shape
carat
color
clarity

EGL Int’l Shutting Down as Network Reorganizes

cflutist

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
4,034
From today's JCK

http://www.jckonline.com/2014/12/03/egl-international-shutting-down-network-reorganizes-2?utm_source=JCK+eNewsletters&utm_campaign=181c893896-2014_12_03_Diamond_Wednesday&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_56301e74d4-181c893896-333902922

EGL International, the lab that has become a flash point in the dispute over diamond grading, is shutting down, says Menahem Sevdermish, the EGL network’s new global manager.

The Ramat Gan, Israel–based lab will “soon cease to exist,” Sevdermish says, with the “International” brand name being phased out.

EGL International CEO Guy Benhamou did not return a request for comment at press time.

Sevdermish was recently appointed the European Gemological Laboratory network’s global manager, with a mandate to develop and maintain homogenous grading standards across EGL-branded labs. (EGL USA remains independent of the network and is not affected by this reorganization.) The move comes in the wake of RapNet’s decision to ban all EGL reports from its trading platform, citing inconsistent grading standards from the different labs.

The new network—which encompasses the EGL labs in Asia, India, Belgium, and South Africa, as well as Sevdermish’s Israel-based lab, EGL Platinum—will show consistency in reports and grading standards, Sevdermish says.

“Grading will all be controlled,” he says. “There will be one type of certificate, not 10 types. All the labs will be under one umbrella. We will make sure all the masters are the same, and we will train and fine-tune each laboratory.”

But he stresses the grading will be done to EGL’s traditional standards, not necessarily GIA’s.

“Our masters were also slightly different than GIA masters,” he says. “It’s the system we have used for 40 years. We used to give grades of 0, 1, 2, 3. But we went to D-E-F because that is what took over.”

The system sometimes results in a one-grade bump up in the higher colors, he says.

“We take into consideration the way the stone looks not only from the side, which is how the GIA taught everybody to do, but also from the top,” he says. “So a nice GIA G may be an F.”

In the lower grades (J, K, L, M), the difference can be more pronounced, since founder Guy Margel did not believe in yellow grades, says Sevdermish. It has also added SI3 to the traditional clarity scale. Sevdermish says he may write an article spelling out the differences in the two systems.

“Who is to say the GIA scale is better than EGL’s?” he asks. “The problem is when it’s abused. You can’t see a five-grade difference, like you see in certain court cases in America. I want to stop the abuse.”

He hopes the reorganization will lead Martin Rapaport to reconsider his EGL ban.

“It is unfair to suddenly [tarnish] all the EGLs, including [EGL South Africa director] Alan Lowe, the people in the U.S., and other honest people,” he says.

He argues that RapNet still lists other labs that deviate from the GIA scale and show inconsistent standards among their different branches. Still, he admits that Rapaport’s action has sparked the desire to change the network.

“EGL was always my passion,” Sevdermish says. “It is my baby. I always admired Guy Margel. If there was abuse, I’m going to clean it up and make sure the EGL name is one you can be proud of.”
 

John P

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
3,563
News indeed: "The Ramat Gan, Israel–based lab will “soon cease to exist,” - Menehem Sevdermish, new global mgr.

Relevant Prior Discussions:

Rapnet Bans EGL Reports from Trading Network
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/rapnet-bans-egl-reports-from-trading-network.205934/

Rapaport Honest Grading calls to end (EGL Int) overgrading
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ding-calls-to-end-egl-int-overgrading.207812/

Rapaport "Honest Diamonds" Video: Quick Synopsis
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/rapaport-honest-diamonds-video-quick-synopsis.207847/
 

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
25,534
...WOW.

That is... HUGE.

Necessary, timely, influential, and... HUGE.


Thank you for posting this cflutist! I actually think they'd do better going back to a numeric scale and eschewing GIA's letter scale entirely - that way it's clear that comparisons aren't intended and there's no confusion when said comparisons aren't endorsed.


This is also very interesting:
“We take into consideration the way the stone looks not only from the side, which is how the GIA taught everybody to do, but also from the top,” he says. “So a nice GIA G may be an F.”

I hope that whenever they do establish the new network-wide grading standards they also publish and make public their grading processes and specifications...
 

