Date: 6/1/2010 1:43:06 PM
Author: yssie
-CUT. Thanks to putting ''HA'' on top now people will be even more likely to erroniously believe that the mere presence of hearts and arrows = better performance, unless they have a different definition that includes some performance-based determination like AGS.. How are they judging hearts - just how ''modified'' can they be?
The issue is how they come to the conclusions of EX/VG/G - Some GIA VGs will have more optimal light return than some GIA EXs because of the proportion specifications. AGS does a much better job (with their dqd, I think the dqr just muddles their ideal grade!)
Definitely. If I were your average commercial diamond flipper I imagine it would be a headache go through, not to mention a learning-curve for many, but it sure would be handy for those one-of clients who are dying for a diamond with fluorescence other than blue, or a somewhat visible inclusion, etc. Once one is familiar with their pricing structure it might be possible to better fit a client's budget by seeking known-discounts for XYZ - a low G, an open pavilion inclusion, a brutal girdleDate: 6/1/2010 5:55:59 PM
Author: DiaGem
I am reading & it seems super detailed, but I wouldnt automatically translate it to a more overall efficient grading procedure.
I dont know Venus personally but hear great feedback on them as wide range suppliers to the trade.
Sure more detailed sounds great but here are some of my point of thought:
-500 master stones (and growing) sounds to me as bringing more confusion into the grading.
-multiple checking prior to setting a final grade sound even more confusing to me.
-Venus claims: 'Each of the sub-grades....directly impact the pricing of a diamond which is not normally considered by other grading standards.'
These sub-grades are considered by most professionals I know (which is an integral part of pricing).
Venus have their system..., others have other systems.
- that the client has no objections to. I expect the effectiveness and impact will depend on the size of their inventory. 
Since many of the diamonds in their search come with a grading report already I wonder if the thread's title needs clarification? Is the intent to provide their own robust information in addition to diamonds with existing reports - or to become a major grading laboratory? Their searchable inventory currently has around 1500 RBs and 1800 other shapes 0.50-3.00 ct. Depending on turnover and manpower this certainly seems manageable in terms of consistency, standards and repeatability. An attempt to implement it on a global scale would indeed be challenging.
My impression on variation would be the opposite when it comes to measurements. With full 3D scans on Helium and the option to sort by several labs' systems, including PGS, it seems like they're hiding nothing and providing consistent info. Of course human graders are required to assess finish (and luster). In any case, a system designed to narrow color and clarity to smaller ranges than the trade employs now had better make consistency a high priority!
Hi Rockit,
I doubt anyone had that impression. You raise questions from an important perspective.
There's no limit for pros. But personally (and I may find myself stoned in the Pricescope town square for daring to suggest it) I think there's already too much learning curve for Joe Normal. I might feel differently if the existing system was consistently applied, but it's not. Put yourself in the shoes of a young Marine who wants to propose while on a brief leave: He learns that VS2 is 'supposed to be clean' but sees salt & pepper in the mall. And how can SI2 be clean sometimes but SI1 might not be? And why is there tint in this H but no color in the I over there? And this doesn't even begin to touch-on cut.
Totally agree with this.Date: 6/2/2010 10:19:33 AM
Author: John Pollard
I doubt anyone had that impression. You raise questions from an important perspective.
I would reiterate that this is intended as B2B, not B2C. Any pro who has invested the time, dialogue and shipping expense necessary to build a file of reliable vs unreliable supplier-reps can appreciate the intent... Hello, nice to meet you. Is it a clean SI1? ''Oh yeah.'' How clean? ''Very.'' The inclusions didn''t show up on the fax you sent, what color is the crystal and where is it? ''White under-kite.'' What about the cloud? ''Non-issue, you can''t see it.'' Ok, I''d like to bring it in ...Now hold your breath unless you''ve done business with them before and can interpret what they describe vs what is delivered.
There''s no limit for pros. But personally (and I may find myself stoned in the Pricescope town square for daring to suggest it) I think there''s already too much learning curve for Joe Normal. I might feel differently if the existing system was consistently applied, but it''s not. Put yourself in the shoes of a young Marine who wants to propose while on a brief leave: He learns that VS2 is ''supposed to be clean'' but sees salt & pepper in the mall. And how can SI2 be clean sometimes but SI1 might not be? And why is there tint in this H but no color in the I over there? And this doesn''t even begin to touch-on cut.
It seems ludicrous that the trade accepts things as they are. ''We'' receive deep-discounts for diamonds graded with inconsistent/softer standards, yet ''we'' pass them on as if they were great deals rather than off-graded myths.I use ''we'' in a big-picture sense - many disclose to their clients that standards differ - but I think ''we'' need to harmonize what exists before introducing a system with greater complexity to Joe Normal.
300x240.png)
