2006 GIA grading report - Post info here please

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/17/2006 2:51:28 AM
Author: Serg

re: Take it or leave it.. I imagine that some overseas cutters have generated the database

Cutters do not need 38.000.000 combination. Fo sucessful work they need 10-1000 combination only for each cut group and they really need 2-3 group.
100-2000 combinations are easy to recive. It was not good idea to try sell such database.

All they need is the boundaries, if there are any. Why should they really bother, 80% of stones cut will probably get a GIA VG/EX anyway..

From what I have seen published, it doesn''t seem to be a very discriminating system anyway.
It is all about selling paper.

From my November2005 letter to GIA.( I can not published GIA answer)

Oh Sergey, go ahead and publish it.. It might be highly enlightening to the readers

...But I will try to neutralize GIA¡¦s monopolistic behavior to block the work of my company. Our companies compete in ¡¥different weight categories¡¦ which is why I can¡¦t compete with GIA in the current market. But I can create instruments and services that will change the market in principal.

It is the "not invented here" syndrome, I''ve run into it myself..

...
''

 

[adamasgem]

You don't have to go into what's in their "new" grading system to find a systematic opening up of, what to this time, have been commonly accepted criteria for acceptable cutting. In a previous post I outlined widening of girdle thickness from an internal GIA/GTL document vis-a-vie what most of us out there were taught, and firmly believe.

The "new" GIA girdle thickness acceptability could give a knife edge girdle a VG cut grade, when ALL previous grading systems from GIA put it into a class 4, the old bottom grade of the 90's and the NAJA system seemed to say it could be a 3B at best..

GIA CONFIDENTIAL internal lab documentation (circa 199 that I have states to the graders:

"Girdle thickness is called extremely thin BECAUSE there is a risk that the diamond may be chipped in that location"..

"Again, look carefully at the point of pears, marquises and hearts. There may be naturals or extra facets that make the girdle thickness in these areas extremely thin. Again, a knife edge at the point creates a danger of chipping the diamond"

So they taught their graders a knife edge was a risk, and we appraisers felt and were taught it was a risk also, But now they tell us it can be a VERY GOOD.. Who is kidding who..
They've redefined the thin to slightly thick range physically, as I've shown before, and now say knife edges are VERY GOOD..


OPEN UP THE GRADING, SELL MORE PAPER !!!!!

 

[oldminer]

AGA Durability-Finish-Size (DFS) standards

The scale is 0 to 5 with 0 being the highest grade no problems) and 5 being the lowest grade, (many cut problems).

Total Average Depth %: Round diamonds:
Up to 63.0% scores 0 or lower
>63% to 65% scores 1 or lower
>65% to 67% scores 2 or lower
>67% to 69% scores 3 or lower
>69% to 71% scores 4 or lower
>71 scores 5

Round diamonds only:

Crown angle:
Diamonds with avg. crown angles 30 degrees or greater may score 0 or lower.
Diamonds with avg. crown angles 29.5 degrees or greater may score 1 or lower.
Diamonds with avg. crown angles Diamonds with avg. crown angle

All shapes including rounds:

Girdle Thickness:
Diamonds with Thin to Slightly Thick score 0 or lower.
Diamonds with Very Thin score 1 or lower.
Diamonds with Thick score 2 or lower.
Diamonds with Very Thick score 3 or lower.
Diamonds with Extremely Thin, or Extremely Thick score 4 or lower.

Culet Size:
Diamonds with None to Medium score 0 or lower.
Diamonds with greater than Medium (Large, Very Large, Extremely Large) score 2 or lower.


Finish:
Diamonds must score "Excellent" to "Good" on Polish & Symmetry to score 0 or lower.
Diamonds which score "Fair" or "Poor" on polish and/or symmetry score 3 or lower.