John P

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
3,563
Takeaways for me -

"...he stresses the grading will be done to EGL’s traditional standards, not necessarily GIA’s."
"...The system sometimes results in a one-grade bump up in the higher colors, he says."
"...In the lower grades (J, K, L, M), the difference can be more pronounced"


Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. (?)
Or will this organized consistency mean acceptance, even if grading is admittedly softer / procedurally different.

“Who is to say the GIA scale is better than EGL’s?” he asks. “The problem is when it’s abused. You can’t see a five-grade difference, like you see in certain court cases in America. I want to stop the abuse.”

That's good, especially as it relates to consistency. Actually, consistency should be the first order-of-business for any evaluative organization. Then, as long as all of your locations judge the diamond the same way you're free to use whatever standard you like. At that point it becomes your choice of terms. Electing to say "GHIJ" for diamonds that the "foremost authority" who developed the terms would categorize as "IJKL" causes confusion, period.

So if they continue to use GIA terms, but with different (if consistent) standards, I don't know that Rapaport's position will change, even if they achieve consistency in doing-so. Item #1 in Rap's Honest Grading initiative is "...to recognize that it is an unfair trade practice to sell diamonds using GIA terminology while applying alternative grading standards..."

http://www.diamonds.net/HonestDiamonds/Resources/Special_Report_Honest_Grading_1.pdf
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
13,191
If they do not use the same standards as gia then they should not use the same designations period.
This solves nothing and Rapaport hopefully will see through the smoke and mirrors and keep the ban in place.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,082
It's hard to comment on such ridicule statements by EGL.
It sounds like admitting to guilt to me personally....
May I dare say RIP-EGL?

:evil:
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
DiaGem|1417642550|3794689 said:
It's hard to comment on such ridicule statements by EGL.
It sounds like admitting to guilt to me personally....
:evil:
Yes, that is what strikes me too in the various statements. It's almost like saying, cheating a little is ok, but cheating too much is abuse. The statements about different color masters and different color assessment techniques seem to be unapologetic indications that color grading WILL continue be softer. It strikes me as a message to the market that they will get back to business as usual, but they intend to gain control over pushing the grading limits TOO much.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
Judging from some of his statements quoted in the article, I'm not sure the EGL network picked the best "global manager" to rehab their sullied reputation.
 

distracts

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,977
Yssie|1417635121|3794645 said:
Thank you for posting this cflutist! I actually think they'd do better going back to a numeric scale and eschewing GIA's letter scale entirely - that way it's clear that comparisons aren't intended and there's no confusion when said comparisons aren't endorsed.

Yes, the comment about "DEF taking over" clearly says it was INTENDED to be confused with GIA standards. I think having their own terminology would really help if they want it to be clear that they grade by different standards, since there is no way every jeweler who sells EGL stones will a) catch up with that and b) be honest about it. But since they're keeping the same terminology but different standards... isn't that the same problem continuing?
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
distracts|1417649575|3794756 said:
Yssie|1417635121|3794645 said:
Thank you for posting this cflutist! I actually think they'd do better going back to a numeric scale and eschewing GIA's letter scale entirely - that way it's clear that comparisons aren't intended and there's no confusion when said comparisons aren't endorsed.

Yes, the comment about "DEF taking over" clearly says it was INTENDED to be confused with GIA standards. I think having their own terminology would really help if they want it to be clear that they grade by different standards, since there is no way every jeweler who sells EGL stones will a) catch up with that and b) be honest about it. But since they're keeping the same terminology but different standards... isn't that the same problem continuing?
It is pretty apparent from these statements that they have no intention of changing the GIA terminology they use. And just as apparent that they intend to keep overgrading. In fact that seems to be at the heart of their value proposition - and they are making no bones about it.

I guess the best that can be hoped for is that they do succeed in becomiming more unified and consistent in their grading. Knowing a little more accurately HOW soft the grades are would at least would give shoppers a better frame of reference for the actual quality of the diamond.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
Garry H (Cut Nut)|1417650197|3794762 said:
Texas Leaguer|1417646858|3794734 said:
Judging from some of his statements quoted in the article, I'm not sure the EGL network picked the best "global manager" to rehab their sullied reputation.
hahahaha
well said Bryan
Don't you just love the one about how much he admires Guy Margel who "did not believe in yellow grades". That's a gem!
 

