Flawless vs. Internally Flawless

[JJH]

I just bought a flawless diamond today, but I'm not sure that was a good buy. I was actually looking for a D IF, but when I saw the D FL, I decided to get it because it wasn't too much more money. I bought it off bluenile. I have a few questions:

1) Should I get this laser inscribed? I'm concerned about some jewelry store swapping it out when we take it in to get it cleaned. Would getting this laser inscribed change it from flawless to internally flawless?

2) I'm going to have the diamond set. Will this itself affect the clarity? Or will mounting the diamond affect it in such a way that any abrasions could be polished out? I'm mounting it in platinum, if that matters. If mounting changes the FL to IF, then I might as well get an IF for slightly less money, or for the same money get a slightly bigger IF.

3) I was considering two diamonds, but was not sure which to get. I bought the first one. I'll include the information on each here. Which is better? The cost difference was only about $500 or so (from different companies).

Diamond #1 (the one I just purchased)
Report Type: GIA Diamond Grading Report (14903654)
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.47 - 6.52 x 4.03 mm
Carat Weight: 1.02
Color Grade: D
Clarity Grade: FL
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 62.0 %
Table: 57 %
Crown Angle: 35.5°
Crown Height: 15.5 %
Pavilion Angle: 41.2°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5 %
Star length: 60 %
Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
Culet: Very Small
Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None

Diamond #2
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.50 - 6.54 x 4.04 mm
Carat Weight: 1.05
Color Grade: D
Clarity Grade: IF
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 62.0 %
Table: 56 %
Crown Angle: 34.5°
Crown Height: 15 %
Pavilion Angle: 41°
Pavilion Depth: 43.5 %
Star length: 55 %
Lower Half: 80 %
Girdle: Medium to Slightly Thick, Faceted
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None

Thanks!

Jonas

-x-

 

[MissAva]

The first stone got a 4.4 on the HCA....the cut is not good, take a pass here! The second stone rates a 1.8 on the HCA which means it is a nice cut.

A great way for you to narrow down perspective stones before posting is to run their numbers though the Holloway Cut Adviser

 

[valeria101]

I assume that these grades have meaning for you beyond looks otherwise you would not have went for them... but is it visual appeal totally indifferent? If not... proportions should count at least as much as the grades, and I'd second the previous post too.


About lase inscribing the first - well, I would think that does not count as a surface characteristic 'good' enough to tarnish the Flawless grade into IF. But virtually any wear mark would - it may no longer be 'flawless' after being set, let alone worn a bit. To me ,that makes the grade a bit meaningless, but that's just me.


The cost difference is indeed not much, but I wonder if the cut of the first is not worse. GIA's cut grades are quite new and wider (does this make them more lenient?) than previously accepted as best cut for round diamonds. In fact, I doubt that has changed - GIA's 'Excellent' cut is still not the finest technically.


My 2c

 

[seeker78]

Just out of curiosity, how much did you pay for that stone?

 

[gemmy1]

Both are obviously superb stones. Since you are going to set it, I would recommend you not pay extra for the FL. The process of setting and wearing the diamond will most likely result in an external blemish dropping it to IF anyway.

The setting won''t change the clarity (unless it goes from FL to IF as a result of a blemish induced by the jeweler). The diamond can always be repolished but the labor and handling is expensive, so you might not want to paint yourself into that corner with th FL.

Inscribing is an option for the IF, but in reality the risk of having a stone switched is extremely low if you deal with good jewelers. And a D IF is a very distinctive gem making it easier to verify by normal means and much less likely for an accidental switch. If you decide to inscribe you should do it by going back through the GIA so that the report can be updated at the same time Otherwise the cert would be called into question if marketed at a later date.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:44:39 AM
Author:JJH

1) Should I get this laser inscribed? I'm concerned about some jewelry store swapping it out when we take it in to get it cleaned. Would getting this laser inscribed change it from flawless to internally flawless?

A flawless diamond properly inscribed would not change to an internally flawless.

That said, I personally would not have a FL or IF diamond laser inscribed. I say this only because a couple times I have seen diamonds where the laser penetrated enough into the girdle where it could be seen face-up under a microscope, which would classify it as an inclusion.

This is not the norm, and the setting must have been off on the machines which did this. Still, it's a gamble I would not want to take if I had a flawless stone.

2) I'm going to have the diamond set. Will this itself affect the clarity?

No, it shouldn't be a problem if you have a good setter do the job. Diamonds are harder than the prongs and tools used, so you don't have to worry about abrasions. It's only the diamond accidentally getting chipped you would have to worry about, and this problem is practically nil with a good setter at the bench.

 

[blodthecat]

Hi there, and welcome to pricescope!

Unless you have a loop fitted to the top of your diamond, no one will know if it is IF, FL or VS1 for that matter. So if you can''t see it, what are you paying for?

