The story of my ring's grading issue

[Texas Leaguer]

TL "weigh in" at 171.5 lbs.

Who told you about my New Year's resolution DF?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

You know what they say about silence.

Willy,
I did have a chance to review the stone. July spent several hours in the showroom comparing a variety of diamonds, including comparing the 1.94 AGS G VS2 to a 2.05 G VS2 GIA.
I wanted to give July a chance to post her observations here before I commented. As she mentions, she saw only subtle differences between any of the stones. I will let July speak for for herself, but I can say that she decided on another diamond, a bit larger in size.

For my part, I have reviewed the 1.94 AGS G in comparison with the 2.05 GIA G
( https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3784278.htm )
And they are very, very close. In my opinion they are both correctly graded. But I could be persuaded that the AGS is a low G and the GIA a high G.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I've read this in a few other threads as well. Re: That CBI internally grades all diamonds for color prior to sending them off to the lab, and if it comes back from AGS with a higher grade than their internally-assigned grade, that they'll send it back to be re-graded down. In fact, out of the threads/reports of AGS being "soft" on color, I've never seen any mention of a CBI diamond being appraised lower than expected.

I would hope that WF would do the same, but I've never heard anything about them sending stones back to be re-graded down.

Perhaps. From the appraisal photographs on the first page it does appear to have a brownish yellow tint. Not straight brown or champagne-y brown, but more like a dark/murky yellow or brown-yellow.

@TreeScientist , Yes we do the same. AGS grading is fundamental to the value proposition of our precision cut diamonds. Protecting their brand is protecting the Whiteflash brand.

I can tell you that AGSL is surprised by and appreciative of the merchants in our niche who take this longer view approach. Most merchants in the industry are more than happy to take the gift of a favorable yet errant lab grade.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Thanks @TL for the information. I figured that you were waiting on the OP to tell us her thoughts but appreciate your insight and information regarding WF's stance on grading stones prior to being sent to AGS.

Just because it was a point that was brought up, are the diamonds screened for any brown tint by WF or AGS? Would they be rejected for ACA's because of brown or champagne body color? Just not sure how that factors into coloring grading as it doesn't seem to be a favorable diamond attribute.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thanks, rockysalamander! I didn’t realize I’ve become more color sensitive. I’ll have to see how I feel about it after wearing it a little longer. The sparkle and brilliance is amazing though. Distracting while driving and even while trying to work.

I’m sorry again to OP for hijacking his post. I think everyone is anxiously awaiting the outcome of his trip to WF today. Hope it all works out for him and his wife.

@Dmndsr4evr11 ,
Very important observation you make here, and it is particularly relevant for diamond enthusiasts and collectors here. You might call it 'color creep'

As you look at more and more diamonds, and even as you look at your own diamond repeatedly over time and in different lighting environments, you can develop increasingly more sensitivity to color. A diamond that would look perfectly white to a novice, starts to reveal subtle shades to the more refined eye.

Just because you develop a more discerning eye does not necessarily mean that you are going to prefer whiter, but often it does. I know it did in my case. Early in my career I was solidly in the H-I camp. I did not think it made sense to pay the premium for any high color- they looked plenty white to me. Over time and seeing thousands of diamonds, I have come to really appreciate colorless stones. Provided they are precision cut of course!

Another thing to factor into the value of a diamond purchase with a good trade-up policy.

 

[Julyisjuly]

This is true, but did she look at higher colors as well? Telling the difference between an H and an I is much more difficult than telling the difference between, say, a D and a G...

I think the real question is, did she not like the color in the 1.94 "G" (or H/I) from a visual perception standpoint (because it looked dark or dingy in her home lighting), or did she not like it because she felt that she did not get what she paid for? If it's the former, being that she didn't like the color, then maybe sticking to a "true" G or even an F may be warranted. But if it's the latter, being that she felt cheated by the grading but didn't really mind the color, then yes, going for a larger "true" H or I that is correctly graded would make sense.

Hi, I think I am the later case. before I sent the 1.904 G stone to Appraiser, I didn't think about the color or pay attention to the color at all and I was very happy with its sparkle. However, when I was told the G is not really like a G, i felt I wasted money. In the show room yesterday, I can only see very subtle differences,and my fiancée(husband to be) can't see anything different. I went to pick a I.
See attached. G-I-Tiffany.

 

[Karl_K]

Just because you develop a more discerning eye does not necessarily mean that you are going to prefer whiter, but often it does. I know it did in my case. Early in my career I was solidly in the H-I camp. I did not think it made sense to pay the premium for any high color- they looked plenty white to me. Over time and seeing thousands of diamonds, I have come to really appreciate colorless stones. Provided they are precision cut of course!

