New Kid (Laboratory) in Town

[diagem]

Date: 8/30/2007 11:27:18 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood

Date: 8/23/2007 1:38:11 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/23/2007 1:32:01 PM

Author: elmo

Date: 8/23/2007 1:28:19 PM

Author: DiaGem

Sorry Elmo..., there is much more than just that!

I''ve seen some of the discussions e.g. well publicized emerald cases. Everyone I''ve seen complaining about Cap is or has been in the business selling stones. Please enlighten me otherwise.

In the business... not just selling stones...

I guess I just witnessed another side of him!!!


By the way..., I think AGTA was born because of Cap''s willingness to ''serve(s) buyers rather than the trade''!!! Right?

I would like to comment that although Cap''s personality has rubbed some dealers wrong over the years, his lab was one of the premier and most respected labs in the world when it came to colored stone certification.

Richard..., As far as "his Lab" is concerned..., I cant say I have had too much experience with its colored stone grading!
As far as his "personality" is concerned..., I heard quite enough stories..., and experienced one story directly on my own skin!

So GCAL might be a great Laboratory..., but I would not submit any of my own Gems to a Laboratory headed by Cap!!

In addition, his services were by no means limited to privates. He served trade and public alike. His lab (now owned by Collector''s Universe with Cap as President) is used extensively by such retailers as Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, Graff, Fred Leighton, Sotheby''s, Christies, Bulgari, Harry Winston, Doyles and a multitude of other retailers and dealers. When I had my store I used AGL''s services extensively whenever I had an important colored stone. His report and Gubelin''s are probably the two most respected used by the major auction houses.

I know a lot of the major jewel houses used his services in the past..., and also know as soon as AGTA was born, a huge majority of business moved from AGL to AGTA.


DiaGem, I know of no improprieties that Cap Beesley or the AGL has been a part of since it''s inception in 1977, and I think it''s important to point out that the term ''controversial'' is referenced to Cap''s personality, which has been construed by some as ''blunt'' or ''opinionated''. As far as his standards and reports, from my personal experience they are top drawer.

 

[Nicrez]

Am I wrong to believe that AGTA is becoming the US leader in gemstone grading? I know their determination of stone origin is what most people want, which is what held back GIA''s advancement in the US market for gemstones. Gubelin perhaps leads in Europe and abroad, but in the US, is AGL still the leader? Any ideas if GIA will corner the gemstone field now that they are including origin of mine (or at least this is what I was lead to believe?)

Curious to know. I wish they would rank labs like they rank cars in Motor Trend....

"Voted Rappaport''s Best Lab of the Year in Reliability and Value" Come in now and get your stones graded...

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/31/2007 10:42:49 AM
Author: Nicrez
Am I wrong to believe that AGTA is becoming the US leader in gemstone grading? I know their determination of stone origin is what most people want, which is what held back GIA''s advancement in the US market for gemstones. Gubelin perhaps leads in Europe and abroad, but in the US, is AGL still the leader? Any ideas if GIA will corner the gemstone field now that they are including origin of mine (or at least this is what I was lead to believe?)

Curious to know. I wish they would rank labs like they rank cars in Motor Trend....

''Voted Rappaport''s Best Lab of the Year in Reliability and Value'' Come in now and get your stones graded...

Nicrez,

One thing I know is that the GIA helped AGTA to get started... (Donating equipment etc, etc...)

In return..., AGTA will refrain from grading Diamonds (or something in this fashion...)

 

[denverappraiser]

To the best of my knowledge I’ve never met Cap in person but I’ve seen AGL reports and stones examined by them many times and have never seen a problem with them. I agree with Rich that they have earned a good reputation. I’m also pretty sure that the new ownership is continuing to operate the lab separately from GCAL with both separate locations and separate staff.

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

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 8/31/2007 10:42:49 AM
Author: Nicrez
Am I wrong to believe that AGTA is becoming the US leader in gemstone grading? I know their determination of stone origin is what most people want, which is what held back GIA's advancement in the US market for gemstones. Gubelin perhaps leads in Europe and abroad, but in the US, is AGL still the leader? Any ideas if GIA will corner the gemstone field now that they are including origin of mine (or at least this is what I was lead to believe?)

In my opinion the AGTA has garnered a lot of business from clients wanting stone identification, treatment identification and country of origin at a more reasonable price than AGL. AGL is not cheap.

The thing the AGTA (and GIA, etc.) lacks is grading of colored stone quality. AGL puts out a very descriptive quality analysis that gives you an idea of the stone's ranking. None of the other labs that I am aware of do. Until they venture into this area I don't think they will dethrone the AGL report. They might dethrone it in volume, but not in qualitative analysis.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

te:[/b] 8/31/2007 10:18:32 AM

Richard..., As far as ''his Lab'' is concerned..., I cant say I have had too much experience with its colored stone grading!

As far as his ''personality'' is concerned..., I heard quite enough stories..., and experienced one story directly on my own skin!