Pricescopers (generally) tend to look for an eye clean diamond, which can range from VS1 right down to SI2. Regarding color, well everyone has their own sweet spot, depending on how color sensative you are. The most important factor is the CUT of your diamond. Coming down in clarity and color will allow you to purchase a bigger diamond.

Even if money wasn''t an issue (I don''t even want to guess what you paid for that spec)I would still want to feel i was getting good value for money, and the most bling for the $

Give this a bit of thought, and find out what their return/exchange policy is.

Just my 2c.

Blod

 

[MissAva]

Date: 4/3/2006 10:32:35 AM
Author: gemmy1
Both are obviously superb stones. Since you are going to set it, I would recommend you not pay extra for the FL. The process of setting and wearing the diamond will most likely result in an external blemish dropping it to IF anyway.

The setting won''t change the clarity (unless it goes from FL to IF as a result of a blemish induced by the jeweler). The diamond can always be repolished but the labor and handling is expensive, so you might not want to paint yourself into that corner with th FL.

Inscribing is an option for the IF, but in reality the risk of having a stone switched is extremely low if you deal with good jewelers. And a D IF is a very distinctive gem making it easier to verify by normal means and much less likely for an accidental switch. If you decide to inscribe you should do it by going back through the GIA so that the report can be updated at the same time Otherwise the cert would be called into question if marketed at a later date.

I have to say I dissagree, for a stone to be superb it needs to be well cut, number one is not a nicely cut stone.

 

[JJH]

Thanks for all of your responses. I'll respond to a few of your questions. I have a few more for you.

1) The laser incription would be done by the GIA lab, as bluenile would send it back before they sent it to me. I could always bring it to an appraiser to make sure the laser was done properly, and if it wasn't done properly, I could return the stone.

2) I paid $18,300 for it. One person suggested I get something less than an IF. I decided on the IF because I already decided how much I wanted to spend and my girlfriend doesn't want anything too big that will draw too much attention. In addition, in her profession (she's a dentist), she doesn't want something that is too big. Furthermore, an IF or FL would make a great heirloom and I figure it is something that can always be easily valued, as most everyone knows what a D IF goes for. And finally, my girlfriend is part of this decision making process, and she decided she wanted a D IF, so b/c she is the boss here, I'm going to satisfy her.

3) I have a few other questions for you guys. Is the Holloway Cut Advisor really that accurate and should it be trusted? I read that it wasn't. See http://www.consumersgemlab.com/education/page2.shtml.

4) Okay, if it should be trusted, then I probably should switch to the D IF. I found a nice D IF, slightly bigger at 1.08, with the following characteristics, but the polish is "very good" rather than "excellent." So, which has higher value? The 1.05 w/ excellent polish (see Diamond #2 above) or the 1.08 w/ very good polish (see Diamond #3 below)?

Diamond #3
Round Brilliant
Measurements: 6.62 - 6.66 x 4.06 mm
Carat Weight: 1.08
Color Grade: D
Clarity Grade: IF
Cut Grade: Excellent
Proportions:
Depth: 61.1 %
Table: 56 %
Crown Angle: 35.0°
Crown Height: 15.5 %
Pavilion Angle: 40.8°
Pavilion Depth: 49 %
Star length: 55 %
Lower Half: 75 %
Girdle: Thin to Medium, Faceted
Culet: None
Finish:
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None

Here are the results from the Holloway Cut Advisor:
Diamond #3:
Light Return = Excellent
Fire = Excellent
Scintillation = Excellent
Spread or diameter for weight = Very Good
Total Visual Performance = 1.5 - Excellent within TIC range

Diamond #2:
Light Return = Excellent
Fire = Very Good
Scintillation = Very Good
Spread or diameter for weight = Very Good
Total Visual Performance = 1.8 - Excellent within TIC range

Thanks!

Jonas

-x-

 

[gemmy1]

You can''t go wrong with either stone. Go for the stone you can make the best deal on. I would be inclined to go with the 1.05. The Ex Ex on the report is always nice to have. It''s kind of like a "GIA triple zero"- top grades for polish, symmetry and overall cut.

 

[JJH]

Thanks for your response Bryan. I canceled the 1.02 D FL order with bluenile and went with the 1.05 D IF at uniondiamond. Although the Holloway Cut Advisor gave better numbers for the 1.08, according to the information at http://diamonds.pricescope.com/ideal.asp, it doesn't necessarily mean it is a better cut or that it will outperform higher scored diamonds. For example, the hearts and arrow diamonds tend to score around 2. Given that the 1.05 had excellent polish rather than very good, and that the 1.05 was less expensive, I decided to go with that diamond, as you suggested I do.