I do not have great color perception, for example I am helpless at picking out the different shades of white paint.
That said:
I was just the opposite as I got more experience I appreciated the lower colors more.
I like them all but there is just something about yellows in the nmop and even lower range, well cut of course, that speaks to me..
The are bright white in some lighting, kinda creamy yellow in others and in between depending on lighting.
I think it adds an interesting character to the diamonds performance that I enjoy.
That is also the reason I like and enjoy very strong florescence it adds interesting character.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thanks @TL for the information. I figured that you were waiting on the OP to tell us her thoughts but appreciate your insight and information regarding WF's stance on grading stones prior to being sent to AGS.

Just because it was a point that was brought up, are the diamonds screened for any brown tint by WF or AGS? Would they be rejected for ACA's because of brown or champagne body color? Just not sure how that factors into coloring grading as it doesn't seem to be a favorable diamond attribute.

MGR, We see very few diamonds come through our production with brown tones. And despite what some of the photos might have looked like of the stone in this thread, it does not appear to have brown.
Neither GIA nor AGS discriminates between yellow and brown in their color grading system in the colorless and near colorless ranges. GIA does designate hues in the lower color ranges where those hues can be more easily discerned. Also considering that it is possible to have both yellow and brown undertones in a diamond, slicing and dicing hue in the normal range becomes complicated. AGS does not do it at all in the normal range. *They have recently launched fancy color grading for colors in the brown range.

If you poll the trade you will find that many professionals actually feel a brown undertone allows diamonds to appear whiter from face up than the same color grade with yellow undertone. So, this can be rightly considered a taste factor.

A diamond with brown undertone would therefore not be automatically eliminated from consideration for A CUT ABOVE if all other specs and qualifications were met. But like I say, they would be rare in our inventory.

 

[Dancing Fire]

From the photos the I with VSB looks whiter than the H. Does it appear that way IRL? Curious to know how your AGS H compares to your wife's!

I think b/c of the yellow background of the box. I sold the Octavia so I can't compare the two stone.

I haven't compare it to my wife's GIA H yet.

 

[TreeScientist]

@TreeScientist , Yes we do the same. AGS grading is fundamental to the value proposition of our precision cut diamonds. Protecting their brand is protecting the Whiteflash brand.

I can tell you that AGSL is surprised by and appreciative of the merchants in our niche who take this longer view approach. Most merchants in the industry are more than happy to take the gift of a favorable yet errant lab grade.

It's good to hear that WF also follows this principle.

Hi, I think I am the later case. before I sent the 1.904 G stone to Appraiser, I didn't think about the color or pay attention to the color at all and I was very happy with its sparkle. However, when I was told the G is not really like a G, i felt I wasted money. In the show room yesterday, I can only see very subtle differences,and my fiancée(husband to be) can't see anything different. I went to pick a I.
See attached. G-I-Tiffany.

Glad to hear you found a stone that you're happy with. As long as you now feel like you got what you paid for, that's all that matters. And hey, a larger stone that looks the same to your (and your fiancé's) eyes is never a bad thing.

 

[Stephan]

A diamond with brown undertone would therefore not be automatically eliminated from consideration for A CUT ABOVE if all other specs and qualifications were met. But like I say, they would be rare in our inventory.

Interesting, and yes it's a personal preference matter.
Does the statement above also apply to grey diamonds (J or better)?

 

[CareBear]

Hi, I think I am the later case. before I sent the 1.904 G stone to Appraiser, I didn't think about the color or pay attention to the color at all and I was very happy with its sparkle. However, when I was told the G is not really like a G, i felt I wasted money. In the show room yesterday, I can only see very subtle differences,and my fiancée(husband to be) can't see anything different. I went to pick a I.
See attached. G-I-Tiffany.

Would you mind sharing the specs of the I? I think you made a great decision! Even though it looks slightly more tinted than the 1.94 G, I like it more because looks brighter!

 

[prs]

Hi, I think I am the later case. before I sent the 1.904 G stone to Appraiser, I didn't think about the color or pay attention to the color at all and I was very happy with its sparkle. However, when I was told the G is not really like a G, i felt I wasted money. In the show room yesterday, I can only see very subtle differences,and my fiancée(husband to be) can't see anything different. I went to pick a I.
See attached. G-I-Tiffany.

I am a novice at comparing diamond color grades but, in the top photo, the I diamond definitely looks whiter than the G.

