- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 15,808
'guess any chatter is better than none... as long as it is about diamonds and buyers browse the net
GIA color grading
- Thread starter kevinraja
- Start date
- Status
windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
AND NOTICE THE VENDORS NEVER CHIME IN!
Richard Sherwood
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,924
From my experience, faint to medium fluorescence usually has no effect on perceived body color, and subsequently the color grade it receives.
It's only with strong and very strong fluorescence that I've noticed a shift in perceived body color, and not always then.
If so, it's usually a one color grade shift, with a two grade shift being unusual.
This can go both ways as well. A diamond with strong blue fluorescence may look whiter in natural daylight, while a diamond with strong yellow fluorescence may look yellower.
In my opinion, a large part of the reason for slight discounts on fine white diamonds with medium blue fluorescence is because of heightened dealer sensitivity to the public's awareness of fluorescence, rather than any actual effect which medium blue fluorescence has on the daylight visual presentation of a stone (which is usually none).
Still, I'm disturbed by GIA's apparent change in diamond color grading technique. Something which they made such a point of for so long, and then dropped with no comment. On a large, high quality stone with strong blue fluorescence we can be talking about a significant amount of money between one color grade or another. If I were a consumer I'd want to know without a doubt what my baseline body color was before any modification by the influence of fluorescence.
The technique using filtered light is the safe way to go, and I applaud AGS for not following GIA's practice, but again giving the consumer more extensive information on which to base their buying decision. This is the technique which I am comfortable with as well. Additionally, to provide more comprehensive service in this area, I've ordered Marty's SAS-2000 spectrophotometer, which has a UV blocking filter that takes fluorescence out of the color grading equation.
It's only with strong and very strong fluorescence that I've noticed a shift in perceived body color, and not always then.
If so, it's usually a one color grade shift, with a two grade shift being unusual.
This can go both ways as well. A diamond with strong blue fluorescence may look whiter in natural daylight, while a diamond with strong yellow fluorescence may look yellower.
In my opinion, a large part of the reason for slight discounts on fine white diamonds with medium blue fluorescence is because of heightened dealer sensitivity to the public's awareness of fluorescence, rather than any actual effect which medium blue fluorescence has on the daylight visual presentation of a stone (which is usually none).
Still, I'm disturbed by GIA's apparent change in diamond color grading technique. Something which they made such a point of for so long, and then dropped with no comment. On a large, high quality stone with strong blue fluorescence we can be talking about a significant amount of money between one color grade or another. If I were a consumer I'd want to know without a doubt what my baseline body color was before any modification by the influence of fluorescence.
The technique using filtered light is the safe way to go, and I applaud AGS for not following GIA's practice, but again giving the consumer more extensive information on which to base their buying decision. This is the technique which I am comfortable with as well. Additionally, to provide more comprehensive service in this area, I've ordered Marty's SAS-2000 spectrophotometer, which has a UV blocking filter that takes fluorescence out of the color grading equation.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Actually if you do a search these questions have been asked and answered before.
Usually I was the one asking the questions.
The bottom line on it is that there is a lot that sux in the diamond industry but there are also some very good people who do their best to make others happy.
In the overall scheme of things its just about shiny rocks.
Kinda ridicules don''t ya think?
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
The potential lawsuit would have to focus on how GIA was not following the standard method defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) . The likely result penalty would be a consent decree for GIA to only use UV filtered light to color grade. This would likely drive the entire world to use UV free light for color grading (something I think would improve consistency).
The logic of the case is as follows: CFR defines that stong blue, fluoresence diamonds, must be graded by UV free light in order to use the term Blue-White.
Hence the CFR sets the standard that color grading of fluoresence diamonds is to be done with UV free light. (GIA could theorectically raise a claim here that they are not bound to that - but they would likely have a very hard "uphill" battle to win on that point as color grading for blue-white diamonds is already defined, and why would you have 2 standards for how to color grade fluoresence dimanods: The comon sense, and logical extension is to use UV free light on all color grading). Many lawsuits in other areas concering various standards have fought simmilar situations and case law is overwhelmingly on the side of applying the defined method to the other cases, unless there can be presented really good reasons not to).
