Bought Diamond With Egl Report But Igi Inscribed.

[chipmunk543]

Hello,

I recently purchased a 1.37 cts/ VVS1/G that came with an EGL report from a local jeweler. I had it checked out and found out that there was an IGI laser inscription on the diamond. I looked up the diamond and it showed 1.37 cts/ VVS2/ J. The thing that worries me is that the color grade is so different. Also since it was graded IGI first, shouldn't the EGL report note or comment in the report that it has an IGI laser inscribed number on it?


EGL report (certificate received)
graded December 08, 2011
1.37 carats
clarity: VVS 1
fluorescence: faint
7.20 - 7.17 x 4.36 mm
Cut grade excellent
total depth: 60.7%
table width: 57%
crown height: 14%
pavilion depth: 43%
girdle: medium to slightly tick
polish: excellent
symmetry: excellent



Inscription on the diamond from IGI
graded May 17, 2012
1.37 carats
clarity: VVS 2
fluorescence: strong
7.17 - 7.20 x 4.35 mm
Cut grade excellent
total depth: 60.6%
table width: 57%
crown height: 14.5% - 34°
pavilion depth: 43 - 40.7°%
girdle: medium
polish: excellent
symmetry: excellent

 

[JulieN]

Your dates say the IGI was graded second?

 

[Christina...]

It's typical for dealers to submit a stone to more than one lab and then sell based on the report that will net the largest profit. Your vendor chose the EGL report to sell from because it had a better color and clarity grade. Typically we only recommend GIA or AGS graded stone because they are the most accurate and consistent labs.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I personally am surprised EGL is so far off. Is this EGL-USA?

 

[sakari_8]

Every lab has the reputation, GIA & AGS have the reputation to be accurate in the grading whereas EGL & IGI
are not as good as AGS,GIA, the stone 1.37ct is it graded by EGLUSA or EGLIsrael?

 

[Mayk]

My pre-Pricescope diamond was an EGL Israel with a G color and VS1 clarity. Independent appraiser graded it a J SI 1. I sent it back and upgraded to an AGS.

 

[chipmunk543]

I'm Sorry the IGL date was suppose to say May 2011. The EGL certificate says EGL International. Shouldn't the EGL report show that there is an IGI laser inscription on the diamond or would they just not note it at all? Also the color is a few grades off, do you think they just found a similar report and matched it up, meaning the EGL report is not really for my diamond?

 

[NonieMarie]

In no know way am I an expert like some members here but that would set such doubt in my mind that I would not be happy with my purchase. I would contact the jeweler and say that I wanted the diamond appraised by an independant appraiser and if the appraisal came back closer to a J I would want to return the ring or adjust the price. I would approach it as if the jeweler made an honest mistake. Even if you got a deal with the diamond, the deal was because it was a higher color not because the diamond was a J.

 

[Alexiszoe]

I find it unlikely that they found a diamond with the exact same measurements and mixed up the report. EGL International is known for being soft on grading, so the fact that this stone has a lower color grade from another lab is not surprising. If this stone was graded by GIA or AGS the color and clarity would probably be lower than the EGL G VVS1. Also I don't think it is common practice at all for the labs to say that the diamond was graded by other labs before.

If you really like the diamond, I suggest getting it graded by an independent appraiser and then negotiating the price with the jeweler based on the actual specs. Or just return it and get a GIA or AGS diamond, that way you truly know what you are paying for.

 

[Ashleigh]

Hi,

I'm sure there're nunances I'm unaware of. While GIA and AGS are highly valued in many countries, HRD and IGI are also known to be reputable in some countries. So i'm not surprised that IGI appears stricter in its grading. On the other hand, it seems, from research, only EGL-USA is more accurate in its grading as compared to other EGL labs.

If your IGI's grading is lower and the price you paid is in line with the specs on the IGI report, you are doing fine, though not getting as great a deal as you originally thought. But if you're paying the price according to the specs on EGL report, you might want to return the diamond and start over. Hope everything goes fine.