John P

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
3,563
Texas Leaguer|1417650445|3794765 said:
I guess the best that can be hoped for is that they do succeed in becomiming more unified and consistent in their grading. Knowing a little more accurately HOW soft the grades are would at least would give shoppers a better frame of reference for the actual quality of the diamond.
"Shoppers" is what concerns me. Shoppers really only have the frame of reference responsible pros provide to them. Those who research differing standards in places like this, or who work with dealers like you who educate them honestly can "arrive" to some understanding that F (here) actually implies H (there), or maybe face-up G, or or or, etc etc.

The very need for a "frame of reference" bothers me. Just imagine: Hey, buy this hot tub. It maintains a median temp of 102 degrees... Or buy this other hot tub which says it maintains a temp of 102 degrees for a bit less. That's because the ppl who printed this manual actually mean 98 degrees but they type 102 degrees because they use a bit of a different temperature standard.

Shopper: "Huh? So are they the same? Both do 102 degrees?"

Well they both say that. But one just uses a slightly cooler standard, so compared to the most common standard, it's more like 98 degrees. But it says 102. But it's really more like 98...or 100 possibly...
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,225
Oh Good. I was not misreading that.

A lot of hot air for no change.
 

distracts

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,977
John Pollard|1417651595|3794776 said:
Texas Leaguer|1417650445|3794765 said:
I guess the best that can be hoped for is that they do succeed in becomiming more unified and consistent in their grading. Knowing a little more accurately HOW soft the grades are would at least would give shoppers a better frame of reference for the actual quality of the diamond.
"Shoppers" is what concerns me. Shoppers really only have the frame of reference responsible pros provide to them. Those who research differing standards in places like this, or who work with dealers like you who educate them honestly can "arrive" to some understanding that F (here) actually implies H (there), or maybe face-up G, or or or, etc etc.

The very need for a "frame of reference" bothers me. Just imagine: Hey, buy this hot tub. It maintains a median temp of 102 degrees... Or buy this other hot tub which says it maintains a temp of 102 degrees for a bit less. That's because the ppl who printed this manual actually mean 98 degrees but they type 102 degrees because they use a bit of a different temperature standard.

Shopper: "Huh? So are they the same? Both do 102 degrees?"

Well they both say that. But one just uses a slightly cooler standard, so compared to the most common standard, it's more like 98 degrees. But it says 102. But it's really more like 98...or 100 possibly...

John, or, more frighteningly, two hot tubs that maintain temps of 102 degrees... but it's not disclosed to you which of those does 102C and which does 102F. And one of those hot tubs wouldn't be one I'd want to jump into. :angryfire:
 

Diamond_Hawk

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
1,229
Texas Leaguer|1417643202|3794696 said:
Yes, that is what strikes me too in the various statements. It's almost like saying, cheating a little is ok, but cheating too much is abuse.

+1 Nicely characterized
 

denverappraiser

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
9,051
I'm not even sure EGL-Israel will 'cease to exist'. They're clearly being kicked out of the club, but that's definitely not the same thing. They may even keep the EGL brand. Who's to complain if EGL International is dead? I wonder what this is going to do to the problems EGL-USA has with them? Does their battle go away with what appears to be a simple name change?

What does seem to be changing, or at least what they claim will be changing, is that the new EGL will have closer ties between the various labs. Standardization would actually help quite a bit. If they actually do it, it really is progress but synchronizing 10 large labs in 10 different countries is no easy task. It would be nice if their grading standards matched GIA's, but it's actually more important that they have standards that match themselves.
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,225
AGS uses numbers. GIA uses letters.

What's left for EGL to use?


Inquiring minds want to know.

Also IGI uses DEFGHI as well, why aren't they kicked out of the Rapnet?
 

John P

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
3,563
Gypsy|1417674981|3794991 said:
AGS uses numbers. GIA uses letters. What's left for EGL to use? Inquiring minds want to know.
A lab could go old-school and romance color with terms like "river, crystal, and cape" or established Jewellery Confederation terms like "exceptional white, tinted, and tinted color." If I were starting a lab I'd employ terms that reflected scientific-approaches, with a goal of complete technological consistency in the future. My terms would lean on colorimetry for color-grading, inclusion/crystal mapping for clarity assessment, and descriptive optical terms for cut-quality... Of course I'd be chased out of town because I'd treat IF-VVS2 clarity like a single grade with graduated nuances, but would divide what is lumped-together as "EX" or "Ideal" in cut into a number of grades.