I do not see this as destroying value of something that was previously graded. Instead it applies the proper value.
A win would of course severaly affect the credibility of GIA, and with enough publicity might just put them out of business (the blue-white grading scandal all over again?).
Ana; your D diamond with Medium Blue Fluorescence might possibly be an E, but would not be an F. My understanding after talkeing with several people who had graded a bunch of these types of diamonds is that the color shift only starts to occur in a good medium blue and extends to the strong blue (where a 2 color shift is possible for the right stone).
Of couse, what is "good medium blue" What is "Strong Blue"? Subjectivity strikes again.
What surprises me is that this would be something that would be so easy to instrument. The amount of fluoresence is easily measurable.
Perry
The logic of the case is as follows: CFR defines that stong blue, fluoresence diamonds, must be graded by UV free light in order to use the term Blue-White.
Hence the CFR sets the standard that color grading of fluoresence diamonds is to be done with UV free light. (GIA could theorectically raise a claim here that they are not bound to that - but they would likely have a very hard "uphill" battle to win on that point as color grading for blue-white diamonds is already defined, and why would you have 2 standards for how to color grade fluoresence dimanods: The comon sense, and logical extension is to use UV free light on all color grading). Many lawsuits in other areas concering various standards have fought simmilar situations and case law is overwhelmingly on the side of applying the defined method to the other cases, unless there can be presented really good reasons not to).
I do not see this as destroying value of something that was previously graded. Instead it applies the proper value.
A win would of course severaly affect the credibility of GIA, and with enough publicity might just put them out of business (the blue-white grading scandal all over again?).
Ana; your D diamond with Medium Blue Fluorescence might possibly be an E, but would not be an F. My understanding after talkeing with several people who had graded a bunch of these types of diamonds is that the color shift only starts to occur in a good medium blue and extends to the strong blue (where a 2 color shift is possible for the right stone).
Of couse, what is "good medium blue" What is "Strong Blue"? Subjectivity strikes again.
What surprises me is that this would be something that would be so easy to instrument. The amount of fluoresence is easily measurable.
Perry
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,150
Date: 1/16/2005 108:29 AM
Author: windowshopper
okay off topic but i have a great idea for a novel:
rabble rouser from Pricescope goes after GIA and diamond industry--they put out a hit on him.................. Kevin which movie star should play you?
Die Hard VII - The wrath of the WindowShopper
Staring Bruce Willis as the Windowshopper
Arnold Swartzenegger as William Boyajian
And Tom Cruise as the heroic jewelry appraiser who saves the day
Also staring Sharon Stone as the useless but lovely costar who turns out to be the mastermind behind it all through her secret alias – Richard Sherwood.
Richard Sherwood
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,924
Just watch me crossing my legs...
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,150
Are you thinking of ''Basic Instinct'' -- or ''The Crying Game''?
Richard Sherwood
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,924
Oh geeez, The Crying Game.
I'd forgotten all about that movie.
I just about died when that fellow couldn't stop throwing up after making out with the guy who he thought was a girl...
The "girl" stood at the door watching him hug the toilet, and said "Geeez, you're really starting to make me feel bad", or something to that effect.
Hah hah hah... A classic.
Just like Sharon mesmerizing all those male detectives in the interogation room. She was in complete control of all those seasoned detectives with merely a crossing of her legs.
Great flicks.
I'd forgotten all about that movie.
I just about died when that fellow couldn't stop throwing up after making out with the guy who he thought was a girl...
The "girl" stood at the door watching him hug the toilet, and said "Geeez, you're really starting to make me feel bad", or something to that effect.
Hah hah hah... A classic.
Just like Sharon mesmerizing all those male detectives in the interogation room. She was in complete control of all those seasoned detectives with merely a crossing of her legs.