 

[Christina...]

I'm not sure if EGL would have mentioned that the girdle had an inscription. I know that GIA will note an inscription but that doesn't mean that they all do necessarily. If you're concerned I would have an independent appraisal, you'll need one for insurances purposes anyway. However, if you purchased without an return policy there may not be much you can do...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Truthfully, unless you get an independent appraisal or send the stone to GIA, you really have no idea what you have. But it is likely closer to the IGI grading over the EGL. Unbelievable that one graded fluorescence faint and the other graded it strong! Gosh, that EGL report is awful. I'd return it in a SECOND because I wouldn't want to buy from a jeweler who wanted to mislead customers by getting inflated grading on a stone that was already graded much lower.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Truthfully, unless you get an independent appraisal or send the stone to GIA, you really have no idea what you have. But it is likely closer to the IGI grading over the EGL. Unbelievable that one graded fluorescence faint and the other graded it strong! Gosh, that EGL report is awful. I'd return it in a SECOND because I wouldn't want to buy from a jeweler who wanted to mislead customers by getting inflated grading on a stone that was already graded much lower.

I found several incidences that EGL-CANADA found flor and GIA-NYC did not. These diamonds did indeed have fluorescence.

 

[Fly Girl]

Unbelievable that one graded fluorescence faint and the other graded it strong!

I don't think this is all that unbelievable. Fluorescence and its apparent strength depends on the wavelength of the UV lamp being used. This makes me wonder if there is no industry standard for the wavelength of ultraviolet light being used to grade fluorescence.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Perhaps they do have different UV lights...but faint to strong? I am not buying that excuse. Faint and none, I can believe.

 

[John P]

...While GIA and AGS are highly valued in many countries, HRD and IGI are also known to be reputable in some countries. So i'm not surprised that IGI appears stricter in its grading.

The reputation of IGI's standards is definitely stronger in other world markets. The adverse USA reaction comes from the abundant finished jewelry "appraisal-reports" in this country which are famously misused by salespeople. Their loose diamond reports are rare here by comparison.

Unbelievable that one graded fluorescence faint and the other graded it strong!

I don't think this is all that unbelievable. Fluorescence and its apparent strength depends on the wavelength of the UV lamp being used. This makes me wonder if there is no industry standard for the wavelength of ultraviolet light being used to grade fluorescence.

Intensities may differ. Distance from the UV source can differ. Reference-standards can differ. Language can differ. And of course human graders are making a somewhat subjective call; admittedly not as subjective as color.

Nice to "see" you Fly Girl.

 

[Laila619]

Perhaps they do have different UV lights...but faint to strong? I am not buying that excuse. Faint and none, I can believe.

Yep. I wish I could remember who it was, but someone on here bought an AGS graded diamond with negligible fluor, and in fact it had strong, per the appraiser. They resent it back for grading, and found out oops, it was a mistake by the lab.

 

[John P]

Perhaps they do have different UV lights...but faint to strong? I am not buying that excuse. Faint and none, I can believe.

It would be nice to settle on a single standard. And while to err is human, there are standardization issues at play here too.

If you have a diamond with medium fluorescence try holding it 1" from a black light or UV source in a darkened area. Then back it off to 6". There is your range of strong to faint. It's hard to know what each lab is doing in terms of equipment, intensity and distance.

This is more an issue between international labs. GIA and AGSL are largely much in-step with each other, but even they have slight terminology differences. Further, what is taught (3" from diamond to UV source / 18" from diamond to viewer) isn't always precisely what is practiced. Equipment can also make a difference, and the lighting manufacturer-of-record for one of our major labs has been out of business for over 20 years.

