AGS Stone - How Does It Sound

[Bigfish]

I recently purchased a 1.238 AGS 000 ideal (under the new standards) D color SI 2 stone from diamond.com with a 2.5 mm tiffany platinum setting. With the setting, the ring was just under $7,000.

Diamond.com was slightly more expensive than most online vendors, but their return policy was the longest and I wanted to have some time to have the ring appraised.

I have several more weeks to send it back. It has appraised well above the price paid and the appraiser was impressed with the stone.

It sparkles beautifully. With a great amount of effort, in a very few positions, a minute speck of an inclusion is visible when straining to look for inclusions. I'm thrilled with the ring as I was hoping to get up to about 1.25 carats.

Someone here said "eye clean is different than mind clean" but I can live with the barely visible inclusion. Plus, I look at the inclusion as one of the diamond's fingerprints that makes it somewhat easy to know it's ours.

Is there anything about these specifications that should cause me alarm? My girlfriend hasn't yet seen the ring, but I think she'll love it as she is very easy going and will be pleased with it's size and great sparkle.

Here are the details: What do you all think? Any cause for alarm?:

Thank you so much for your insight! This website has been so helpful!

Certificate AGS 6317706
Cut ROUND BRILLIANT
Carat 1.23
Color D
Clarity SI2
Price $ 6455.47
Price per Carat $ 5248.35
Measurements 6.95 x 6.93 x 4.21 mm
Depth Percentage 60.7 %
Table Percentage 56 %


Diamond Proportions:
Measurements: 6.95-6.93-4.21
Depth Percentage: 60.7 %
Table Percentage: 56 %
Girdle: T-TK
Culet: None (Pointed)
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Fluorescence: None (Inert)
Special Notes:

 

[Regular Guy]

Hey Bigfish,

Were you looking for a currently graded AGS stone?

If so, it''s probably a pretty good strategy. Without knowing some of the other details about the diamond, like crown & pavilion angles you did not present above, we could have guessed it was nice. I found this diamond still being advertised by 7 other vendors here, with yours priced on the lower end of those competitors, and using the HCA tool which you can read about here, see what you expect (in terms of a match for expected 0-2 ranking), with the diamond having a score of .7 XXXVG TIC...and with the low score, given the imprimatur of AGS, I''m left to think concerns some have developed here about some scores under 1 on the HCA need not apply.

Since no concerns exist about clarity, though I''m no expert, I think you should be happy, and consumers broadly can probably be happy to understand that their shopping universe can probably be wider than Pricescope hounds have understood it to be otherwise, if looking for the AGS document, helping to add piece of mind to most anyone.

Warm regards,

 

[Bigfish]

Thanks, Regular Guy.

The stone was graded by AGS on July 8, 2005 (I think that''s after the new standards were implemented) and includes ideal grades for light return and scintillation.

I am trying to figure out if the 0.7 HCA result is a cause for concern. Basically, I''m trying to balance the most sparkle with as big as I can go in a D color. It''s probably irrational, but I''ve gotten hung up on getting a D colored stone.

The HCA results were all excellent except for "spread" which was rated as very good.

Where can I receive a good tutorial on how to use the HCA grading?

Thank you so much. I''m just trying to know my girlfriend''s socks off with the ring!

 

[Regular Guy]

Paul,

The tutorial here is robust, and this is a good one page on it.

For more background, and an interesting and detailed review, Garry's founding site on it.

For spicy and variety in comments, these forums are your best resource; just put in HCA in the search bar (upper right), and see all that comes up.

Although in the last while, sub 1 scores have presented some controversy, I really think AGS0 coupled with the 0-2 score represents something of a seal of approval, but I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks differently.