Great flicks.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,695
Just remember, the above quote was followed immediately by:
"Im not an expert on diamonds :}"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There are many objective facts in diamond grading right now. There are some subjective grades and also a lack of standards for certain grading. In a very short period of time several more of these subjective excuses will dissappear as new technology wil shortly be in use that will mercilessly stick to standard operating rules and measure certain elements which concern us in diamonds with total objectivity. Color grading and fluorescent strength along with light performance will be among the first relatively subjective elements to come under operating standards and consistent application.
Value is still elusive because the market is free to adjust to all the forces which affect it. You can know everything down to the cold facts, but when dealing with a natural product, there are things you can''t control.
windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
I LOVE BRUCE WILLIS---BUT SINCE I AM A WOMAN HOW ABOUT SOMEONE WITH BOOBS? AND WHO IS WILLIAM BOYAIJAIN SOMEONE GIA VILLAIN???????????Date: 1/16/2005 1:10:55 PM
Author: denverappraiser
Date: 1/16/2005 108:29 AM
Author: windowshopper
okay off topic but i have a great idea for a novel:
rabble rouser from Pricescope goes after GIA and diamond industry--they put out a hit on him.................. Kevin which movie star should play you?
Die Hard VII - The wrath of the WindowShopper
Staring Bruce Willis as the Windowshopper
Arnold Swartzenegger as William Boyajian
And Tom Cruise as the heroic jewelry appraiser who saves the day.
Also staring Sharon Stone as the useless but lovely costar who turns out to be the mastermind behind it all through her secret alias – Richard Sherwood.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,150
If Rich Sherwood can be played by Sharon Stone, what''s wrong with you being played by Bruce Willis? Ok, how about Uma Thurman as in ''Kill Bill''?
Bill Boyajian is the president of GIA.
Neil
Bill Boyajian is the president of GIA.
Neil
windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
true.................i will take bruce willis over uma thurman anyday (i actually look more like him than her!
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Ok Dave how about this:
We take a diamond your machine your pushing grades a G.
Send it to 5 labs and 5 appraisers if it comes back as anything but a G you agree to pay the charity of my choice $100000.00.
Deal?
Yea didnt think so.
Machines dont help when the underlying sytem is flawed.
We take a diamond your machine your pushing grades a G.
Send it to 5 labs and 5 appraisers if it comes back as anything but a G you agree to pay the charity of my choice $100000.00.
Deal?
Yea didnt think so.
Machines dont help when the underlying sytem is flawed.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,695
Yes, the machine I am "pushing" may not agree with other labs because they don''t agree anyway without the machine right now. What I am hoping to see is the adoption by major grading labs of a standard machine that when employed to grade color will always grade it with the same "standards". It sees, measures, light and color in a consistent manner. Each lab using these device will get objective measures, within very close tolerances, equating to an identical result. How labs choose to use that result remains a question, as there still is no one individual or entity in charge. But color grading will no longer be subjective and just based on opinion. It will be objective because it will be based on solid measurements that don''t vary from day to day or from one machine to another.
If various labs use the same technology, yet one calls stone A an F color and the other calls stone A a G color, then the whole world will know that one lab differs from the other in a material way. No participating lab can hide behind the old subjectivity excuse, while in fact, one could show they are not grading the same with the same metric supplied from the device. While some of you may be negative about standardization, I think it is what most people would prefer. It is an honest way to conduct ourselves. I don''t want to bet on the future since I don''t have a crystal ball and I am not a fortune teller. It is preferable to see good things unfold slowly than not at all. It will be a good thing to see credibility improved in the diamond business by better standardization of reporting data.