Also IGI uses DEFGHI as well, why aren't they kicked out of the Rapnet?
In the global picture IGI loose diamond reports are reputable. The negative sentiment in the USA has been arrived-at based on the "finished jewelry appraisal-reports" which are famously misused by salespeople to demonstrate what a "bargain" a piece is. Only the USA lab issues those, by the way. None of the other IGI Worldwide locations do it.

The IGI Antwerp lab has a strong history in Europe. IGI Mumbai is well respected and IGI Hong Kong has a top reputation in Asia. In fact, during my travels to Asia over the last several years, the loose diamond grading results from the HK lab are considered on par with GIA but with stronger consistency - and the IGI HK "Hearts & Arrows" grading report is considered very elite; in much the same way that an AGS Ideal report is in the US.
 

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
25,534
John Pollard|1417700683|3795089 said:
Also IGI uses DEFGHI as well, why aren't they kicked out of the Rapnet?
In the global picture IGI loose diamond reports are reputable. The negative sentiment in the USA has been arrived-at based on the "finished jewelry appraisal-reports" which are famously misused by salespeople to demonstrate what a "bargain" a piece is. Only the USA lab issues those, by the way. None of the other IGI Worldwide locations do it.

The IGI Antwerp lab has a strong history in Europe. IGI Mumbai is well respected and IGI Hong Kong has a top reputation in Asia. In fact, during my travels to Asia over the last several years, the loose diamond grading results from the HK lab are considered on par with GIA but with stronger consistency - and the IGI HK "Hearts & Arrows" grading report is considered very elite; in much the same way that an AGS Ideal report is in the US.

John, what's HRD's reputation in all of this? They too have published specs for H&A... I thought they were one of the first labs to publicise their requirements for their H&A report. Are these reports considered elite around the world as well?
 

Diamond_Hawk

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
1,229
Yssie|1417705308|3795117 said:
what's HRD's reputation in all of this? They too have published specs for H&A... I thought they were one of the first labs to publicise their requirements for their H&A report. Are these reports considered elite around the world as well?
HRD reports are widely used in Antwerp and have been successfully proliferated in Asia. They are reliable and consistent. You remember correctly; they were among the first major labs to publish standards for diamonds to qualify as "Hearts & Arrows." When introduced that was a step-forward/step-backward though, since clarity characteristics in the pattern were assessed a penalty. Why? It's a holdover from late 1900s Japan, where diamonds below collection colors & clarities were somewhat poo-poo'd. That cultural notion was reflected in the first Japanese criteria for H&A diamonds (penalties for inclusions). HRD adopted that stance at first, though I believe they have evolved since then.
 

John P

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
3,563
Diamond_Hawk|1417706939|3795129 said:
HRD adopted that stance at first, though I believe they have evolved since then.
Correct. Updated in 2009. Like many other H&A assessments it's a 2D simplification of a topic which encompasses 3D implications, but I applaud the system's existence.
 

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
25,534
Thanks Brian, John.

I hadn't known clarity was originally a consideration - and I appreciate the potted history behind it! Paul has posted about Japanese influence on cut grading in the past, but I didn't realise they were the first to try to define H&A. I suppose I can see arguments both ways... I've actually wondered about AGSL's Light Performance appraisal: the term "Light Performance" encompasses an enormous variety of causes and effects that are convolved into some global estimation of visible output; if their documentation didn't explicitly define what parameters are and are not assessed (and didn't, say, explicitly leave colour and clarity - both of which can have significant effects on "light performance" by any colloquial definition - out of it!) I'd consider their reports misleading too.

That's not a discussion for this thread though.


Perhaps I ought to find a wall to duck behind, but...

Until some international entity is given the authority to dictate what colour and clarity grades mean and how they're to be determined, or until the various labs all agree to conform to the same definitions (and those definitions can be universally conformed to, SI unit style - like ranges on a colorimeter?) - well, Mr. Sevdermish is right, who's to say the GIA scale is better than any other?

