. Is this the reason consumer's should spend 25-50%+ more at a traditional brick and mortar store? Is one person's’ subjective and discerning eye worth forfeiting a half a carat size, a few color shades, and a few clarity grades. I THINK NOT!

 

Using time tested data referring to desirable angles, proportions, and measurements, we can be sure a diamond will be beautiful. Yes, site unseen.

 

I understand the need for the traditional brick and mortar retailers to claw and fight for the sole remaining "value proposition" they offer consumers today, but as the millions upon millions of mom and pop electronics stores from the 80s and 90s can attest, the consumer will only go along with this farce for so long. The specs are the specs are the specs. Enjoy buying your TV for $5,000 from Little Jim’s Electronic’s Store, while I spend $1,500 on Amazon.

 

To say that technology doesn't work is to say.. well.. that the earth isn't around? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark! And it's those who choose to not accept that the combination of grading standards (ie. GIA), technology (Sarine, ASET, IdealScope, etc.), and the assistance of discerning experts (ie. US!) is not enough to make educated and informed purchasing decisions.

Edited by EnchantedDiamondsJON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

0. Nothing nonsensical about subjectivity of beauty. Or do you wish to say that there are absolute standards of beauty? (Warning: Croce's approach to aesthetics has been comprehensively trounced in the last 50 years, and it never was very popular outside Fascist Italy)

 

1. I did not say anywhere that technology doesn't work. The question I have - and that you so far have not answered - is: what is the technology doing? In detail - not vague answers such as "measuring the same 4 components that GIA and AGS have been writing about for the last 20 odd years".

 

2. You say that a D is more beautiful than a J. I beg to disagree; there are people that prefer J, or even O-P. Are you calling them wrong? Or stupid?

 

3. Let's not confuse clarity with colour ("D" vs "I3"??? yes, and a pepperoni pizza is uglier than both), and let's not confuse marketing with either. A good reason why "D" sets records in price is because there have been nearly 100 years of marketing telling people that the only nice diamonds are totally colourless, not because "D" is intrinsically more desirable or rare (particularly in a system as granular as the D-Z scale, but that's another question).

 

4. What you call "basic concepts" are actually either very confused, or not very basic at all. At the very least "light return" as you (Sarine) define it has 4 components, each of which needs a metric (set) and a methodology to measure the metric (set). What I'm asking is "what are these metrics, and what are those methodologies"? Saying "that's what the Sarine machine (or your algorithm) measures" is a tautology and adds no information or value.

 

5. When I look at a diamond I may find it beautiful for any (or many) of a lot of different reasons. I like fire; others like brightness. I like transparency (crystal/water), and I don't mind tint; others want white, even if a bit fuzzy. All of which can (or could) be to a large extent quantified; at the moment some of it isn't, and I would welcome more granular and detailed data both as a consumer and as a trader. What I still don't see is any convincing evidence that either Sarine Light or your algorithm produce any more of this granular and detailed data.

 

6. The specs are the specs are the specs. Sure, and everything trades at Rap prices. Please. Diamonds rightly or wrongly are far less commoditised (and thus far less liquid) than a lot of other stuff, particularly electronic. Partly it is because the trade likes it that way, but partly it is because (at the moment at least) some aspects cannot be defined through commonly agreed standards. Keeping standards for new "measurements" secret doesn't strike me as a good way of getting agreement on them.

 

(7. FWIW, we have no showroom, we don't sell at "typical 25-50% premium" to other online retailers and we firmly believe the Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting a G2 star, before someone accuses me of defending myself in these posts.)

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...