If various labs use the same technology, yet one calls stone A an F color and the other calls stone A a G color, then the whole world will know that one lab differs from the other in a material way. No participating lab can hide behind the old subjectivity excuse, while in fact, one could show they are not grading the same with the same metric supplied from the device. While some of you may be negative about standardization, I think it is what most people would prefer. It is an honest way to conduct ourselves. I don''t want to bet on the future since I don''t have a crystal ball and I am not a fortune teller. It is preferable to see good things unfold slowly than not at all. It will be a good thing to see credibility improved in the diamond business by better standardization of reporting data.
windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
i agree --i think there are many "oldtimers" in this business who view it as a more artistic, fluid "science" and that standardization is a grotesque word. But there is a deep and inherent mistrust of the business as whole for many reasons hinging on the sheer amount of money people spend and the value they place in such sentimental and expensive items. I think its incredibly sleazy of the GIA to change its methodologies with no disclosure to the public. The paying consumer. As a matter of fact GIA should put a statement on its certificate issued for any stone with fluorescence (for this ex we are discussing) that states clearly that the color grade may not be accurate due to fluor that is not screened or something-------------I for one would use that as a serious negotiation tool. You would think other labs would lobby/press for this as there would be more consumer pressure for other lab certificates..............
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,477
I am a dissenting voice.
I am not known to be a great lover of GIA, so pehaps I can be takne seriously?
GIA have made some small announcements about this somewhere - they suggest that most everyday environ''s have some UY light, and so diamonds should be color graded in the type of light they are viewed in. I think that is reasonable.
They made these changes after a very big survey study that is published on their website. They found little or no negative impact and some postive effects from Fluoro.
Since the market was already lowering prices for Fluoro stones - maaybe they secretly conspired to do something that would help these diamonds?
Although in their own survey they did not detect the color improvements during actual grading - they were only evident in face up appearance.
Whatever their motivations, I have no problem with it - even though it may have been a political decision.
I am not known to be a great lover of GIA, so pehaps I can be takne seriously?
GIA have made some small announcements about this somewhere - they suggest that most everyday environ''s have some UY light, and so diamonds should be color graded in the type of light they are viewed in. I think that is reasonable.
They made these changes after a very big survey study that is published on their website. They found little or no negative impact and some postive effects from Fluoro.
Since the market was already lowering prices for Fluoro stones - maaybe they secretly conspired to do something that would help these diamonds?
Although in their own survey they did not detect the color improvements during actual grading - they were only evident in face up appearance.
Whatever their motivations, I have no problem with it - even though it may have been a political decision.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
I''ve read the GIA study, which seemed to be quite fair.
As far as color grading though. Fact is that most office, store, and home lighting has little UV. You have to go into sunlight, or halogen bulbs, or some other specialty light bulbs, to get much UV.
I will note that the amount of long wave UV is highly dependent on elevation and latitude in the world. If I recall correctly, the NE US at or near SeaLevel has like 1/4 of the long wave UV as the tip of Florida. Then much of the western US is at considerable evevation - which again affects UV. So claiming that there was not that much UV at GIA headquartes, and therefore it does not matter much - is not really that applicable to a world market. A diamond that does not color shift at the GIA, may well color shift elsewhere in the world where the UV intensities are higher.
This is one heck of an argument to grade color without UV.
NASA has some great maps on long wave UV intensities of the world (short wave UV is blocked by the upper atmoshere) if anyone wants to do more research (and check my memories).
I do agree with Dave on standardization and machine reading of color and fluoresence. Hopefully cut and polish can also be accurately machine graded as well someday. That only leaves clarity as the one item that may be left to some subjectivity.
Perry
Perry
As far as color grading though. Fact is that most office, store, and home lighting has little UV. You have to go into sunlight, or halogen bulbs, or some other specialty light bulbs, to get much UV.
I will note that the amount of long wave UV is highly dependent on elevation and latitude in the world. If I recall correctly, the NE US at or near SeaLevel has like 1/4 of the long wave UV as the tip of Florida. Then much of the western US is at considerable evevation - which again affects UV. So claiming that there was not that much UV at GIA headquartes, and therefore it does not matter much - is not really that applicable to a world market. A diamond that does not color shift at the GIA, may well color shift elsewhere in the world where the UV intensities are higher.
This is one heck of an argument to grade color without UV.
NASA has some great maps on long wave UV intensities of the world (short wave UV is blocked by the upper atmoshere) if anyone wants to do more research (and check my memories).
