Fix it or forget it?

[kenny]

Finally
The GIA plots.
No natural.
Nothing at a girdle.

Again, this chip is many times more noticeable than any of the plotted inclusions - at any magnification.

 

[denverappraiser]

The ‘tension’ in a tension setting is really a compression and the pressure is from side to side across the stone. They cut the seat to press evenly across the girdle. I don’t think you have a mechanical problem. That said, I think you should send it back anyway. It bugs you, it’s easy for him to fix and even though it will probably develop similar things over time it’s nice to start out ‘perfect’.

That''s a VERY cool microscope. Jewelers everywhere are thankful that appraisers don’t use those. Where can I get one?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[kenny]

Germany.

Be warned.
It's Leica.
It's expensive.

 

[pyramid]

An indented natural is not a clarity characteristic if it does not affect the clarity at 10x. a natural (as Garry said) if confined to the girdle is not considered as a clarity characteristic.

Leaving it to the pros now. See what the pros think about your durabilty question??????

 

[mrssalvo]

kenny, since Jon''s offering to fix it and cover shipping both ways, i''d take him up on and just have it polished out. I think it will bug you knowing it''s there, even if it can still be set like you want. It''s a mind clean issue for you...

 

[pyramid]

Do you have one of those sarin report drawings which shows the girdle of the stone, as the girdle is so straight it should show a little curve where the mark is if it was there at that time?

 

[kenny]

I have a mac so I couldn''t download the Sarin or Gem Advisor stuff.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 12/1/2006 9:22:27 PM
Author: Pyramid
Do you have one of those sarin report drawings which shows the girdle of the stone, as the girdle is so straight it should show a little curve where the mark is if it was there at that time?

I doubt the Sarin would pick it up anyway. The way the Sarin works is by looking at a shadow of the stone and taking a series of pictures as it rotates. It won''t pick up a concavity.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[elmo]

You think that''s a chip on a girdle? Look at what showed up here today. Wish I had a killer microscope like that

.

 

[RockDoc]

Kenny

Great microphotographs. KUDO''S

Try photoing it with crossed polaroids.. would be interesting to see.

Gemological scopes come with a variety of different "heads" on them. Leica, currently is very common. I have a feeling that the scope you''re using is a very scientific model, which those of us in the diamond world really don''t use.

I think just about all the scopes from Gem Instruments (GIA) are Leica''s. Nikon, Olympus,and Meiji make micrscope heads too.
Some of the older scopes from GIA used B&L and AO''s.

The new Leica scope heads from GIA have all plastic gears in the zoom mechanism, and those are troublesome. I have a B&L, a Leica and an AO. I prefer the AO''s optics to the others, but they aren''t made any more. The AO zoom gears are metal and I think last a lot longer. I also have another A&O head as a backup.

HRD in Belguim has a scope which is reputed to be about the best one. There scope also has a vauum attachment for holding stones which is far improved over the "slingshot" spring clips from GIA.

Is the scope you''re using a trinoclular one? High magnification becomes a real challenge to focus in on, and you''re photos are incredibly clear. Would love to get mine as clear as yours.

For photographing colored stone inclusions, high magnification and getting photos is a real challenge.

Compliments on your photos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rockdoc

 

[pyramid]

Rockdoc

Could you say if it is a chip or would you need to examine it in person?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 12/1/2006 9:07:14 PM
Author: kenny
Germany.

Be warned.
It''s Leica.
It''s expensive.

I don''t know what kind my husband has but he said he can take mine to work and get it to like 500x or something LOL He works for a major chip manufacturer so they have some serious scopes there too!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/1/2006 8:14:36 PM
Author: kenny
Garry, there is no natural indicated on the report:
Here''s a pic of the plots from the GIA report:

(Pic in next post)

I can see the chip with my good loupe and also with my cheap loupes - granted now that I know where it is.
Wednesday I never got the diamond clean enough to think of the chip as a chip - plus was only looking for the inclusions on the plot which are all under the table.
But a GIA grader of an 2.26 F VVS2 would not miss such a chip.

I got it Wednesday morning and did look with my good loupe for the plotted inclusions, and I couldn''t find them.
It wasn''t till Thursday morning at work that I got it under a good microscope and started really cleaning it.
That one spot is the only thing that would not clean away.
Then I zoomed in and understood it was a chip.

in the image it looks like 2 little thingys - that would mean it is 2 seperate chips - unlikey me thinks.