I don't have any problem with different labs having different standards and different grading processes... even if they happen to use similar nomenclature, as long as they're well-documented and published and available to the public, and all participants in that network actually adhere to those standards. I do think shoppers have some responsibility to research their own purchases - if a vendor offers three 1ct "H" "VS2" stones with reports from GIA, EGL USA, and EGL Int'l, and there's a $3k spread between them, well, the obvious question is 'why?' That currently the only ways to get an answer to that question are to either ask the vendor or spend hours on forums - and that currently the only accurate answer is "we don't know, and don't bother trying to guess" is IMO the heart of the problem: not that there are differences, but that those differences can't be reliably characterised and categorised. And my take-home from that article was that that's the specific problem they've committed to addressing... but my DH does frequently tell me that my optimism is both naive and delightful ::)


ETA: A short and fun read on the inch as we know it: http://metricationmatters.com/docs/WhichInch.pdf
 

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
Yssie|1417713943|3795170 said:
Thanks Brian, John.

I hadn't known clarity was originally a consideration - and I appreciate the potted history behind it! Paul has posted about Japanese influence on cut grading in the past, but I didn't realise they were the first to try to define H&A. I suppose I can see arguments both ways... I've actually wondered about AGSL's Light Performance appraisal: the term "Light Performance" encompasses an enormous variety of causes and effects that are convolved into some global estimation of visible output; if their documentation didn't explicitly define what parameters are and are not assessed (and didn't, say, explicitly leave colour and clarity - both of which can have significant effects on "light performance" by any colloquial definition - out of it!) I'd consider their reports misleading too.

That's not a discussion for this thread though.


Perhaps I ought to find a wall to duck behind, but...

Until some international entity is given the authority to dictate what colour and clarity grades mean and how they're to be determined, or until the various labs all agree to conform to the same definitions (and those definitions can be universally conformed to, SI unit style - like ranges on a colorimeter?) - well, Mr. Sevdermish is right, who's to say the GIA scale is better than any other?

I don't have any problem with different labs having different standards and different grading processes... even if they happen to use similar nomenclature, as long as they're well-documented and published and available to the public, and all participants in that network actually adhere to those standards. I do think shoppers have some responsibility to research their own purchases - if a vendor offers three 1ct "H" "VS2" stones with reports from GIA, EGL USA, and EGL Int'l, and there's a $3k spread between them, well, the obvious question is 'why?' That currently the only ways to get an answer to that question are to either ask the vendor or spend hours on forums - and that currently the only accurate answer is "we don't know, and don't bother trying to guess" is IMO the heart of the problem: not that there are differences, but that those differences can't be reliably characterised and categorised. And my take-home from that article was that that's the problem they've committed to addressing... but my DH does frequently tell me that my optimism is both naive and delightful ::)


ETA: A short and fun read on the inch as we know it: http://metricationmatters.com/docs/WhichInch.pdf

Please do not run and hide. We have missed you these past months, and do not want you to disappear again.

It is not so much that there is no International entity to set up such a standard, it is that the public BELIEVES that there is a standard, and that GIA is that standard. When other second, third and fourth tier labs "use" that same standard, and admit no where in their documentation that the standard they are using has been applied using "their own proprietary" standard, well then, that is called cheating by those of us who like to call spades, spades. (Actually I think I have referred publicly to lying, as well as "darn" lying and toilet papering a diamond, so it is far too late for me to be politically correct at this time.)

Even if you now codified the differences, it would not make any difference to the main issue.

That is simply this. The public does not understand or even appreciate that the lesser labs are full of (expletive deleted). They see a piece of paper and expect it to have meaning. Far worse, in my estimation, is that for the majority of retail jewelers and their employees, the same is true. They may have been selling ladies shoes last week, and the do not have the experience or even the desire to learn what they need to know to properly represent what they are selling.

If the jewelers don't have a clue, how can we expect them to teach the great majority of their clients the difference between black and white. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE OWNER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT MAKES MORE MONEY SELLING DIAMONDS WITH SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RATE LABORATORY REPORTS?????

Wink
 

John P

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
3,563
Wink|1417714818|3795178 said:
It is not so much that there is no International entity to set up such a standard, it is that the public BELIEVES that there is a standard
That's the heart of the matter.

Let's fully agree that labs don't need to conform to a single standard. If lab A wants to have 21 descending grades for color and lab B elects to use only 7...therefore some diamonds which get their "top" color designation would never receive the top designation at lab A ...that's perfectly fine.

But can we also agree that lab B - who clearly states their standards are different, should use terminology that is also clearly different? I realize there is no law that says they must, but doesn't this become a matter of professional responsibility?
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
13,191
John Pollard|1417715769|3795182 said:
Wink|1417714818|3795178 said:
It is not so much that there is no International entity to set up such a standard, it is that the public BELIEVES that there is a standard
That's the heart of the matter.