Symmetry: We measure the even curvature of round, marquise, oval, pear and heart shapes. Alternatively, we measure the degree of parallel sides in square and rectangular stones. We measure for all shapes the alignment of the table with the culet and girdle. We also measure the regularity of the table shape and the placement of the culet. Bulging, asymmetry, and misalignments of faceting all create symmetry deductions.

The important issue of total depth in fancy shapes is being revised, after reviewing the AGS 0 new princess cuts and with Paul-Antwerp's thougthful advice. We will be going with a ratio of area in the face up position to carat weight. This will allow some of the best looking AGS 0 princess cuts to be within the AGA 0 DFS tolerance and not unfairly judged as overly deep. This is ongoing.

Per Marty Haske's request, I have responded in this thread and highlighted the girdle thickness parameters we are using here at AGA Philadelphia, in Surat, and very soon, in Mumbai. I believe this DFS system has the potential to be the Standard for cut grading when Light Behavior is a part of the grading process regardless of what light behavior system is utilized. Its a simple system that is meaningful and can be utilized by any gemologist with minimal tools or time spent.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/18/2006 4:47:21 PM
Author: oldminer

AGA Durability-Finish-Size (DFS) standards

The scale is 0 to 5 with 0 being the highest grade no problems) and 5 being the lowest grade, (many cut problems).

All shapes including rounds:

Girdle Thickness:
Diamonds with Thin to Slightly Thick score 0 or lower.
Diamonds with Very Thin score 1 or lower.
Diamonds with Thick score 2 or lower.
Diamonds with Very Thick score 3 or lower.
Diamonds with Extremely Thin, or Extremely Thick score 4 or lower.

Thanks Dave, for posting this regarding girdle thickness..
I was taught by GIA that an extremely thn (knife edge) girdle automatically put a stone in the Class 4 promotional make cut classification. NAJA unoffcial standards, are also consistent, placing such a stone as a 3B at best. I dug ths from your web site, whch is, characteristc of the system those in NAJA are used to, which has been somewhat refned but over the years consistent with placing extremely thin girdles in the lower cut classifications. But now it is bumped up a bit, shall I say..

 

[oldminer]

Diamonds have inherent, natural, characteristics. We all know they are very hard and reasonably durable, but they do exihibit the ability to cleave and are rather brittle. This natural situation should dictate some minimum parameters for creating durable finsihed stones when cutting them because they are a costly item which we don''t want to break or chip.

Changing the standards does not in any way change the nature of diamond. It is a mistake to change long held standards that make sense according to the strengths and weaknesses of a natural material. Doing so misprepresents the quality of craftsmanship necessary to have the BEST cut, versus a passable cut.

I can wink and blink over the smoke and mirrors that goes on a lot of the time, but accepting a very thin girdle as "no problem" goes over the limit of good reason. I would not be surprised to see that factor re-considered by GIA if sufficient noise is heard from the peanut gallery........I don''t intend to change to meet what I consider a faulty decision. We''ll just wait and see.

 

[Serg]

Durability and Spread should be outside performance grade.
Such parameters can have individual grade in report.

 

[oldminer]

Serg: This is a correct thinking on your part. They are reported separately so as not to confuse the issue of light performance. I do think BOTH belong in the discussion or reporting of an overall CUT GRADE. However, I consider it "optional"

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/19/2006 8:54:46 AM
Author: oldminer
Serg: This is a correct thinking on your part. They are reported separately so as not to confuse the issue of light performance. I do think BOTH belong in the discussion or reporting of an overall CUT GRADE. However, I consider it ''optional''

Dave,

Spread can change AGS cut grade on any number grades( specially for princess)

Durability( thin girdle) can change GIA Cut grade.

I think, It is wrong policy( specially for Spread)

 

[oldminer]

Serg: I was speaking about the AGA system that I use and propose to others. I do NOT mix light perfoirmance grades with the DFS, the physical cut grade. I report them separately.