So my guess is it is a natural part of the original rough diamond and i would leave it alone - it is an indication that the cutter was talented and went as far as possible out of the rough. So in my mind, that makes it a mark of quality rather than a later acccidental damage issue.

It seems likely if no one knew it was there with a loupe examination - they would not find it - and so only if the stone was IF - only then would yoiu take it off..

 

[Kim N]

Out of curiosity, does polishing the chip out make the stone lose any weight at all?

 

[kenny]

The last 4 pics were taken on a Leica DM LM like this.

The first two were on a much lower power/ and lower quality Leica, they do make some low-end products now with plastic gears.

Note on the last two pics the edge of the facet looks like it comes to a point at the chip but flattens out away from the chip.
The diamond does not do that.
That is an artifact of the photography.
The reason is the stone was not sitting perfectly flat and the depth of focus is very shallow at these magnifications.
The edge is actually going out of focus above and below the chip.

Thanks for the compliments but I really don’t know what I’m doing with these systems.
I know much better results are possible.
I would love to have more time to learn about the microscopy.
It is very specialized.

Unfortunately at my company the owners manuals get lost almost immediately.

Here’s a link with more info on it:

' target="_blank">microscope info

 

[Cehrabehra]

I thought it looked like a chip as well - it is a similar pattern to when a chip comes out of a glass where it kind of radiates in a circle sort of thing... I doubt it''s a natural but I BIG TIME defer to garry''s expertise on that LOL Still, I''d want to find out for sure... be kinda cool if he''s right!!

 

[kenny]

I also have enormous respect for Garry so I'm even more uncertain now as to how to proceed.

If it is a chip I'm leaning towards having it polished.
If it's a natural I may leave it alone. (Though I don't have any explanation for my logic.)

I imagine polishing must involve weight loss. (How could it not? you are removing material.)
The key is how much.

I have heard the weight loss would be very very tiny, virtually non-existent.
Experts: please comment. (I am an opinion sponge.)

I'd guess that polishing the whole side flat will look best but involve the most weight loss.
Would it go from 2.26 to 2.25? 2.24?
Anyone have a sense of the order of magnitude?
What other polishing options are there?
Might they polish an extra little facet right at the chip? If so, would this be visible as it reflects around in the stone?
And would this be round or V-shaped?
Or would/could/should they polish only the top of the girdle where the chip is but do it full lengh? (adding an extra tiny full-length facet to the top of that side of the girdle.)

Another question.
If I send it back I was thinking of having he GIA report number laser inscribed onto the girdle.
It is a large unfaceted girdle 3.51% - virtually another facet.
Will the inscription reflect around in the stone and be visible with a loupe face up?

Guys, I'm sorry to go on and on about my stupid stone, but it is very important to me.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Polishing this would, most likely, not result in weight loss...if it is, in fact, a chip/natural.

 

[pyramid]

If you are saying it is like a chip then this would be an indented natural would it not and not a natural. From what I read a natural is flat to the surface so would not need to be polished out.

 

[starryeyed]

Hi Kenny - the saga continues....

If I were you at this point, I would be wondering about the price I paid. If the flaw is a chip and repolishing means some carat weight loss, then it''s not really a 2.26, which is what you paid for.

By the same token, if it''s not a chip, but rather some sort of inclusion, then again maybe you paid too much. If you can see the flaw clearly with 10X magnification, is it really a VVS2?

I guess I would want to have the pricing re-visited after either re-polishing or re-grading. I know you love the stone, so maybe you aren''t price sensitive, and it isn''t an issue. It may be worth discussing though - I''m sure this stone was expensive.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hi Kenny. I agree, it looks like a chip to me. VVS size, or possibly dropping the clarity grade to VS1. I would recommend having it polished out to retain the VVS grading, and keep it "mind clean".

The weight loss would be extremely minimal. Sometimes I've seen cutters do it with less than 1 point weight loss. Couple points at most, in my opinion. No true loss in value due to weight loss, and an increase in value due to improved clarity. The cutter will know instantly the best way to do it once he examines the stone. I wouldn't worry about which method he uses. He will use the best method for the best result.