I do agree with Dave on standardization and machine reading of color and fluoresence. Hopefully cut and polish can also be accurately machine graded as well someday. That only leaves clarity as the one item that may be left to some subjectivity.
Perry
Perry
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,477
ImaGem is attempting to grade the lot.
A conveyor belt of diamonds goes in one end of a black box, and diamonds packaged with printed certs come out the other end.
(Dave you might like to do a better explanation
)
A conveyor belt of diamonds goes in one end of a black box, and diamonds packaged with printed certs come out the other end.
(Dave you might like to do a better explanation
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 15,808
There''s no turning back, Garry, isn''t it ? No turning back to grading without techie toys that is
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,695
Garry: I like the conveyor belt metaphor.
Diamonds from the cutter go in one end of the machine and bubble packed goodies poop out the other end accompanied by ironclad doocumentation right at the feet of consumers and priced already with bar coded security tags.....No human intervention required.
Not seriously...please.
Automation of certain things is good, but there must continue to be many human factors. I think we will find many areas where we can haggle over the details of various similar diamonds even when grading is done in a standard way. No matter how you grade them they are all not identical.
Diamonds from the cutter go in one end of the machine and bubble packed goodies poop out the other end accompanied by ironclad doocumentation right at the feet of consumers and priced already with bar coded security tags.....No human intervention required.
Automation of certain things is good, but there must continue to be many human factors. I think we will find many areas where we can haggle over the details of various similar diamonds even when grading is done in a standard way. No matter how you grade them they are all not identical.
gia colour grading does indeed filter out fluorescence. anyone who says it doesn''t is wrong.
as an aside, it may be of interest to know that in the 1960s fluorescent diamonds were greatly in demand, because people thought that they were better. now, people think that no fluorescence is better. perception is subjective. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. you may as well try and create a system to grade whether van gogh or rembrandt was better, or a scale to rate how good a song is.
let''s not forget, 500 years ago the greatest minds in the world were CERTAIN that the world was flat.
john
as an aside, it may be of interest to know that in the 1960s fluorescent diamonds were greatly in demand, because people thought that they were better. now, people think that no fluorescence is better. perception is subjective. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. you may as well try and create a system to grade whether van gogh or rembrandt was better, or a scale to rate how good a song is.
let''s not forget, 500 years ago the greatest minds in the world were CERTAIN that the world was flat.
john
windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
JOHNNYA
THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING PRICESCOPE AND FOR YOUR VERY FIRST POST--------------HOWEVER PLEASE READ THIS EARLIER POST FROM VALERIA 101.
"If you have an afternoon .... there is allot of detail about what lighting GIA uses or used by Martin Haske on the site of Adamas Lab (link). He has been posting on Pricescope too. ''Guess the summary of Adamas records is that GIA gradually decided to give up filtering UW out of the standard grading environment, for better or worse. Actually, once you read their tytle, there is no turning back from the following spectrophotometry diagrams. The intro reads:
According to a short article in Professional jeweler (199
, each lab decided on either side at some point. (link) Here''s what they say:
"The Gem Quality Institute and the AGS Lab filter out UV rays when color grading diamonds. GIA doesn''t. Is there one right way?
[...]
#1. Gem Quality Institute now issues two grades for strongly fluorescent diamonds: one reflecting use of a filter, one without.
#2. The AGS Lab uses a permanent filter to screen UV light when color-grading diamonds.
#3. Martin Haske, owner of Adamas Gemological Laboratory in Brookline, MA, agrees.
#4. Diamond market expert Martin Rapaport [...] says the issue deserves further study, but that "GIA is still the standard..."
THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING PRICESCOPE AND FOR YOUR VERY FIRST POST--------------HOWEVER PLEASE READ THIS EARLIER POST FROM VALERIA 101.