With respect to the D FL (diamond #1), it turns out that I'm saving a little more money than expected. In addition, Bluenile informed me that there really was no point in getting the FL over the IF because, although setting it properly wouldn't change it from an FL to an IF, through normal wear and tear on the ring, the diamond could eventually develop some abrasions that would lower it to an IF.

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. You were all a really big help.

Jonas

-x-

 

[valeria101]

I though more like 13k...


Anyway, the last two sound nicer than the first couple of choices.

Not long ago there was one 1ct H&A hanging around, but now... and you weren''t looking for one. So the current pickings would probably be the best this side of the Net.

Sure I got to wonder why D/IF when no one is going to see that etc. But it doesn''t have to be my choice. For what that matters, it would have been E/VS to be perfect and if size did matter, F-G/SI1 (and about 1.7cts). Sure enough, virtually any quantity of cash can be spent on 1 carat diamond. Whoever decided what diamond grades should look like seems to have counted on it! And there is nothing bad about 1 carat D/IF.

I like it how Richard Sherwood puts it: '' D/IF is a very distinct diamond''. Agreed, of course - for some reason there aren''t that many. Only he is seeing diamonds under lab gear, and me on folks hands... so for Richard this distinct quality is obviously apparent while for me it is not.

In the previous post, saying that setting a ''FL'' diamond would affect the grade did refer to potential damage during setting. I don''t think it is common - to have gems damaged when set and and for any other grade the amount of damage that would affect the grade is allot less likely (because more is allowed).

My 2c

Best of luck!

 

[gemmy1]

Congratulations Jonas. You own a very rare and exquisite diamond- a "gem diamond" as it''s known in the trade.

 

[laney]

Date: 4/3/2006 10:48:15 PM
Author: gemmy1
Congratulations Jonas. You own a very rare and exquisite diamond- a ''gem diamond'' as it''s known in the trade.

Hi Gemmy.. could you elaborate.. what exactly is a "gem diamond"? I''ve never heard that term before?

 

[Dancing Fire]

didn''t this kind of stone (D IF 1ct) used to cost like $60k in the early 80''s?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/3/2006 11:44:06 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

....didn''t this kind of stone (D IF 1ct) used to cost like $60k in the early 80''s?

18k sounds better, thanks

What happened exactly, do you know? Always wanted to research that story and never found time. Most account give two words (like - ''diamonds were promoted as investment'') - no how, who, when and where

Sorry if this sounds heartless, everyone. The D/IF cheering club is bigger than the opposition anyway. Perhaps some would have every diamond recut into a smaller IF too.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/4/2006 1:06:00 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 4/3/2006 11:44:06 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

....didn't this kind of stone (D IF 1ct) used to cost like $60k in the early 80's?

18k sounds better, thanks

What happened exactly, do you know? Always wanted to research that story and never found time. Most account give two words (like - 'diamonds were promoted as investment') - no how, who, when and where

Ana
somehow i think precious metals price is tie to diamond price

remember when gold was $850 per oz in Jan 80? i think thats when a 1 ct D IF was near $60k.notice how strong precious metals has been lately ? so is the price of diamonds .

 

[gemmy1]

Date: 4/3/2006 10:55:15 PM
Author: laney

Date: 4/3/2006 10:48:15 PM
Author: gemmy1
Congratulations Jonas. You own a very rare and exquisite diamond- a ''gem diamond'' as it''s known in the trade.

Hi Gemmy.. could you elaborate.. what exactly is a ''gem diamond''? I''ve never heard that term before?

Within the diamond trade the term "gem" is used specifically in reference to D IF (or D FL).

There''s a short article on the topic on our blog if you are interested.

 

[blodthecat]

Hi Jonas!

What have you got in mind for a setting.

Sorry, but on PS we need all the details

blod

 

[gemmy1]

Date: 4/4/2006 1:06:00 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 4/3/2006 11:44:06 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

....didn''t this kind of stone (D IF 1ct) used to cost like $60k in the early 80''s?

18k sounds better, thanks

What happened exactly, do you know? Always wanted to research that story and never found time. Most account give two words (like - ''diamonds were promoted as investment'') - no how, who, when and where

The late seventies was a time of great uncertainty, particularly in the middle east, giving rise to speculation in many markets. There was a runup in diamond prices, in particular D IF, as investors sought to hedge. These stones were seen as a commodity that could be ported and liquidated easily for a predictable price. The result was a wild spike in prices of these stones and the bubble finally burst leaving many folks in bad shape. It was distressing to DeBeers who have always worked hard to keep diamonds on a steady upward trend, conveying the idea of lasting value.

 

[JJH]

As for the setting, my girlfriend picked out a platinum knife-edge pinched shank solitaire ring with matching band (no diamonds in the band). See http://www.uniondiamond.com/jewelry/jewelry.php?item_id=933&action_type_id=2&pic_name=&shape_id= .