 

[Julyisjuly]

However, on my way back to Dallas, I felt the I color is slightly less sparkle due to the cut proportion. I don't know whether I rushed the swap decision on the spot. Or maybe I shall just wait for more inventory to come in after new year.
After new year, we will be back to California and won't have a chance to go to WF again.

The I has a bigger table and lower crown height ( the 14.7 crown height bugs me a bit when I looked at the proportion)
The reason I picked it out: It looked slightly slightly whiter in person compared to other I.
I think I too focused on choosing a best-value color when I was in the show room yesterday......
since I have known that the G has perfect cut and potentially I was biased in my mind.
I told the sales lady, I can see a bit difference in terms of fire. But whiteflash never comments on which is more sparkle, no matter in person or via email/call. They think their ACAs also exactly same sparkle/fire.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068031.htm

Added some random background music to cover the conversation.
I posted two Videos here, which one to you guys is more lively?

At the very end, we were both tired after the long drive and just called it a day. Oh gosh, it's so complicated to choose a diamond, my husband to be was joking that he shall just buy me the same value of gold coins.

 

[Julyisjuly]

This is the cut of the I

 

[Stephan]

I can't see any problem with the I-VS2.

 

[WillyDiamond]

I cannot tell the difference

 

[Stephan]

When comparing 2 diamonds from a short distance, the smaller one often will look more sparkly.
This changes when you look from a bigger distance.

 

[Tophat1]

They both have amazing performance. I would have chose the I as well due to value. In fact, I have a 1.84 I ACA and love it!

 

[MissGotRocks]

MGR, We see very few diamonds come through our production with brown tones. And despite what some of the photos might have looked like of the stone in this thread, it does not appear to have brown.
Neither GIA nor AGS discriminates between yellow and brown in their color grading system in the colorless and near colorless ranges. GIA does designate hues in the lower color ranges where those hues can be more easily discerned. Also considering that it is possible to have both yellow and brown undertones in a diamond, slicing and dicing hue in the normal range becomes complicated. AGS does not do it at all in the normal range. *They have recently launched fancy color grading for colors in the brown range.

If you poll the trade you will find that many professionals actually feel a brown undertone allows diamonds to appear whiter from face up than the same color grade with yellow undertone. So, this can be rightly considered a taste factor.

A diamond with brown undertone would therefore not be automatically eliminated from consideration for A CUT ABOVE if all other specs and qualifications were met. But like I say, they would be rare in our inventory.

Thanks for the info - much appreciated!

 

[CareBear]

However, on my way back to Dallas, I felt the I color is slightly less sparkle due to the cut proportion. I don't know whether I rushed the swap decision on the spot. Or maybe I shall just wait for more inventory to come in after new year.
After new year, we will be back to California and won't have a chance to go to WF again.

The I has a bigger table and lower crown height ( the 14.7 crown height bugs me a bit when I looked at the proportion)
The reason I picked it out: It looked slightly slightly whiter in person compared to other I.
I think I too focused on choosing a best-value color when I was in the show room yesterday......
since I have known that the G has perfect cut and potentially I was biased in my mind.
I told the sales lady, I can see a bit difference in terms of fire. But whiteflash never comments on which is more sparkle, no matter in person or via email/call. They think their ACAs also exactly same sparkle/fire.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068031.htm

Added some random background music to cover the conversation.
I posted two Videos here, which one to you guys is more lively?

At the very end, we were both tired after the long drive and just called it a day. Oh gosh, it's so complicated to choose a diamond, my husband to be was joking that he shall just buy me the same value of gold coins.

The I VS2 has very similar proportions to my stone, which is probably why I was drawn to it in the photos. A 34.1/40.8 combo will look brighter and therefore appear whiter (for the same color) and bigger (for the same diameter). The shallower depth also means you gain another 0.1mm for the same carat weight. I did not notice any loss in fire when I upgraded to my current stone.
Were you able to return the 1.94, or are you forced to make a decision right now because you are no longer within the return period?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Interesting, and yes it's a personal preference matter.
Does the statement above also apply to grey diamonds (J or better)?

Potentially, but not necessarily. I don't know much about the cause of grey hue in diamonds. If it is in any way related to an aspect that makes the stone less transparent, it would be eliminated for that reason alone. I don't think I have ever seen a stone with a grey hue come through our production.

I can envision a grey appearance being caused by clouds of a peculiar nature. In order to create the grey visual appearance they would probably have to be dense enough in the diamond to diminish transparency appreciably. But it is possible there could be some rare atomic defect that could cause absorbtion of wavelengths such that the gray appearance is produced. Yet, even then it might fail for impeding light performance. Pure speculation on my part.