Let's fully agree that labs don't need to conform to a single standard. If lab A wants to have 21 descending grades for color and lab B elects to use only 7...therefore some diamonds which get their "top" color designation would never receive the top designation at lab A ...that's perfectly fine.

But can we also agree that lab B - who clearly states their standards are different, should use terminology that is also clearly different? I realize there is no law that says they must, but doesn't this become a matter of professional responsibility?
yes

I still say that igi-usa should be shamed into falling into line with the other igi labs and recommend that igi be avoided in the US. Their most common report in the US is a scam.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
John Pollard|1417715769|3795182 said:
Wink|1417714818|3795178 said:
It is not so much that there is no International entity to set up such a standard, it is that the public BELIEVES that there is a standard
That's the heart of the matter.

Let's fully agree that labs don't need to conform to a single standard. If lab A wants to have 21 descending grades for color and lab B elects to use only 7...therefore some diamonds which get their "top" color designation would never receive the top designation at lab A ...that's perfectly fine.

But can we also agree that lab B - who clearly states their standards are different, should use terminology that is also clearly different? I realize there is no law that says they must, but doesn't this become a matter of professional responsibility?
Yes, they should. No, they won't.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,615
John Pollard|1417715769|3795182 said:
Wink|1417714818|3795178 said:
It is not so much that there is no International entity to set up such a standard, it is that the public BELIEVES that there is a standard
That's the heart of the matter.

Let's fully agree that labs don't need to conform to a single standard. If lab A wants to have 21 descending grades for color and lab B elects to use only 7...therefore some diamonds which get their "top" color designation would never receive the top designation at lab A ...that's perfectly fine.

But can we also agree that lab B - who clearly states their standards are different, should use terminology that is also clearly different? I realize there is no law that says they must, but doesn't this become a matter of professional responsibility?
Yes, they should. No, they won't.

They are playing both sides against the middle. They use GIA terminology where it suits them, and create a seperate standard when it also suits them (SI3). The point is, and it is really confirmed by the statements made by their new "global manager", that soft grading is part of their value proposition. It undoubtedly makes business sense. This has been going on a long time, and they have a large constituency of clients who are to one extent or another complicit in the scheme. The customer confusion that is imbedded in the strategy helps them make sales.

The main thing that seems to have happened with the EGL is that their fattest hog got slaughtered.

It's naive to think that this is about ethics for them. Particularly in light of the new manager's public comments.

I hope EGL USA finally comes to the realization that they must wipe the slate clean (Eagle USA, John?). Perhaps reading the latest comments from the global manager of the EGL network (of which they are not a part) will convince them.
 

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
25,534
Wink, I'm SOL on the wall - going behind the only four available at the moment would necessitate dropping several stories very quickly :bigsmile:

I agree with you: when lower-tier labs use GIA nomenclature and give all appearances of adhering to the GIA standard and fail to disclose that that's not the case clearly and publicly... it's dishonest, and it's obviously intended to create confusion that unscrupulously opportunistic vendors then take advantage of.


John Pollard|1417715769|3795182 said:
Wink|1417714818|3795178 said:
It is not so much that there is no International entity to set up such a standard, it is that the public BELIEVES that there is a standard
That's the heart of the matter.

Let's fully agree that labs don't need to conform to a single standard. If lab A wants to have 21 descending grades for color and lab B elects to use only 7...therefore some diamonds which get their "top" color designation would never receive the top designation at lab A ...that's perfectly fine.

But can we also agree that lab B - who clearly states their standards are different, should use terminology that is also clearly different? I realize there is no law that says they must, but doesn't this become a matter of professional responsibility?

I agree with this, too. I just finished a paper - the author used BTUs per hour per square foot... precisely why this halfwit chose to shun the system the rest of the planet has adopted eludes me, but a BTU is a BTU, an hour is an hour, and a square foot is a square foot, wherever you are.

If Lab A grades colour on a scale from 1-20 and Lab B grades colour from 5-15 we know there will be some overlap, but if they both use the same grading processes we can at least faithfully convert between the two. If the grading processes themselves are different... ANY sort of comparison - shared nomenclature or not - becomes completely meaningless.
But we also know that that won't stop people from trying to do precisely that.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top