 

[WinkHPD]

Hello,

I recently purchased a 1.37 cts/ VVS1/G that came with an EGL report from a local jeweler. I had it checked out and found out that there was an IGI laser inscription on the diamond. I looked up the diamond and it showed 1.37 cts/ VVS2/ J. The thing that worries me is that the color grade is so different. Also since it was graded IGI first, shouldn't the EGL report note or comment in the report that it has an IGI laser inscribed number on it?


EGL report (certificate received)
graded December 08, 2011
1.37 carats
clarity: VVS 1
fluorescence: faint
7.20 - 7.17 x 4.36 mm
Cut grade excellent
total depth: 60.7%
table width: 57%
crown height: 14%
pavilion depth: 43%
girdle: medium to slightly tick
polish: excellent
symmetry: excellent



Inscription on the diamond from IGI
graded May 17, 2012
1.37 carats
clarity: VVS 2
fluorescence: strong
7.17 - 7.20 x 4.35 mm
Cut grade excellent
total depth: 60.6%
table width: 57%
crown height: 14.5% - 34°
pavilion depth: 43 - 40.7°%
girdle: medium
polish: excellent
symmetry: excellent

I posted a lengthy reply to this the other day, I was actually very upset by the perfidious act of your jeweler for selling this diamond when he either had to know it was a lie or worse, that he is incompetent in his trade and did not know that he also paid too much for this diamond. I have calmed down a little since then, but I wish I had verified that it did indeed post as it would have been the first or second reply at the time I thought I had posted it.

I am going to post the rap price for the two stones, disregarding the FACT that the trade discounts both the EGL and the IGI papers heavily. Rather than try to guess which paper might be more accurate, suffice it to say that on at least one of the papers two of the three items are in error and possibly all three, and possibly on both papers. (Color, clarity and fluorescence.) It would be fascinating for us if you would spend the money to have the diamond papered by a real top tier lab, such as GIA or better yet, AGS since they actually have a cut grade with teeth in it.

1.37ct G-VVS1: $16,303 net

1.37ct J-VVS2: $9,316 net

Now, you can easily see why your jeweler, if he even knew, failed to mention the other paper to you. The difference at 100% of rap is $6,987.

I am sure that you paid less than that, and I am guessing, pretty strongly, that you were given a "GREAT DEAL" by your jeweler. What I have no way of knowing is, was it a great deal for you, or for him.This would be an incredible stone to get a real paper on so that we could use it as a real life example of just how far off some of these make believe labs are. There is a reason why so many of the professionals and prosumers here constantly harp on not using make believe papers. I think this one illustrates the reason pretty well.

Wink

 

[John P]

...disregarding the FACT that the trade discounts both the EGL and the IGI papers heavily.

I find this to be painting with a rather broad brush Wink.

You may remember the presentation made at this year's JCK showing the average prices-by-lab on Rapnet (which is the platform you're citing in your post)?

For diamonds 0.50-2.00 D-M IF-SI3 VG+... AGS and GIA grades commanded highest average price. HRD and IGI followed, with EGL grades at the bottom. Those averages, with a basis of GIA as 100: AGS 106, HRD 93, IGI 86, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 61, EGL HK 51. In collection color-clarities with GIA as 100: HRD 94, AGS 93, IGI 87, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 59, EGL HK 47.

There was a further breakdown of average by size category, and of course every diamond is different. Also important is the sheer domination by GIA on this platform. Of total diamonds on Rapnet GIA had 67%. EGL (all) had 12%. IGI 9%, EGL 3%, with 9% uncertified or from smaller labs. AGS had <1%.

While the numbers are averages-only, and based on an overwhelmingly larger sample from GIA relative to any other lab, it's telling information about how members of the USA trade (using this platform) value one lab's report over another in the macro, based on the reputation of the labs considered.

Platforms other than Rapnet can show different statistics. Certainly this is the case in Asia, where the GIA is still the leader but the NGTC and IGI HK have notably more presence, clout and reputability.

 

[WinkHPD]

You are correct John, I should have done a search on Pricescope and used those prices on similarly papered stones.