Does anyone have access to DiamCalc? I''d like to run diamond #2 through it before I finalize the purchase. I downloaded the demo version, but it doesn''t provide an analysis for round brilliants. I just need the gem file so that I can view it in gem advisor. My e-mail is diamond AT mailsnare.net.

I have another question for you guys who are experts on cuts. AGS provides charts for lower half at 80% and star length 50% (which I downloaded off of the agsl website). Diamond #2 (above) has a star length of 55%, so I''m not sure if the charts would be applicable. I assume that star lengths of 50% are standard. Does variance from this lower the grade of the cut? It''s sort of hard to get a feel for the cut with the GIA report, as it is not as tight on the rating as AGS.

Thanks!

jonas

-x-

 

[JJH]

I just read through the "Complete Explantion of AGS Cut System" pdf file, which is available on the AGSL website once you register. The document explained that star lengths of 55% actually decrease the likelihood of getting a AGS 0 on the cut. A star length of 45% actually increases the probability. According to the charts, diamond #2 would get an AGS 1 for the cut. Given how much I''m spending ($17.5k), should I pass up on diamond #2 and wait for one that will have AGS 0 cut? I figure that the diamond probably has a $16k wholesale value with a $1.5k markup. I''m sure if I wait long enough, one will come around. I''m in no rush to blow this kind of money.

I appreciate any advice.

Thanks!

Jonas

-x-

 

[JJH]

I''m going to respond to my own post. I spoke with a gemologist. He said that I shouldn''t give too much credence to the AGS cut rating system, as they spent much less money on their research than GIA. So, I''m done with this diamond research. I''m sticking with diamond #2. Thanks for all of your help.

Jonas

-x-

 

[MissAva]

Date: 4/4/2006 8:57:55 PM
Author: JJH
I''m going to respond to my own post. I spoke with a gemologist. He said that I shouldn''t give too much credence to the AGS cut rating system, as they spent much less money on their research than GIA. So, I''m done with this diamond research. I''m sticking with diamond #2. Thanks for all of your help.

Jonas

-x-

Wow...have you read the information on cut here? Or the studies?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/4/2006 8:57:55 PM
Author: JJH
I''m going to respond to my own post. I spoke with a gemologist. He said that I shouldn''t give too much credence to the AGS cut rating system, as they spent much less money on their research than GIA. So, I''m done with this diamond research. I''m sticking with diamond #2. Thanks for all of your help.

Jonas

-x-

the diameter is a little small for its weight but,i guess it is still better than #1.

 

[JJH]

Matatora, are you referring to that pdf file "Complete Explantion of AGS Cut System"? I downloaded it from the agsl website. I registered on the AGSL website. And, although I am not in the trade, they somehow accepted my registration. Apparently it is some sort of presentation of AGSL''s new grading system. They provide their cut rating charts, etc.

Jonas

-x-

 

[valeria101]

Funny answer... from the gemologist. One would hope that he''d know better than compare costs. Say, doesn''t MacDo spend more on research than most chefs would make in their entire career. That doesn''t make the fries better.

Anyway, who knows who is right between those guys (GIA / AGS and a dozen other systems) - maybe both. Since it is no matter of life and death, how wrong can it get?

And this doesn''t make the choice wrong either.

 

[JJH]

What the gemologist meant was that I shouldn''t read too much into the difference between AGS 0 and AGS 1. AGS has a narrower range of its ideal than GIA''s excellent, however it doesn''t necessarily mean that some AGS 1''s are any worse than AGS 0''s. How to define the boundaries of the cutoff from an ideal cut to a premium cut is difficult, and I''m not convinced that either has it right. Read through AGS''s "Complete Explanation of AGS Cut System" pdf file. They make some conclusory statements without backing it up with data. For example, the AGS rating 0 broadens as the star length decreases. (See p. 63 "It''s readily apparent that the 50% star length makes the upper halves too steep. Performance suffers.") Why? Because shortening the star length increases the brightness. The presentation does not discuss however, how such a change affects contrast or scintillation. A more thorough study would plot the change in the dependent variables (contrast, fire, scintillation, etc.) as the star length is varied. Once plotted, a range can be found that maximizes the dependent variables. Perhaps they did not present all of the data, but with what has been presented, I''m not convinced all of their results (at the boundaries) are absolutely sound.

Jonas

-x-

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/6/2006 1:30:34 AM
Author: JJH


Perhaps they did not present all of the data...

Right...

Besides, although it is right that AGS's range is narrower, it does not overlap with GIA's. LINK


Anyway, I doubt that documenting the 'war of labs' helps much with shopping for one diamond. Unless you like this as a sport

 

[ursulawrite]

Sounds fab! I have an E, VVS1 and would LOVE a D, IF some day. I won''t take anything less for my upgrade in seven years...