Thanks GOG and Rich Sherwood

[Skybluewater]

I just purchased my first internet diamond today!

The people at Good Old Gold were great to deal with. The GOG site has so much information on it, it is AWESOME! It really is the Ultimate Diamond Information Site Rhino is to be congratulated for posting so much information on each one of his stones! It is an odd experience searching for a diamond without being able to see the stone in person but all the information Jonathan puts out has to be the next best thing.

Also thanks to Richard Sherwood for his professional job in appraising the stone. At one point in my search I started considering a second stone. While Rich was more than willing to do a an appraisal on the second stone, I was impressed when he took the time to call me and give he his thoughts rather just be in a rush to pocket a second appraisal fee!

Also thanks for Barry of SuperbCert and Todd of NiceIce for participating in my search. Your comments and thoughts were much appreciated.

 

[Chas!]

Skyblue, What diamond did you get?

 

[fire&ice]

Yes, specs & pics are mandatory!

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

Kudoos to Rhino & Rich..

Really like the style of Rich's appraisal's and Jonathan's service is great!

 

[Skybluewater]

Report: AGS
Shape: Round Brillinat
Carat: .657
Color: H (Richard Sherwood says it's a G)
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 61.9
Table: 55.7
Crown Angle: 34.0
Crown %: 14.8
Pavilion Angle: 40.9
Pavilion %: 43.1
Girdle: 1.4%-2.1%, Sl. Thick
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Proportion: Ideal
Culet: .07
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 5.56 - 5.59 x 3.46

GOG .657 H SI1 H&A

 

[Skybluewater]

picture from Richard Sherwood

 

[Skybluewater]

another picture from Richard Sherwood

 

[Skybluewater]

Richard Sherwood's appraisal 1 of 4

 

[Skybluewater]

Richard Sherwood's appraisal 2 of 4

 

[Skybluewater]

Richard Sherwood's appraisal 3 of 4

 

[Skybluewater]

Richard Sherwood's appraisal 4 of 4

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Patrick, thank you for posting photos of the appraisal. On reviewing them, I realize I made a typo on the DiamCalc results on the Optical Analysis page. Although the numbers are correct, the word description on the non-leakage and contrast factors should both be "Very Good".

Currently, one says "Very Good to Good" and the other says "Good to Very Good". Both of those should be listed as "Very Good".

I'll send you the revised page on that tomorrow.

It was great working with ya.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Patrick's diamond was interesting in that I totally disagreed with the "H" grading assigned by AGS.

Usually, I keep my mouth shut and defer to the major lab's grade if I think the difference between my grading and a major lab's is close.

In Patrick's case, I just couldn't bring myself to sign my name to an "H" color, when I clearly felt the diamond had been under graded. Not only is it a "G" in my opinion, but a solid "G" at that. Not a borderline grade at all.

I would love to see that diamond graded on Marty Haske's SAS-2000 spectrophotometer as a double check on the AGS grading.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

That first photo was taken under LED lighting, while the second one was taken under incandescent lighting.

Really a spectacular stone. Pleasure to appraise.

 

[pinkflamingo]

Oh, awesome! I am so excited- I can hardly wait- I am seeing Richard for the first time on Wednesday. Thanks for posting all of that!!

 

[fire&ice]

Beautiful stone - it looks like Sky blue water!

Wow Rich, even your signature is complete & classy! Kudos!

 

[Rhino]

Hey skyblue!

Thanks for the kudos. You've been a pleasure to serve. I know there have been other temptations on your journey and I appreciate the open communication and willingness to stick it out with us. Your research and diligence has resulted in an extraordinary find and we are thankful to have been able to be of service to you. We hope we haven't seen the last of you.

Kind regards,
Jonathan and the GOG staff

 

[noobie]

Wow, thanks for posting the pictures.




A question for Rich and Jonathan. The AGS cert lists the crown angle and pavilion angle at 34.1 and 41 respectively. GOG's Meagscope has them at 34.0 and 40.9. Rich lists them at 34.5 and 41.




Is the variance in the crown angle due to machine calibration or is it due to averaging and where it is taken?

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 4/19/2004 10:37:10 PM noobie wrote:







Wow, thanks for posting the pictures.




A question for Rich and Jonathan. The AGS cert lists the crown angle and pavilion angle at 34.1 and 41 respectively. GOG's Meagscope has them at 34.0 and 40.9. Rich lists them at 34.5 and 41.




Is the variance in the crown angle due to machine calibration or is it due to averaging and where it is taken?

----------------

Sorry I had overlooked this question noobie. Oftentimes when measuring diamonds between various Sarin/MegaScope devices we find there to be slight variances from one machine to another. A difference of .1 degree is nothing to be concerned about. What's most important to us are the optical results of the diamond in question and not necessarily the numbers (although we do of course look at those too).

Regards,

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 4/25/2004 6:06:12 PM Rhino wrote:

----------------
On 4/19/2004 10:37:10 PM noobie wrote:







Wow, thanks for posting the pictures.




A question for Rich and Jonathan. The AGS cert lists the crown angle and pavilion angle at 34.1 and 41 respectively. GOG's Meagscope has them at 34.0 and 40.9. Rich lists them at 34.5 and 41.




Is the variance in the crown angle due to machine calibration or is it due to averaging and where it is taken?

----------------

Sorry I had overlooked this question noobie. Oftentimes when measuring diamonds between various Sarin/MegaScope devices we find there to be slight variances from one machine to another. A difference of .1 degree is nothing to be concerned about. What's most important to us are the optical results of the diamond in question and not necessarily the numbers (although we do of course look at those too).

Regards,

----------------

Thanks for the response Rhino, I understand that precision of 0.1 between the devices is acceptable and common. I was wondering more about the 0.5 difference in the appraisal and AGS and the differences in depth. I guess this is along the lines some of niceice's discussions regarding sarin/megascope accuracy and calibration.

Skyblue: Sorry, I didn't want to take away from you sharing a beautiful stone. Regardles of the measurements, Rhino is right, the visual confirmation of your stunning diamond is the most important.

 

[Skybluewater]

Pictures of the completed ring. The setting is Stuller #10634. I think GOG did a great job with the ring:

Picture taken by GOG.

Pictures taken by me!

She said yes by the way!

 

[noobie]

Looks great and congratulations are in order as well!




BTW what did you use to take the pictures? They turned out very well.

 

[Skybluewater]

Thanks!

My pictures were take with a Nikon CoolPix 4300!

 

[MRHammar]

wow! i think you have chosen a stunner! your special someone is gonna be thrilled

congrats on a great find!

-matt

 

[Rhino]

Hi Sky! Wow, those are some excellent macro shots! I find the Nikon's to do really well with digital macro photography.