I believe judging light performance is one element of "cut" that is important enough to report alone. We do not need to confuse people as to how the diamond treats light by putting physical parameters of cut craftsmanship into the "light" grade. Then, we offer the DFS, the craftmanship standards as an additional way to know the overall cut quality of a diamond. A diamond that combines the best range of light behavior AND has no detracting problems of craftsmanship deserves that special place in the system as the overall "BEST CUT".

A diamond with great light performance, but cut in a way that hurts its durability, finish or spread relationship is rightly judged as not the best. The same follows that a diamond with all satisfactory parameters which does not perform with light as it could if cut otherwise, also is not to be judged a "Best" cut, either.

To me, BEST CUT is a diamond with COMBINES light and physical cut considerations, but should be reported separately.

 

[Serg]

re: To me, BEST CUT is a diamond with COMBINES light and physical cut considerations, but should be reported separately.

If we are speaking about jewelry, evening dress, ( or cars J) durability and beauty could be “opponents”.
Sometimes current technology is not enough to receive best grade in both category.
Balance should be found by consumer only. For different type consumer the best choice of such balance is different.
Labs should not break such possibility for consumer.
I am not speaking about AGA now

 

[JohnQuixote]

For the sake of consumers I believe a TOP overall grade in cut - Ideal or EX or any other - should be given only to a diamond that passes all tests for depth/spread, durability, polish and basic symmetry (which can be VG/EX p/s - the point is that it does not make a visibly adverse difference).

When a consumer purchases a top grade those assurances should be in place.

Reporting these separately from light performance is fine, but in this manner consumers are protected when they seek the overall TOP grade - and don't have to encumber a learning curve about those things.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/19/2006 10:26:51 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
For the sake of consumers I believe a TOP overall grade in cut - Ideal or EX or any other - should be given only to a diamond that passes all tests for depth/spread, durability, polish and basic symmetry (which can be VG/EX p/s - the point is that it does not make a visibly adverse difference).

When a consumer purchases a top grade those assurances should be in place.

Reporting these separately from light performance is fine, but in this manner consumers are protected when they seek the overall TOP grade - and don't have to encumber a learning curve about those things.

John,




What grade system for TOP do you prefer:
1) AGS 0 0 0 ( Cut, Clarity, Color)
2) AGS total "0" ( One total( joint) grade for cut ,clarity, color . Total grade =Grade(cut)+Grade(clarity) +Grade(cut) ) . It is not Current AGS grade system. It is example for explanation. But this system has logic similar new AGS cut grade. Do you like it?




?

 

[oldminer]

AGS 0 and AGS 000 are a single system. Dealers and the AGSL took the Original AGS 000 which reported cut, color and clarity (Best cut, D color and IF) and turned it into the new version of AGS 000 which is cut, polish and symmetry without reference to color and clarity grading. As you know, there are plenty of diamonds which are AGS 0 still that have less than EX/EX for polish and symmetry and therefore are not 000 types.

I think there are more important factors of CUT that ought to be reported and not mixed in with light beahvior grading. Polish and symmetry do not address the required issues although they play a part.

 

[Serg]

Dave ,
please read my post again. I added explanations

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/19/2006 11:41:01 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/19/2006 10:26:51 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
For the sake of consumers I believe a TOP overall grade in cut - Ideal or EX or any other - should be given only to a diamond that passes all tests for depth/spread, durability, polish and basic symmetry (which can be VG/EX p/s - the point is that it does not make a visibly adverse difference).

When a consumer purchases a top grade those assurances should be in place.

Reporting these separately from light performance is fine, but in this manner consumers are protected when they seek the overall TOP grade - and don''t have to encumber a learning curve about those things.

John,

What grade system for TOP do you prefer:
1) AGS 0 0 0 ( Cut, Clarity, Color)
2) AGS total "0" ( One total( joint) grade for cut ,clarity, color )

?

Neither one of those Serg,

Color is natural and involves 1 overall judgment.
Clarity is natural and involves 1 overall judgment.