Unfortunately I just tried to do that and was unable to find stones with EGL or IGI papers in those size and quality ranges. The closest I found was a 1.37ct GIA papered diamond from Blue Nile at $16,954 for the G-VVS1 and a 1.37ct GIA papered diamond from Blue Nile at $9,486 for the J-VVS2. The price difference is somewhat higher at $7,468, but we have no way to compare what the prices would be if the stone was graded by a top tier laboratory such as GIA or AGS since we have no way of even guessing which, if either of the two reports we have are correct or how far off from reality they might be and that does not take into consideration of cutting differences. (Referring to the stone and the papers from our OP.)

My brush may be broad, but my point is not. The selling vendor should have known about the other report and if he knew he should have disclosed that information. On that fact my brush is both broad and brightly colored.

Wink

 

[John P]

You are correct John, I should have done a search on Pricescope and used those prices on similarly papered stones.

Unfortunately I just tried to do that and was unable to find stones with EGL or IGI papers in those size and quality ranges. The closest I found was a 1.37ct GIA papered diamond from Blue Nile at $16,954 for the G-VVS1 and a 1.37ct GIA papered diamond from Blue Nile at $9,486 for the J-VVS2. The price difference is somewhat higher at $7,468, but we have no way to compare what the prices would be if the stone was graded by a top tier laboratory such as GIA or AGS since we have no way of even guessing which, if either of the two reports we have are correct or how far off from reality they might be and that does not take into consideration of cutting differences. (Referring to the stone and the papers from our OP.)

My brush may be broad, but my point is not. The selling vendor should have known about the other report and if he knew he should have disclosed that information. On that fact my brush is both broad and brightly colored.

Wink

It's not surprising Wink. For B2B supply here in the USA a Rapnet search of D-F, FL-VVS2 (collection) 1.00-1.99 Ex-Ideal cut brings up only 6 IGI graded diamonds. Pricing ranges from -35% to +5%. Over 2000 GIA diamonds in the same category overlap this, from -42% to +20%. Meanwhile 95 EGL (all locations) options are priced significantly lower, ranging from -64% to -22%.

I understand your point about the seller. My "broad brush" comment referred to the lumping-together of EGL and IGI. They are different organizations, run differently. To me, lumping them together is like telling people that all fluorescence is bad, all used-car salesmen are crooks or that all internet sellers only offer "leftover" diamonds

 

[chipmunk543]

Its great to know EGL does not give all the details of their findings and will hide things as long as you are a loyal customer.

Email from EGL:

"Thanks for your patient. I just wanted to pull out our lab records before answering.

Yes, our records does show that the stone has inscription on the girdle and normally
it would have been mentioned in the comments.

In this specific case, we received a letter from the owner of the stone (we have a copy
in our records) specifically asking us not to mention it as they will remove the inscription
as soon as they have the stone back. As we know this specific customer for many years,
we had no reason to doubt it and as a one time gesture, followed his request by not mentioning the inscription
in the comments.

Last week after we received your email, I approached the customer to double check with them.
They apologise and if you will be kind enough to send us the stone (at no cost to you, we'll
take care of removing the inscription)"

 

[WinkHPD]

Its great to know EGL does not give all the details of their findings and will hide things as long as you are a loyal customer.

Email from EGL:

"Thanks for your patient. I just wanted to pull out our lab records before answering.

Yes, our records does show that the stone has inscription on the girdle and normally
it would have been mentioned in the comments.

In this specific case, we received a letter from the owner of the stone (we have a copy
in our records) specifically asking us not to mention it as they will remove the inscription
as soon as they have the stone back. As we know this specific customer for many years,
we had no reason to doubt it and as a one time gesture, followed his request by not mentioning the inscription
in the comments.