I don't think I would bother having it re-certified, as the stone will essentially not change. If you have more than a point weight loss you might consider having Jonathan document the repair in the appraisal report. All the measurements, quality characteristics and graph on the GIA report will be the same.

A laser inscription will not reflect to the naked eye or 10x loupe, and does not downgrade the clarity grade.

It's very rare for a diamond to chip due to tweezer handling. Diamonds eat tweezers for breakfast. It takes quite a bit more than that to usually chip a diamond. Contact with another diamond, or a substantial impact is usually the cause of chipping.

GIA would have caught either a natural or a chip on their report. The fact that it's not there means it happened after certification, and definitely rules out a natural (in my opinion).

I would just be patient for a couple weeks and have Jonathan make it perfect for you. Then you won't have any reason for pause when you admire the stone.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 12/1/2006 9:51:42 PM
Author: Pyramid
Rockdoc

Could you say if it is a chip or would you need to examine it in person?

I am tempted to call it a tiny bruise.

I think Richard's advice to have Jon "repair" makes a lot of sense to me too.

Rockdoc

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 12/2/2006 1:09:21 PM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 12/1/2006 9:51:42 PM
Author: Pyramid
Rockdoc

Could you say if it is a chip or would you need to examine it in person?

I am tempted to call it a tiny bruise.

I think Richard''s advise to have Jon ''repair'' makes a lot of sense to me too.

Rockdoc

Yeah Doc, good point. "Bruise" conveys the minimalness of it.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 12/2/2006 2:42:15 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
I thought it looked like a chip as well - it is a similar pattern to when a chip comes out of a glass where it kind of radiates in a circle sort of thing... I doubt it''s a natural but I BIG TIME defer to garry''s expertise on that LOL Still, I''d want to find out for sure... be kinda cool if he''s right!!

A lot of jewelers have trouble distinguishing chips from naturals.

The " circle " type thing you mentioned is gemologicall called concoidal fracture. Diamonds don''t have concoidal fracture.

Many times what appears to be concoidal ( like glass has when it fractures ) may look like what is actually a natural.

If a diamond gets a fracture it generally is "spintery" in its appearance.

Rockdoc

 

[strmrdr]

Richard makes a good case.
I would take Richard''s advise if it was mine.

 

[kenny]

Richard, thank you for your very thoughtful post.
You have addressed so many of my concerns.
You obviously know how we neurotic and illogical diamond customers think, if you could call it that.

Well, I think I'll send it back. (It is hard to part with.)

What a bummer!
I paid a zillion dollars for something rare and beautiful that I can't enjoy for weeks or months.

Even when finished I will have a stone that is modified from the 2004 GIA report.
If they send it back to GIA for a new report that will delay it longer.

Hey, maybe I could request it goes to AGS to be one of the first to get their Asscher cut grade. (Or is this a can of worms?)
Even if it doesn't get an AGS 0 it would be of interest to see. (But I just won't feel the same about the stone if it gets an AGS 4.)
Of course I'd have to wait even longer since they are not scheduled to start till Feb 07 - and who knows if there will be delays, or if they already have a backlog?
Plus we all know grades can vary a bit, even from the same lab.

GIA gave it F VVS2 in 2004.
If it came back from AGS with G or VS1 (or E or VVS1) it would be awkward for GOG and for me.
(Would GOG want more $$$ if it goes up, or would I expect $$$ back if it goes down.)
Actually, I think not.
I paid today's fair market value based on that GIA report.
I think I should warrant consideration only if it lost measurable weight.

I'm getting a headache.

 

[kenny]

OH
USPS max insurance is $25K.
It is over that.

What should I do?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/2/2006 1:42:44 PM
Author: kenny
OH
USPS max insurance is $25K.
It is over that.

What should I do?

have Jon send you a call tag and packaging.
Then ship it ups and his insurance will cover it.
Since he is paying for it that would work best for both of you.

 

[starryeyed]

Kenny I feel for you - major delayed gratification! And while you''re waiting, it hard to not look at "other stones" - ha-ha!

I thought you said GOG would pay for RT shipping when they polish it out....

 

[kenny]

Yes GOG has offered to reimburse me for my shipping costs, but the problem is the insurance limit on USPS registered (which is how GOG has instructed me to ship it) is less than the value of the stone.

Good idea strm.


Does anyone have rental Asschers?