 

[Julyisjuly]

The I VS2 has very similar proportions to my stone, which is probably why I was drawn to it in the photos. A 34.1/40.8 combo will look brighter and therefore appear whiter (for the same color) and bigger (for the same diameter). The shallower depth also means you gain another 0.1mm for the same carat weight. I did not notice any loss in fire when I upgraded to my current stone.
Were you able to return the 1.94, or are you forced to make a decision right now because you are no longer within the return period?

I am able to return the 1.94. I just received the 1.94 on Decembet19, still within 30 days.

 

[MissGotRocks]

MGR, We see very few diamonds come through our production with brown tones. And despite what some of the photos might have looked like of the stone in this thread, it does not appear to have brown.
Neither GIA nor AGS discriminates between yellow and brown in their color grading system in the colorless and near colorless ranges. GIA does designate hues in the lower color ranges where those hues can be more easily discerned. Also considering that it is possible to have both yellow and brown undertones in a diamond, slicing and dicing hue in the normal range becomes complicated. AGS does not do it at all in the normal range. *They have recently launched fancy color grading for colors in the brown range.

If you poll the trade you will find that many professionals actually feel a brown undertone allows diamonds to appear whiter from face up than the same color grade with yellow undertone. So, this can be rightly considered a taste factor.

A diamond with brown undertone would therefore not be automatically eliminated from consideration for A CUT ABOVE if all other specs and qualifications were met. But like I say, they would be rare in our inventory.

Thanks so much as always for the info - always so much to learn about!

 

[Stephan]

The performance of this I-VS2 is really nice.
Now honestly, I'm not fan of the clarity because I can see something that is not on the plot and reflects in multiple places.
Take this with a pinch of salt because VS1 is the lowest I would go for a 1.5+ ct, and a lot of people here will disagree with that and happily advice you to buy SI1 or even SI2.
Here is a collage to show what I mean.

 

[Stephan]

I can envision a grey appearance being caused by clouds of a peculiar nature. In order to create the grey visual appearance they would probably have to be dense enough in the diamond to diminish transparency appreciably. But it is possible there could be some rare atomic defect that could cause absorbtion of wavelengths such that the gray appearance is produced. Yet, even then it might fail for impeding light performance. Pure speculation on my part.

I only had one obvious grey diamond, it was a VS1 (GIA J, AGS I) bought on Blue Nile long before they had online videos of the actual diamonds. If clouds were the problem, they were probably so small that they were not visible with a 10x loupe => VS1.

 

[LLJsmom]

The performance of this I-VS2 is really nice.
Now honestly, I'm not fan of the clarity because I can see something that is not on the plot and reflects in multiple places.
Take this with a pinch of salt because VS1 is the lowest I would go for a 1.5+ ct, and a lot of people here will disagree with that and happily advice you to buy SI1 or even SI2.
Here is a collage to show what I mean.

I have seen that in diamonds before and that bugs me too. I would not select a diamond that exhibits that. But that is just me.

 

[Stephan]

I have seen that in diamonds before and that bugs me too. I would not select a diamond that exhibits that. But that is just me.

"Clouds not shown" is my guess.

 

[LLJsmom]

However, on my way back to Dallas, I felt the I color is slightly less sparkle due to the cut proportion. I don't know whether I rushed the swap decision on the spot. Or maybe I shall just wait for more inventory to come in after new year.
After new year, we will be back to California and won't have a chance to go to WF again.

The I has a bigger table and lower crown height ( the 14.7 crown height bugs me a bit when I looked at the proportion)
The reason I picked it out: It looked slightly slightly whiter in person compared to other I.
I think I too focused on choosing a best-value color when I was in the show room yesterday......
since I have known that the G has perfect cut and potentially I was biased in my mind.
I told the sales lady, I can see a bit difference in terms of fire. But whiteflash never comments on which is more sparkle, no matter in person or via email/call. They think their ACAs also exactly same sparkle/fire.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4068031.htm

Added some random background music to cover the conversation.
I posted two Videos here, which one to you guys is more lively?

At the very end, we were both tired after the long drive and just called it a day. Oh gosh, it's so complicated to choose a diamond, my husband to be was joking that he shall just buy me the same value of gold coins.

Which did you end up choosing? I think in both I preferred the stone on your ring finger. But videos in an uncontrolled environment are hard to rely upon. Only you could tell which draws your eye more.

 

[TreeScientist]

"Clouds not shown" is my guess.

Not necessarily. Or at least not entirely. I've seen those marks on the surface of a few diamonds. I would guess that it's either surface graining that may not have been prevalent enough to be noted, or polish marks that were not noticeable enough to knock the polish grade down to 1.​