Last week after we received your email, I approached the customer to double check with them.
They apologise and if you will be kind enough to send us the stone (at no cost to you, we'll
take care of removing the inscription)"

I reiterate that this diamond needs a report by AGS or GIA just to see where it really fits. I am guessing that IGI is closer than EGL and that no matter what you paid you paid too much. I doubt that I would return the stone to have the damning inscription removed...

Wink

 

[Gypsy]

Its great to know EGL does not give all the details of their findings and will hide things as long as you are a loyal customer.

Email from EGL:

"Thanks for your patient. I just wanted to pull out our lab records before answering.

Yes, our records does show that the stone has inscription on the girdle and normally
it would have been mentioned in the comments.

AsIn this specific case, we received a letter from the owner of the stone (we have a copy
in our records) specifically asking us not to mention it as they will remove the inscription
as soon as they have the stone back. we know this specific customer for many years,
we had no reason to doubt it and as a one time gesture, followed his request by not mentioning the inscription
in the comments.

Last week after we received your email, I approached the customer to double check with them.
They apologise and if you will be kind enough to send us the stone (at no cost to you, we'll
take care of removing the inscription)"

OMG. Their solution is to remove the inscription. I'm sorry that is just....

I wouldn't bother with sending it to another lab. I'd just return the thing and buy a GIA or AGS stone instead. I have no words for this dealer.

 

[vishke8]

Its great to know EGL does not give all the details of their findings and will hide things as long as you are a loyal customer.

Email from EGL:

"Thanks for your patient. I just wanted to pull out our lab records before answering.

Yes, our records does show that the stone has inscription on the girdle and normally
it would have been mentioned in the comments.

In this specific case, we received a letter from the owner of the stone (we have a copy
in our records) specifically asking us not to mention it as they will remove the inscription
as soon as they have the stone back. As we know this specific customer for many years,
we had no reason to doubt it and as a one time gesture, followed his request by not mentioning the inscription
in the comments.

Last week after we received your email, I approached the customer to double check with them.
They apologise and if you will be kind enough to send us the stone (at no cost to you, we'll
take care of removing the inscription)"

I reiterate that this diamond needs a report by AGS or GIA just to see where it really fits. I am guessing that IGI is closer than EGL and that no matter what you paid you paid too much. I doubt that I would return the stone to have the damning inscription removed...

Wink

This is so not acceptable...just cancel this diamond and look for another one which is GIA certified.

 

[NonieMarie]

Oh hell no! Does this seller think you are stupid? The diamond has bad juju. I wouldn't want to start my new life with a diamond I knew was a lie.

 

[fanofhardrock]

...disregarding the FACT that the trade discounts both the EGL and the IGI papers heavily.

I find this to be painting with a rather broad brush Wink.

You may remember the presentation made at this year's JCK showing the average prices-by-lab on Rapnet (which is the platform you're citing in your post)?

For diamonds 0.50-2.00 D-M IF-SI3 VG+... AGS and GIA grades commanded highest average price. HRD and IGI followed, with EGL grades at the bottom. Those averages, with a basis of GIA as 100: AGS 106, HRD 93, IGI 86, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 61, EGL HK 51. In collection color-clarities with GIA as 100: HRD 94, AGS 93, IGI 87, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 59, EGL HK 47.

There was a further breakdown of average by size category, and of course every diamond is different. Also important is the sheer domination by GIA on this platform. Of total diamonds on Rapnet GIA had 67%. EGL (all) had 12%. IGI 9%, EGL 3%, with 9% uncertified or from smaller labs. AGS had <1%.

While the numbers are averages-only, and based on an overwhelmingly larger sample from GIA relative to any other lab, it's telling information about how members of the USA trade (using this platform) value one lab's report over another in the macro, based on the reputation of the labs considered.

Platforms other than Rapnet can show different statistics. Certainly this is the case in Asia, where the GIA is still the leader but the NGTC and IGI HK have notably more presence, clout and reputability.

Hi John

Please can you explain this sentence: In collection color-clarities with GIA as 100: HRD 94, AGS 93, IGI 87, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 59, EGL HK 47.

thanks in advance.