Cut is man made, and involves several judgments:

* Light performance (attributable to man''s cut)
* Depth/Spread or weight ratio (attributable to man''s cut)
* Durability/or risk of chipping (attributable to man''s cut)
* Finish, or polish & symmetry (attributable to man''s cut)

AGS does well with separate grades for light performance, proportions (which includes weight ratio and durability) and finish. If any one of these factors is not top the OVERALL grade is not top. I am in agreement with this, although I think AGS is strict with polish and symmetry relative to what most consumers seek.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/19/2006 11:41:01 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/19/2006 10:26:51 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
For the sake of consumers I believe a TOP overall grade in cut - Ideal or EX or any other - should be given only to a diamond that passes all tests for depth/spread, durability, polish and basic symmetry (which can be VG/EX p/s - the point is that it does not make a visibly adverse difference).

When a consumer purchases a top grade those assurances should be in place.

Reporting these separately from light performance is fine, but in this manner consumers are protected when they seek the overall TOP grade - and don''t have to encumber a learning curve about those things.

John,





What grade system for TOP do you prefer:
1) AGS 0 0 0 ( Cut, Clarity, Color)
2) AGS total ''0'' ( One total( joint) grade for cut ,clarity, color . Total grade =Grade(cut)+Grade(clarity) +Grade(cut) ) . It is not Current AGS grade system. It is example for explanation. But this system has logic similar new AGS cut grade. Do you like it?





?

Sergey. refering to your suggestion #2, the combination of "best" color (AGS 0/ GIA D) and clarity (AGS 0/ GIA IF/F) alone would probably reduce the % of total stones even eligible for a total "0", to less than 0.1% of stones, using the joint probability (availability) data I''ve previously researched and published, now factor in "cut" and you get vanishingly small % of stones where all three are tops.

 

[oldminer]

I believe there well may be an untapped, unexplored market for high light performance diamonds that don't meet the best standards of craftsmanship. These may be overly deep or overly thin, They may be free-form shapes. I don't know exactly what they may be. I don't know if I ever even saw one yet. I have seen some very oddly cut old diamonds that looked wonderful, but they are hardly "ideal" in my opinion.

If the PRICE and light performance is right, I would be surprised to see such unusual diamonds fail to be attractive to some people. Maybe in earrings or pendants where durability is not so much an issue.

My own approach is to offer light grading and/or light grading along with a separate cut grade. Like McDonald's, says, "Have it your way." So long as the information is honest, complete and accurate, why not?

Another solution, such as mixing the two parts may work for other labs. If well done, then I have no problem with it, but some very nice diamonds may be left out in the cold, too. We must remember that this is and always will be a commercial process to help more people appreciate and purchase diamonds. This is not science for its own sake, but business.....right?

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/19/2006 12:18:12 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 1/19/2006 11:41:01 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/19/2006 10:26:51 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
For the sake of consumers I believe a TOP overall grade in cut - Ideal or EX or any other - should be given only to a diamond that passes all tests for depth/spread, durability, polish and basic symmetry (which can be VG/EX p/s - the point is that it does not make a visibly adverse difference).

When a consumer purchases a top grade those assurances should be in place.

Reporting these separately from light performance is fine, but in this manner consumers are protected when they seek the overall TOP grade - and don't have to encumber a learning curve about those things.

John,

What grade system for TOP do you prefer:
1) AGS 0 0 0 ( Cut, Clarity, Color)
2) AGS total '0' ( One total( joint) grade for cut ,clarity, color )

?

Neither one of those Serg,

Color is natural and involves 1 overall judgment.
Clarity is natural and involves 1 overall judgment.

Cut is man made, and involves several judgments:

* Light performance (attributable to man's cut)
* Depth/Spread or weight ratio (attributable to man's cut)
* Durability/or risk of chipping (attributable to man's cut)
* Finish, or polish & symmetry (attributable to man's cut)

AGS does well with separate grades for light performance, proportions (which includes weight ratio and durability) and finish. If any one of these factors is not top the OVERALL grade is not top. I am in agreement with this, although I think AGS is strict with polish and symmetry relative to what most consumers seek.

