evergreen
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 849
Sorry, I should have been more specific: like an RBC with proven ideal light performance - like ASET.
Are the stones you listed graded for cut, and if so, by whom? Do they have ASET pictures?
Well, his AVRs and AVCs have ideal light performance as far as old-cuts are concerned. And he'll send you ASETs for any stone you're interested in to prove it.
As for the MRBs, they have GCAL reports with H&A images. After looking at a few of the H&A images myself, I'll say that, while they may not be absolutely perfect Super Duper Ideal precise, they're pretty darn good. Like, I-highly-doubt-most-people-could-tell-the-difference good.
Fair enough. The diamonds posted earlier are gorgeous ... and expensive.
I guess I am posting with lightbox in mind. $800 per carat, and setting is required. They don’t mention cut quality ... well, if they do, I didn’t find it.
Since lightbox, I’d have a hard time paying thousands for even a precision cut MMD.
Still ... those pictures make me drool, lol.
The Lightbox/De Beers marketing is clearly doing to you what it's intended to doFair enough. The diamonds posted earlier are gorgeous ... and expensive.
I guess I am posting with lightbox in mind. $800 per carat, and setting is required. They don’t mention cut quality ... well, if they do, I didn’t find it.
Since lightbox, I’d have a hard time paying thousands for even a precision cut MMD.
Still ... those pictures make me drool, lol.
The Lightbox/De Beers marketing is clearly doing to you what it's intended to do
The Lightbox/De Beers marketing is clearly doing to you what it's intended to do
Those guys are genius.
If my understanding of the price of MMD rough is correct, there should be no need to retain as much weight as possibleWith the advancement and increasing accessibility of precision laser cutting technology, will all newly cut MMD/diamonds end up being done so with ideal proportions? Or will the desire to retain weight always win out do you think? As/if the price per carat decreases that significantly you would think they’d be less interested in poorly cut heavier stones and favour ideally cut stones. It would also make all the new stones cut like this very generic?
going on 100 years
You remind me of the odd pieces of news in which people past 100 get asked how it is done
Is there any (empirical) evidence that IGI is three/four grades lower than GIA?August Vintage's lab stones are often IGI graded. When you factor in that this "G" is probably a GIA J, you're paying mined diamond prices for a lab stone: https://www.augustvintageinc.net/co...ct-g-vs1-laboratory-grown-diamond-lg_10537402
I love the idea of lab diamonds, but when I did the comparison, I couldn't justify it.
Is there any (empirical) evidence that IGI is three/four grades lower than GIA?
IGI are one of the more common grading labs used over here in the UK, from what I've seen in shop windows, and without a range of side-by-side comparisons with either GIA/AGS Master stones or a selection of equivalent-size GIA/AGS stones found in the market, claims of differences remain unsubstantiated and could damage vendor reputations.
I'm sure that the only reason Rhino and other sellers aren't offering GIA/AGS-graded MMDs is because both companies either won't grade them or offer only minimal information, AIUI - be that because of 'protectionism' of Mined stones (the refusal to grade MMDs inferring they are not the same as Mined diamonds) or some other reason.
From what I've seen of the grading reports that come with Rhino's stones, they seem to vary from an equivalent range of information as a GIA report, through to perhaps even more than one of the top-level AGS reports (Gold or Platinum??), so I am impressed that the other labs are taking the opportunity to attempt to lead the MMD grading market from the front.
Perhaps one of the MMD vendors (Rhino or A.N.Other) could undertake a comparison exercise, either to satisfy themselves and be able to confidently state any differences (if any), or to present the results in an empirical format for a wider audience?
felt afraid to say anything because I don't feel like I can have a negative opinion about a PS vendor here.
There are different igi reports and labs.
Common in the US is igi usa valuation reports that are graded mounted and have a value and are absolutely useless and imho fraud.
Igi international graded loose are a little better but below gia/ags but not a total fraud.
The problem is you never know how far off.Yup, at one point, I almost got fooled into thinking that IGI cert stones were graded similar in line with AGS/GIA, but NOPE they're completely off and there's a reason some of the studs being offered by some of the popular Internet vendors seem better value (VS1/F, in actuality SI1/H). Assume at least several grades lower, at least in the US.
I have taken a look at all of August Vintage's lab stones over the weeks, as I'm interested in the concept, and I have concluded that they are overgraded, overpriced, and many are poorly cut. I have thought this for weeks but have felt afraid to say anything because I don't feel like I can have a negative opinion about a PS vendor here.
I appreciate it can be hard to speak openly on forums when there are favoured vendors and/or forum sponsors, either/both of whom may be active members.
I am a big advocate of plain speaking, though, but I also feel that claims need backup evidence, as otherwise they are at risk of being viewed as conjecture.
I thought it was EGL that was seen as distinctly 'off' - or is that just the non-USA labs? - and that IGI was seen as at least reasonable in the UK? but I may be remembering things incorrectly, so I do not mind being corrected if that is the case.
My suggestion of a side-by-side comparison is the sort of thing I think would be very useful in helping to determine just how 'off' a given sample is, in an attempt to provide an empirical evidence base to refer to, but I don't know if it's ever been done.
Mind you, if as Karl says they are all over the shop and totally inconsistent, a sample comparison could/would be completely pointless in terms of trying to determine the number of grades they are always likely to be 'out', but could be a good illustration of inconsistency if nothing else.
Karl, I don't think GIA is on a high horse. I think their position is an indication that they know their constituency, they can predict the future of LG diamonds, and they want to protect their brand. They do not want to support a product that competes with what their huge client base is selling by helping LG producers market their diamonds on a somewhat contrived apples-to-apples basis (discount to natural per 4cs).The problem is you never know how far off.
GIA needs to get off their high horse and offer a Man Made Diamond Grading Report with the same quality and information as their regular reports.
Put "Man Made Diamond Grading Report " in big letters across the top.
Until such a time they are stuck with second tier labs.
That makes a consumer advocate position and cements my feelings on the issue.A GIA report might help a consumer today
Many companies are capable of doing a lot of different things, and are often tempted to put too many irons in the fire rather than stay focused on their core business and customer base. I know we are! But I can't see why ANY business would have a legal obligation to provide a service on a new product line, even if by choosing not to provide that service another business may be disadvantaged.That makes a consumer advocate position and cements my feelings on the issue.
De beers is no longer big enough to face antitrust charges but GIA is enough of the market to face antitrust lawsuits.
do you guys think the price of mined diamonds will start going down?