So GCAL might be a great Laboratory..., but I would not submit any of my own Gems to a Laboratory headed by Cap!!

[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying that DiaGem.

GCAL is not headed by Cap, by the way. That''s Donald Palmieri''s operation, and like Neil stated, the two labs (although owned by the same company now) seem to be maintaining their own identities. GCAL for diamonds, AGL for colored stones.

 

[elmo]

Date: 8/31/2007 12:48:10 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
In my opinion the AGTA has garnered a lot of business from clients wanting stone identification, treatment identification and country of origin at a more reasonable price than AGL. AGL is not cheap.

I did comparison shop AGL AGTA and Gubelin on the last thing I had looked at (blue sapphire)...if you include origin determination which is a significant cost, all three were about the same price for what I had done. If you compare an AGL full report (includes origin determination) with an AGTA identification report (no origin determination), you're right, the AGTA report is much less. But it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, and I think AGL will do a similar identification-only report as well. So, if the additional "quality" grading that AGL does is going to help, it comes for little or no additional cost, at least for some things.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 8/31/2007 3:16:34 PM
Author: elmo

Date: 8/31/2007 12:48:10 PM

Author: Richard Sherwood

In my opinion the AGTA has garnered a lot of business from clients wanting stone identification, treatment identification and country of origin at a more reasonable price than AGL. AGL is not cheap.

I did comparison shop AGL AGTA and Gubelin on the last thing I had looked at (blue sapphire)...if you include origin determination which is a significant cost, all three were about the same price for what I had done. If you compare an AGL full report (includes origin determination) with an AGTA identification report (no origin determination), you're right, the AGTA report is much less. But it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, and I think AGL will do a similar identification-only report as well. So, if the additional 'quality' grading that AGL does is going to help, it comes for little or no additional cost, at least for some things.

That's good info Elmo. As an appraiser, I always consider it "light weight" when a lab renders an opinion on identification, origin or treatment with no opinion of qualitative analysis. It's like they are not willing to stick their necks out on an analysis.

Which is probably as it should be, if they don't have personnel experienced enough to render qualitative analysis reports.

That's what I always liked about AGL (Cap Beesley) reports. He (they) were never afraid to render his (their) opinion of qualitative analysis.

 

[oldminer]

Raw Color grading is relatively simple technology wise to do.
Its the made up to suit the trade rules and exceptions that make the implementation hard.
Digital tone mapping(which diamond color grading is) has been around for a long time.
The hard part is taking an imperfect and down right crude system and correlating it with the technology.
Which is why a set standard needs to be implemented either ISO or goverment controlled.


You have it absolutely correct. ImaGem has developed specific equipment which gathers the data required to grade the color of diamonds. The dilemma is that the rules, exceptions, and erratic nature of the the rules used at GIA and in the trade just don''t mesh well with a technological, straightforward answer. With small exceptions, diamonds up to about 3 carats in size can be graded to 1/3 of a grade with 80% repeatability. and to within a single whole grade well into the 90+ percent range. Human graders, regarldess of the number of graders who examine a single, diamond cannot be this accurate. Human repeatability remains at about 65%. No amount of effort which a lab goes to can change human physiologic limits. Only technology can give us better, more accurate and repeatable results. Conformance to GIA standards is the first round of effort with technology. The next round will be the replacement of the GIA color system with a better one. This won''t happen overnight, so don''t get upset. It takes years to have an impact.

Current exceptions to technological color grading are diamonds with notable table centered inclusions and a few with foreign crystal inclusions that transmit unusual spectra. The existing GIA system of grading color which allows darker colors to be called better because they are large stones is unique only in diamonds. No other substance is graded as if it were a sample of a larger whole. Of course, diamonds are highly valuable and the economics of why we grade as we do doesn''t escape recognition. It does, however, make grading larger diamonds quite a more problematic situation than if every stone was graded by a single set of reasonable rules.

In time, all the issues will be resolved. I believe that eventually we will grade color on a continuous numeric scale and that letters of the alphabet will become as archaic as Jager, Wesselton, and Cape.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

DiaGem asked that anyone who heard news on this new lab''s approach to color grading to post it.

I asked Marc Brauner who was in India for the launch of their third IGI Indian lab in Kolkuta (previously Calcuta). Here is his reply:
IDL:

Interesting;
There was the Eickhorst colorimeter 30 years ago, not bad at all but they don''t make them any longer, then came the Yehuda colorimeter which had 2 versions (one very accurate with test a & test b, the other smaller with one test only, not bad but less accurate); the Yehuda colorimeter was especially used for rough diamonds, it could see through skin (coated) of any color, and was accurate for brownies and fluor.

To our knowledge, the Yehuda colorimeter is the most precise colorimeter ever built.