 

[natascha]

...disregarding the FACT that the trade discounts both the EGL and the IGI papers heavily.

I find this to be painting with a rather broad brush Wink.

You may remember the presentation made at this year's JCK showing the average prices-by-lab on Rapnet (which is the platform you're citing in your post)?

For diamonds 0.50-2.00 D-M IF-SI3 VG+... AGS and GIA grades commanded highest average price. HRD and IGI followed, with EGL grades at the bottom. Those averages, with a basis of GIA as 100: AGS 106, HRD 93, IGI 86, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 61, EGL HK 51. In collection color-clarities with GIA as 100: HRD 94, AGS 93, IGI 87, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 59, EGL HK 47.

There was a further breakdown of average by size category, and of course every diamond is different. Also important is the sheer domination by GIA on this platform. Of total diamonds on Rapnet GIA had 67%. EGL (all) had 12%. IGI 9%, EGL 3%, with 9% uncertified or from smaller labs. AGS had <1%.

While the numbers are averages-only, and based on an overwhelmingly larger sample from GIA relative to any other lab, it's telling information about how members of the USA trade (using this platform) value one lab's report over another in the macro, based on the reputation of the labs considered.

Platforms other than Rapnet can show different statistics. Certainly this is the case in Asia, where the GIA is still the leader but the NGTC and IGI HK have notably more presence, clout and reputability.

Hi John

Please can you explain this sentence: In collection color-clarities with GIA as 100: HRD 94, AGS 93, IGI 87, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 59, EGL HK 47.

thanks in advance.

I'm not John but basically what it means is that with the same stats (ex same color, clarity...) a diamond with EGL USA paper will trade on average at 69% of a diamond graded by GIA.

 

[John P]

Hi John

Please can you explain this sentence: In collection color-clarities with GIA as 100: HRD 94, AGS 93, IGI 87, EGL USA 69, EGL Israel 59, EGL HK 47.

thanks in advance.

I sent a reply last night (Antwerp-time as I'm in Europe right now) but lost my internet as it was posting. Darn medieval country.

Collection colors-clarities are widely considered D-F VVS+. The Rapaport data included D-F VS2+ (VG+ cut) so their net is wider, but the premise is the same; a comparison of average trading prices for diamonds with higher starting - and selling - values.

Per the averages, if you had seven diamonds all graded 1.00 ct D IF Ideal/EX by the seven labs listed they might sell - within the trade - as follows:

GIA $ 25,000
HRD $ 23,500
AGS $ 23,250
IGI $ 21,750
EGL-USA $ 17,250
EGL Isr $ 14,750
EGL HK $ 11,750

This data indicates that GIA commands a notable premium for diamonds capable of earning their top color and upper clarity grades.

When you add in a broader color-clarity range, going from D-M FL-SI3, the relative value of diamonds accompanied by AGS reports rises notably. The others are close to the same.

So again (per the averages) if you had seven diamonds all graded 1.00 ct H VS2 Ideal/EX by the seven labs listed they might sell - within the trade - as follows:

AGS $ 8,480
GIA $ 8,000
HRD $ 7,440
IGI $ 6,880
EGL USA $ 5,520
EGL Isr $ 4,880
EGL HK $ 4,080

Of course the final consumer never sees the specific trade prices. This is where the disconnect lies:

When a Dealer A offers a 1ct H VS2 AGS Ideal for $8,700 and Dealer B offers a 1ct H VS2 EGL Ideal for $7,000 an unaware buyer may think "Okay, the EGL diamond seems a deal, even if it's a color grade or two off..." In his negotiations Dealer A will only give a $50 discount, but Dealer B reluctantly haggles down to $6,800 so the buyer pulls the trigger, confident Dealer B bent-over-backwards for him. But in this example dealer B still made $1,300 on the sale, while dealer A - from the beginning - had only $320 of profit built in.