Absorption spectrum is natural, not color. Color depends from Cut ( man made) and Color grading system( man mad)
Inclusion is natural, not clarity. Clarity depends from position and orientation inclusion in cut( all man made, man solution) and Clarity grading system( man mad)

Color, clarity, cut - man mad.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/19/2006 12:36:34 PM
Author: Serg

Absorption spectrum is natural, not color. Color depends from Cut ( man made) and Color grading system( man mad)
Inclusion is natural, not clarity. Clarity depends from position and orientation inclusion in cut( all man made, man solution) and Clarity grading system( man mad)

Color, clarity, cut - man mad.

Sergey Did you mean man IS mad in the CRAZY sense

I might have to agree with you there..
And Sergey is certainly correct that "Color" will be effected by cutting..

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/19/2006 12:36:34 PM
Author: Serg

Absorption spectrum is natural, not color. Color depends from Cut ( man made) and Color grading system( man mad)
Inclusion is natural, not clarity. Clarity depends from position and orientation inclusion in cut( all man made, man solution) and Clarity grading system( man mad)

Color, clarity, cut - man mad.

Serg, my meaning is that absorption spectrum and inclusions formed over millions of years naturally. Cut is forced by the hand of man in a matter of hours or days.

I agree that man created metrics for absorption spectrum and inclusions (color and clarity) to help simplify things.

I am in favor of simplifying cut as well. I believe AGS has done a nice job of creating an overall grade that provides consumers with ONE easily understood overall cut grade, while it also lists cut components and details separately - for those who want to know more.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/19/2006 12:55:56 PM
Author: adamasgem
Sergey Did you mean man IS mad in the CRAZY sense

I might have to agree with you there..
And Sergey is certainly correct that 'Color' will be effected by cutting..

We all agree, and color grading approaches are a whole separate can of worms.

 

[oldminer]

It is human nature to wish to categorize things. We classify many natural and man-made items. Diamonds are no exception. The REASON I choose to separate light behavior categorization from physical cut parameter categorization is that I feel we can much more rapidly address development of performance categories in fancy shaped diamonds without confusing the issue even further. Some basic and separate cut considerations, the DFS grades, can then be applied to complete the process for a total, overall grade. For just light assessment, just categorizing light behavior seems enough to get us to a good level of knowledge about the beauty of a particular diamond.

Once we know beauty, we then probably will want to know relative durability, finish and size considerations, but we may choose not to go there with certain very pretty diamonds.... Its up to the market and the consumer as to what they will want and demand.

Diamond dealers all tell me that there is little demand for super performance diamond light grading reports, yet we see it growing daily here. In a few months I''d bet we see some major shifts in demand and corresponding changes in cutting profiles. There is a whirlwind of change just over the horizon. From my slightly higher vantage point I believe I can see it. From the ground level, it is still invisible.

 

[Serg]

re:I am in favor of simplifying cut as well. I believe AGS has done a nice job of creating an overall grade that provides consumers with ONE easily understood overall cut grade, while it also lists cut components and details separately - for those who want to know more.

Commoditization* diamonds is fine for labs, sellers, but not for consumers and industry in whole.

*What is right spelling of process transformation diamond to commodity?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/19/2006 1:22:24 PM
Author: Serg
re:I am in favor of simplifying cut as well. I believe AGS has done a nice job of creating an overall grade that provides consumers with ONE easily understood overall cut grade, while it also lists cut components and details separately - for those who want to know more.

Commoditization* diamonds is fine for labs, sellers, but not for consumers and industry in whole.

*What is right spelling of process transformation diamond to commodity?

Commoditization is correct spelling Serg, but I don''t believe that''s what is happening with AGS.