Then the Gran-I (not so accurate and influenced by dirt or ink on the stone, and totally inaccurate when fluorescence or brown-green-grey nuances), and the Gran-II which later became Sarin''s Colorimeter, which is not bad, but then it tends to make inpredictable errors making this toy inconsistent. But overall I must say it''s not bad.

IDL''s technology: Peter Meuss (ex CEO of HRD and now head of IDL and the Dubai diamond center) claims it is 99% accurate, however, during IDL''s presentation in India we were told that once fluorescence is Medium or more, or when the stone is a browny, then the said instrument cannot give a result (or perhaps it could mean that its results are inconsistent, inaccurate when there is a certain level of fluor or a brown nuance, just like Gran''s colorimeter).

IDL also informed the audience that it won''t have a masterset, and this means that any stone having brown or medium+ fluor will not be certified...(!!!).

Further, I cannot imagine that a 6 carat (for example) diamond would not be verified when the instrument said D color, and that the clarity is IF.

So what is my opinion? Frankly, I don''t have any yet. I think that the Sheik''s money is very well spent on marketing though!
Best regards,
Marc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Bump for DiaGem

Marc also added this:

FYI, you could also say that the Yehuda (with 2 tests built in) was indeed the best ever colorimeter, but it is difficult to use.
This instrument is surprisingly accurate, but user-unfriendly. This means it could NOT be used for mass color grading of polished diamonds.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/11/2007 2:34:19 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Bump for DiaGem

Marc also added this:

FYI, you could also say that the Yehuda (with 2 tests built in) was indeed the best ever colorimeter, but it is difficult to use.
This instrument is surprisingly accurate, but user-unfriendly. This means it could NOT be used for mass color grading of polished diamonds.

Garry, thank you for the up-date....

The problem with Yehuda''s color-machine is:

It is accurate and user friendly (the new version is extremely user-friendly!!!)
But its only accurate up to H and maybe I color..., the lower colors are lost when using the Yehuda color-tester.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/8/2007 1:46:58 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
DiaGem asked that anyone who heard news on this new lab''s approach to color grading to post it.

I asked Marc Brauner who was in India for the launch of their third IGI Indian lab in Kolkuta (previously Calcuta). Here is his reply:
IDL:

Interesting;
There was the Eickhorst colorimeter 30 years ago, not bad at all but they don''t make them any longer, then came the Yehuda colorimeter which had 2 versions (one very accurate with test a & test b, the other smaller with one test only, not bad but less accurate); the Yehuda colorimeter was especially used for rough diamonds, it could see through skin (coated) of any color, and was accurate for brownies and fluor.

To our knowledge, the Yehuda colorimeter is the most precise colorimeter ever built.

Then the Gran-I (not so accurate and influenced by dirt or ink on the stone, and totally inaccurate when fluorescence or brown-green-grey nuances), and the Gran-II which later became Sarin''s Colorimeter, which is not bad, but then it tends to make inpredictable errors making this toy inconsistent. But overall I must say it''s not bad.

IDL''s technology: Peter Meuss (ex CEO of HRD and now head of IDL and the Dubai diamond center) claims it is 99% accurate, however, during IDL''s presentation in India we were told that once fluorescence is Medium or more, or when the stone is a browny, then the said instrument cannot give a result (or perhaps it could mean that its results are inconsistent, inaccurate when there is a certain level of fluor or a brown nuance, just like Gran''s colorimeter).
IDL''s press release was on its color grading accuracy? NO?
IDL also informed the audience that it won''t have a masterset, and this means that any stone having brown or medium+ fluor will not be certified...(!!!).
If that is the case..., IDL is not going anywhere..., just blowing some wind

Further, I cannot imagine that a 6 carat (for example) diamond would not be verified when the instrument said D color, and that the clarity is IF.

So what is my opinion? Frankly, I don''t have any yet. I think that the Sheik''s money is very well spent on marketing though!
Best regards,
Marc

Marketing what????

 

[gunsuka]

Author: Rhino

I had read in Rappaport (I believe sometime mid last year) that many Japanese Laboratories were also adopting the GIA Cut Grading system as their standard as well. If many labs already adopt their clarity/color grading system I would think there shouldn''t be a problem introducing GIA''s Cut grading as the standard as well. We''ll see.

I just wanted to confirm Rhino''s post regarding the Japanese labs. Most of the labs were ready to start using the GIA cut grade they day it was officially released by the GIA. The GIA affiliate lab in Japan (AGS) was the first lab to start and the rest were on board within a week.

The term ideal cut it gone from the Japanese mindset already. I never hear anyone speak that term anymore, excellent is simply the top cut grade now.

I am attaching three grading reports of some sample Japanese lab reports stating the cut grade information.

Hmmm... Looks like I can only post a single attachment, so I guess that is all you get to see. The ''report'' is actually just a sorting cert, the lab in question is called CGL - Central Gem Lab. They do issue large reports as well with photos of the diamonds and full cut information.

The comment on the bottom right that starts with GIA states they are using the GIA cut grade system.