"If you have an afternoon .... there is allot of detail about what lighting GIA uses or used by Martin Haske on the site of Adamas Lab (link). He has been posting on Pricescope too. ''Guess the summary of Adamas records is that GIA gradually decided to give up filtering UW out of the standard grading environment, for better or worse. Actually, once you read their tytle, there is no turning back from the following spectrophotometry diagrams. The intro reads:
"35% Of Diamonds Graded Will Now Potentially Get A Better Color Grade By Fiat Of The Gemological Institute Of America"
According to a short article in Professional jeweler (199
, each lab decided on either side at some point. (link) Here''s what they say:"The Gem Quality Institute and the AGS Lab filter out UV rays when color grading diamonds. GIA doesn''t. Is there one right way?
[...]
#1. Gem Quality Institute now issues two grades for strongly fluorescent diamonds: one reflecting use of a filter, one without.
#2. The AGS Lab uses a permanent filter to screen UV light when color-grading diamonds.
#3. Martin Haske, owner of Adamas Gemological Laboratory in Brookline, MA, agrees.
#4. Diamond market expert Martin Rapaport [...] says the issue deserves further study, but that "GIA is still the standard..."
sorry, dn''t think i was quite clear
having recently trained with the gia, i can assure you that colour grading is unrelated to the presence or absence of long or short wave uv light.
the articles you quote are quite old.
as for
"35% Of Diamonds Graded Will Now Potentially Get A Better Color Grade By Fiat Of The Gemological Institute Of America"
it is a widely known fact that 72% of statistics are wrong.
seriously though, how can you justify a statistic that is immediately followed by the word "potentially"? it invalidates the percentage.
having recently trained with the gia, i can assure you that colour grading is unrelated to the presence or absence of long or short wave uv light.
the articles you quote are quite old.
as for
"35% Of Diamonds Graded Will Now Potentially Get A Better Color Grade By Fiat Of The Gemological Institute Of America"
it is a widely known fact that 72% of statistics are wrong.
seriously though, how can you justify a statistic that is immediately followed by the word "potentially"? it invalidates the percentage.
windowshopper
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,023
"it is a widely known fact that 72% of statistics are wrong."
and quoting them yourself..............................
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,477
Johnnya - The 35% stat came from GIA''s 1998 Fluoro study published in G&G.
35% of diamonds fluoresce.
Marty makes a claim that GIA-GTL have never refuted.
35% of diamonds fluoresce.
Marty makes a claim that GIA-GTL have never refuted.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,695
I a humorous vein, I suggest we should worry about how accurately the 65% we are rather sure about, get graded.
That 35% with fluorescence can be handled by an agreed upon standard that controls or eliminates UV in the lighting environment. Personally, a false lighting environment, one with no UV, seems illogical. Most of the time when a diamond is being worn there is some UV content. Lighting of the sort that mimics natural lighting seems a correct choice, but that is only one person''s opinion. How much UV to allow, I leave to the experts.
We already know from our study of the results of three labs that the market is smart enough to adjust prices for diamonds nearly all the time. Ultimately the price asked or received denotes the true value. Various labs grade differently, but the consumer who takes the time to become aware and to shop well, can overcome the faults of misgrading the labs are all guilty of. Dealers and the public like documents that confer a grade on a diamond, but dealers are also smart enough to work with the competitive market forces to generally ask proper prices for any individual diamond,regardless of what the paper from the lab might have graded it.
That 35% with fluorescence can be handled by an agreed upon standard that controls or eliminates UV in the lighting environment. Personally, a false lighting environment, one with no UV, seems illogical. Most of the time when a diamond is being worn there is some UV content. Lighting of the sort that mimics natural lighting seems a correct choice, but that is only one person''s opinion. How much UV to allow, I leave to the experts.
We already know from our study of the results of three labs that the market is smart enough to adjust prices for diamonds nearly all the time. Ultimately the price asked or received denotes the true value. Various labs grade differently, but the consumer who takes the time to become aware and to shop well, can overcome the faults of misgrading the labs are all guilty of. Dealers and the public like documents that confer a grade on a diamond, but dealers are also smart enough to work with the competitive market forces to generally ask proper prices for any individual diamond,regardless of what the paper from the lab might have graded it.
- Status
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 04/26
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)