 

[oldminer]

No need to fear commoditization of natural diamonds. There are many, many levels of excellent light performance. Not all "excellent" are identical. There are rather broad ranges of clarity and color within each grade and they are somewhat subjective as well. While we can hope to define an individual diamond better for consumers, it will not ever reach the commodity stage.

If one considers the advent of colorless synthetic diamonds, then commoditization could happen. In theory these all could be identical with only price differentiating them. I doubt it will happen soon as the equipment to make them is so costly that colored diamonds seem a better economic product for synthetic manufacturers to chase.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/19/2006 1:29:05 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 1/19/2006 1:22:24 PM
Author: Serg
re:I am in favor of simplifying cut as well. I believe AGS has done a nice job of creating an overall grade that provides consumers with ONE easily understood overall cut grade, while it also lists cut components and details separately - for those who want to know more.

Commoditization* diamonds is fine for labs, sellers, but not for consumers and industry in whole.

*What is right spelling of process transformation diamond to commodity?

Commoditization is correct spelling Serg, but I don''t believe that''s what is happening with AGS.

John The "correct" spelling is RAPAPORT

 

[strmrdr]

Edit

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/19/2006 2:36:09 PM
Author: strmrdr
Edit

Edit. Fine . Can we remember this post like Edit_commodity_Str?
Edit_commodity_Str was good point, but I think it was wrong point. I will try explain my opinion.

Each Brand should have more or less same products inside brand. But different Brands could and should have different products.

All *8 are more or less same but quite different from WF.

All BMW 7 are more or less same, but quite different from Audi 8. There are a lot of other fine car, like Lexus, Acura, Infiniti, Porsche, Ferrari, ..
Beautiful market. what type car parameters do labs test? I know only -"Safety"

To Imagine ASG or GIA performance grade for car market. Could be it good for car market?

Ideal car, Super Ideal car, Excellent car, bla, .. bla Which car is Ideal? For whom this car is ideal?

*8, WF, .. are doing good job. They try do unique product for one type consumer.

AGS and GIA cut performance grade is coin with two sides( One is very good, other is very bad). Labs and Debeers are moving diamond market to commodity market

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

That is pure brilliance Sergey.

Shine the light

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/20/2006 3:49:41 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/19/2006 2:36:09 PM

Author: strmrdr

Edit

Edit. Fine . Can we remember this post like Edit_commodity_Str?

Edit_commodity_Str was good point, but I think it was wrong point. I will try explain my opinion.

Each Brand should have more or less same products inside brand. But different Brands could and should have different products.

All *8 are more or less same but quite different from WF.

All BMW 7 are more or less same, but quite different from Audi 8. There are a lot of other fine car, like Lexus, Acura, Infiniti, Porsche, Ferrari, ..

Beautiful market. what type car parameters do labs test? I know only -'Safety'

To Imagine ASG or GIA performance grade for car market. Could be it good for car market?

Ideal car, Super Ideal car, Excellent car, bla, .. bla Which car is Ideal? For whom this car is ideal?

*8, WF, .. are doing good job. They try do unique product for one type consumer.

AGS and GIA cut performance grade is coin with two sides( One is very good, other is very bad). Labs and Debeers are moving diamond market to commodity market

Well if cars where sold like diamonds you would pay 80% more for a light brown car than a dark brown car and 300% more for a white one.

what cars are graded on in the USA by labs:
The epa rates the fuel economy.
The gov. and insurance companies rank them by size.
The gov. and insurance companies rank them into type: SUV, sports car..
the gov. and several private groups rate safety,, 5 star safety rating and all that jazz.
They are rated for speed to see which tires they can have legaly installed. They have to have tires that are rated for the top speed they can go.
Several groups track and rate long-term reliability.
several groups rate performance and comfort
then of course you have the famous blue book that sets the resale pricing in much the way rap does for diamonds with discounts back from book.

Will there be a group that gathers all that information and awards certs. Could happen if consumers wanted it.